Sitting of 13 May 1968

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

DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right hon. Frederick John Bellenger, Member for Bassetlaw, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss which we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right hon. Member.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

    Prices and Incomes
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what arrangements will be made under Her Majesty's Government's prices and incomes policy to limit the wage increases of groups of workers under 100 in number.
    The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): The Government's incomes policy applies to these groups as to other workers and the White Paper "Productivity Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969" calls for early warning of all pay increases which might be significant.
    Mr. Ridley: But as all groups of 100 and under do not have to warn of pay increases, how will the right hon. Lady enforce policy over small numbers of employees, as in this category?
    Mrs. Castle: Because we have a great deal of information about what is going on and we are sure that we can identify
    828
    by various means those increases which are significant: we can then examine them and refer them if necessary.
    Mr. John Page: Would the right hon. Lady let the House have more of this information, because all we have had so far is the fact that only 6 million of the 24 million employees in this country are employed by manufacturing companies employing more than 100 people each? What about the other 18 million? How are they employed, where, and in what numbers?
    Mrs. Castle: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's figure is correct. I believe that the percentage of the total of employees in manufacturing establishments employing fewer than 100 workers each is about 25 per cent.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what consultations she has had with the Trades Union Congress in order to ascertain to what extent that body can undertake the supervision of the Government's prices and incomes policy.
    Mrs. Castle: We have welcomed the development of the wage-vetting work of the Trades Union Congress, but the Government must retain responsibility for the supervision of their own policy.
    Mr. Biffen: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that any forthcoming legislation will fully reflect her anxiety to have the maximum co-operation of the T.U.C. in her foredoomed search for an incomes policy?
    Mrs. Castle: The Government will continue, as I shall, to seek maximum co-operation with the T.U.C. We have fully taken into account its views as set out in the "Economic Review". There are to be further discussions on the "Economic Review" with the T.U.C., including a meeting which will deal with the prices and incomes policy, and I hope that that meeting will be later this month.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what limit there is to be upon pay increases based on productivity increases during the next phase of the policy for prices and incomes.
    Mrs. Castle: None, provided that they can be fully justified under the guidelines in Appendix II to the White Paper

    829
    "Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969".
    Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Lady sure that it is entirely fair to have a policy under which some people get no increase and others in whose businesses large injections of capital have been made can have limited increases although that involves no extra effort on their part?
    Mrs. Castle: The hon. Member is not correctly summarising the policy in the White Paper nor the Government's intention. The Government's intention is that as there are some fields in which an increase in productivity is less easy to obtain—although it is surprising in how many areas it is possible to get some increase in productivity—it is essential that we should maximise the relationship between productivity and pay increases elsewhere to give us a margin to meet the needs of others who are not on such a lucrative production line.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity by what percentage she expects incomes to rise during 1968.
    Mrs. Castle: It is not the policy of the Government to publish estimates of future trends in incomes.
    Mr. Price: Is it not clear that overall wages have not been frozen in the past 18 months and are not likely to be frozen in the next 18 months? Therefore, is it worth while upsetting millions of workers by a psychological policy based on the mistaken belief that salvation lies in having low wages?
    Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in saying that wage increases have not been frozen and nor are they likely to be frozen. I deduce from that that because we want to get away from a negative policy to a positive policy we are pressing ahead with the White Paper and with legislation.
    Mr. Sharples: Can the right hon. Lady say whether or not Government policy is for a nil norm or a 3½ per cent. norm?
    Mrs. Castle: Government policy, as laid down in the White Paper, is for a ceiling of 3½ per cent., but the White Paper points out that increases within that ceiling must match certain criteria. There is also scope for exceptions above
    830
    the ceiling in cases of really watertight productivity agreements which substantially reduce labour unit costs.

    Liverpool Busmen (Strike)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement about the busmen's strike in Liverpool.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the strike of Liverpool bus crews.
    Mrs. Castle: This strike is causing serious hardship to the people of Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has seen a deputation from Liverpool and has urged that there is nothing to be gained by prolonging the strike. I expect to receive the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes next week and in the meantime I understand that the Corporation and the trade unions are seeking a basis for a return to work. It is up to the men. I strongly advise them in their own interests and in the interests of their fellow citizens to go back now.
    Mr. Tilney: But since this strike is in its tenth week, is the right hon. Lady aware that many people feel that, as it is the result of the Government's policy, the Government should have taken more action in the past than they have until now? Can she not do something about arranging for a secret ballot of the bus men?
    Mrs. Castle: Of course, the Government have referred this to the Board and the whole of the time scale and the reasons involved have been thoroughly ventilated on previous occasion. We certainly stand ready, as soon as the Board reports, to get in touch with the parties and to do our utmost to get a settlement in the light of the report.
    Mr. Fortescue: In view of the right hon. Lady's much-publicised intention to pursue an interventionist policy in industry, should she not have intervened long before now in the interests of the ordinary people of Liverpool who have been without buses for nearly ten weeks?
    Mrs. Castle: I came into a situation in which intervention had already taken

    831
    place in the form of a reference, and since the Board is examining the matter and we are in the middle of the very inquiry for which a number of hon. Gentlemen asked, it is only common sense for us to await the outcome of that inquiry. As I said, as soon as we receive the report, which will be in the near future, we intend to intervene to get in touch with the parties and try to get a settlement on the basis of the report.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that the ten weeks which have elapsed since the reference to the Prices and Incomes Board, on which no decision has yet been reached, is far too long a period and is not acceptable to the people of Liverpool? But is my right hon. Friend also aware that, although a certain amount of blame rests on the Government, the Liverpool City Council Transport Committee has been making the people of Liverpool the political playthings of the Conservative Party in relation to the municipal elections?
    Mrs. Castle: I am aware of the continuing interest which my hon. Friend has taken in this matter and the way that he has fought for the interests of his constituents. The Board has done its utmost to speed up the publication of the Report. We have been in constant touch with it, pointing out how urgent it is and asking for a report as quickly as is conceivably possible. I repeat, my hon. Friend will not have to wait long for the report now.
    Mr. R. Carr: But if there is any truth in the allegation made by the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Heffer), was not that an added reason why the right hon. Lady's Department should have intervened in its conciliatory function? Can she give any other example of a strike causing so much hardship and inconvenience to so many people which has been allowed to drag on for so long without action?
    Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that, when the Board is looking into the situation—we were asked for an inquiry and an inquiry is taking place—even on the most traditionalist interpretation of the former Ministry of Labour's function, this
    832
    would not have been the moment for the normal conciliatory procedure to operate. I repeat again that we stand ready to intervene constructively as soon as the report appears.

    Portsmouth
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the unemployment position in the Portsmouth travel-to-work area, with special reference to age, sex and skills; and how the relevant figures compare with those both of the South-East Region and of the country as a whole.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): On 8th April the unemployment rate for the Portsmouth travel-to-work area was 3·1 per cent. compared with 2·5 per cent. for Great Britain, 1·7 per cent. for the London and South-Eastern Region and 1·8 per cent. for the Eastern and Southern Region. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT tables showing the detailed position on age, sex and skills.
    Mr. Judd: Is my hon. Friend aware that, following the drastic closure of Hawker Siddeley, the admiral superintendent of the naval dockyard has now said that there may be a significant rundown of labour requirements in the naval dockyard? Does not he agree that full utilisation of labour and capital resources in the South and the South-East is essential for Britain's economic growth, and will he assure us that we shall have a full statement on the Government's co-ordinated policy for the area as soon as possible?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I agree that the resources to which my hon. Friend refers should be utilised in the interest of the nation. As regards the dockyard, I can only give my hon. Friend the assurance which I gave him when I met a deputation which he brought to see me some time ago, that there will be the fullest consultation with the trade unions and the local authorities before any further steps are taken.
    Following is the information:

    AGE ANALYSIS OF UNEMPLOYED, JANUARY, 1968

    Males

    Females

    Under 20 and

    20 and under 40

    40 and over

    Under 20

    20 and under 40

    40 and over

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Portsmouth

    …

    …

    9·7

    43·5

    46·8

    25·8

    36·7

    37·5

    South East England

    …

    …

    8·4

    42·8

    48·8

    19·6

    41·8

    38·6

    Great Britain

    …

    …

    9·4

    42·4

    48·8

    23·2

    41·5

    35·3

    Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.
    Mr. Rossiasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she now expects to receive the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she now expects to publish the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.
    Mrs. Castle: I understand that the Royal Commission will be reporting very soon.
    Mr. Marten: I have heard that said before. Does not the right hon. Lady agree that, while the Government have been waiting for this report to be published, industrial relations and employment in this country have gravely de-
    834
    teriorated? For example, can she explain why the total of wholly unemployed have been above 500,000 on 12 occasions in the last 16 months, when it was above that figure on only seven occasions in all the 13 years of Tory rule?
    Mrs. Castle: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question goes far beyond the main Question. If he cares to put a Question down on the unemployment rate, I shall be delighted to answer it.
    As regards the report of the Royal Commission, it is not within the Government's control to dictate to the Royal Commission when it should consider that its work should have been done. It has taken rather longer than was hoped and expected at the outset, but I have firm indications that the report will be forthcoming very soon.
    Mr. Mitchell: Can the right hon. Lady help the House with a definition of "very soon"? May we have an assurance that it will be before the end of next month?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir; I am hopeful that that will be so.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that such reactionary proposals as are contained in the Conservative Party document, "A Fair Deal At Work", which is associated with the report, will be resisted by my right hon. Friend as, I understand, it has been resisted by the Royal Commission itself—or so the leader in the Daily Telegraph seems to indicate?
    Mrs. Castle: I was interested to see that in a foreword to the booklet to which my hon. Friend refers, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) said that the party's studies would continue and they would take into account not only the reactions to the Conservative Party document but also the forthcoming report of the Royal Commission. It may be that, in the light of the report, hon. and right hon. Members opposite will wish to modify their views.
    Mr. R. Carr: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that it is still the Government's intention, as announced by her predecessor, to publish a White Paper giving their reactions to the Royal Commission's report before we adjourn for the Summer Recess and to bring in any necessary legislation in the next Session?
    Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that, with the delay in the publication date of the Royal Commission's report, it may prove impracticable to keep to the time table which was linked to an earlier publication date. He will be the first to agree that, on receiving the report, we must go into very detailed consultations. I am sure that the House would deplore it if we were to rush those consultations. They must inevitably take time, and, that being so, I do not think that it will be possible to have a White Paper before the Summer Recess.

    Engineering Workers (Wage Claim)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the national wage claim submitted on behalf of workers in the engineering industry, indicating the extent to which it is consistent with the Government's prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Employment and
    836
    Productivity whether the wage claim of the engineering employees is consistent with the Government's prices and incomes policy.
    Mrs. Castle: I have met both sides of the industry with a view to clarifying their respective positions and to indicating the incomes policy considerations involved.
    Mr. Biffen: As a result of those meetings, can the right hon. Lady say, on the evidence now available to her, whether this claim is consistent with the criteria of the prices and incomes policy, and, if it is not, whether it is her Department's policy so to use its influence as to stiffen the resistance of the employers?
    Mrs. Castle: The claim is in very broad and general terms and it has not been quantified even by the unions involved. What I have done in discussing this matter with the Confederation has been to point out that various mixed possibilities are available under the prices and incomes policy, and I am hopeful that, as a result of further negotiations, we shall be able to see an outcome which is consistent with the Government's objectives.
    Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unless the employers drastically alter their offer, there will be no chance of a settlement without severe industrial unrest? Does she realise that the proposal made, for instance, for low-paid workers, which she makes great play of, is that by 1971 a labourer in the industry will be in receipt of only £12 7s. 4d. a week, which is totally unacceptable?
    Mrs. Castle: These are some of the considerations which were explained to me when I met the C.S.E.U. I am aware of all the arguments which the unions have put forward. I hope that negotiations will be resumed shortly. As I say, there is room for a variety of solutions within the context of the prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Hooson: Although, as the right hon. Lady rightly says, the claim has not been quantified, can she not say whether it is in accordance with the Government's policy? If it is not, ought she not to give an indication to the employers and the unions of what the Government's attitude will be?
    Mrs. Castle: I know that hon. Members opposite would like to embroil me in a row with the engineering unions, and I am refusing to be embroiled. What I am seeking is not a headlong clash. I am seeking a peaceful settlement and a constructive outcome. I have urged upon the unions in this context, as I have in many contexts, that it is essential that any agreements should pay particular regard to the productivity aspects of the prices and incomes policy. There is room here for increases to be made which do not add to labour unit costs if they are backed by a proper productivity give-and-take.

    Aliens
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many work permits for aliens were issued for each of the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967; how many were for 12 months; how many were for less than 12 months; how many dependants have joined aliens working in this country for these years; and what categories of work are covered by these work permits.
    Mr. Fernyhough: As the reply contains several sets of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Miss Lestor: Would not my hon. Friend agree that when the figures are published it will be clear that the number of white immigrants entering this country exceeds the number of coloured immigrants by two to one? Does he agree that this emphasis on coloured immigration completely distorts the facts? With his colleagues, will he see that when a review of immigration takes place numbers of white immigrants as well as numbers of coloured immigrants are included?
    Mr. Fernyhough: When my hon. Friend and other hon. Members read the figures they will accept that they put the immigration problem in proper perspective, because the number of foreign immigrants coming to this country is roughly 50,000 a year. It is true that just over half, probably half, come for less than 12 months, but this shows that immigrants to this country are not by any means all coloured immigrants.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the continued rise of unemployment in our cities, about which the Under-Secretary's hon. Friends justly complain, ought not all immigration, whether white or coloured, be more steeply controlled?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I suggest that the hon. Member should get into touch with all the employers who ask for permits, because none of these people can come here unless some employer asks for a permit for them to come.
    Following is the statement:
    The numbers of work permits issued for the employment of aliens in the years 1963–67, inclusive, were 43,868, 47,638, 54,258, 54,837 and 50,303, respectively. Short-term permits issued for less than 12 months are not separately recorded, but the numbers of aliens with such permits actually admitted during the years in question were 17,803, 18,920, 20,991, 22,031 and 22,753. The numbers of dependants of foreign workers admitted in the same five years were 3,337, 4,098, 5,689, 6,434 and 5,647, respectively. Permits are restricted to work for which British labour is not available and embrace professional, scientific, skilled and semi-skilled workers in a wide field of industry, and commerce, hotel and domestic workers, nurses, student employees and entertainers.

    Safety, Health and Welfare
    Mr. Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many of the bodies receiving the first consultative document on proposals for new safety, health and welfare legislation have now replied to this; and how many more replies are still outstanding.
    Mr. Fernyhough: 286 bodies have replied and a further 34 have intimated that they will be doing so shortly. No replies have been received from the remaining 220.
    Mr. Holland: In view of the fact that Factory Acts usually have a life of about 10 years, will be hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend give the fullest possible weight to the views and advice of all those in industry who have to implement the Acts?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I can readily give that assurance. We are having very detailed discussion with both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., who are primarily concerned in this new legislation. We want to expedite those discussions, but their

    839
    views will be taken fully into consideration.
    Mr. Archer: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who asked for copies of this document were immediately supplied with copies and received every courtesy from the Department, but we had to learn of the existence of the document from sources outside this House? Will he have a copy placed in the Library, where all hon. Members can see it?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Certainly. Anyone who wants a copy can see me later outside the Chamber and I will gladly give him one. We sent copies to all employers' organisations, all the trade unions, and all other interested bodies. Every hon. Member who has applied, as my hon. Friend did, has been given a copy and everyone who wants one can readily have one.
    Mr. R. Carr: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question his hon. Friend asked? Are Members of Parliament and Parliament itself not interested in this subject? Should we not have a copy placed in the Library?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Of course. I have said that not only can one be placed in the Library, but anyone who wants to have a personal copy can have one.
    Mr. Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she expects to be in a position to introduce new comprehensive legislation in the field of industrial safety, health and welfare.
    Mrs. Castle: I am not yet able to say, though I am anxious to press ahead with this legislation as soon as the complexity of the subject and the Parliamentary time-table allow.
    Mr. Holland: Recognising that there are a number of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have some know-lodge of these matters and a great interest in them, will the right hon. Lady facilitate discussion by hon. Members through the medium of a White Paper before final arrangements are made for legislation and final details are worked out, but after the present stage of getting industrial reaction?
    Mrs. Castle: I am sure the hon. Member realises that the consultations are going to take a considerable time and
    840
    the House would wish them to be efficient consultations, but I will bear in mind the point he made about a White Paper being issued later.
    Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the previous reply by her hon. Friend about dissemination of this information was far from satisfactory? This proposed legislation will affect millions of workers and the 440 organisations which have been circulated are mainly employers' organisations. Should there not be more consultation with industry and Members of Parliament before the Government bring forward such legislation?
    Mrs. Castle: As I said in my reply, we have not yet reached a point at which we can indicate the timing of the legislation, and there is time for discussions with Members of Parliament to take place.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that much more time is lost in industry from preventable industrial injuries and industrial illnesses than through industrial disputes, and that it is very much in the interest of our nation that we should have coherent and comprehensive occupational health service?
    Mrs. Castle: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question I answer, yes, very readily. This is why we are pressing ahead urgently with the examination of this whole field.

    Holiday Money
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will introduce legislation to ensure that employers pay accumulated holiday money to people who leave during the year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): No, Sir; but the Government consider that employers who have not already done so should reach agreements with their workers on all aspects of holidays and holiday pay.
    Mr. Price: Is it not a fact that while the majority of employers do accept their commitments there are still those who, given an opportunity, fiddle their work-people?
    Mr. Hattersley: There are certainly some who do not fulfil their commitments. The proper course of redress for individuals in this situation is to join a trade union and to make sure that it comes to a satisfactory agreement with the employers.

    Industrial Disputes (Unemployment Benefit)
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what representations she has received urging her to amend the existing law with regard to the payment of unemployment benefit to workmen suspended from work because of an industrial dispute in which the workman himself has played no part; and what action she intends to take thereon.
    Mr. Hattersley: This is among the questions which the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations was asked to examine. When the Commission reports it will be for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security to consider any proposal it may make.
    Mr. Hooson: Could not the hon. Gentleman indicate the Ministry's attitude to this problem, as it appears to people outside to be grossly unfair that a man who is suspended because of a dispute in which he takes no part is refused unemployment benefit by the Ministry?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not expect me to indicate the Ministry's attitude on any problem a few weeks before the Royal Commission reports. This is what the Royal Commission is intended to do. Our task is to examine its report after it has been published.

    Goole
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she is aware of the rise in unemployment in Goole to 4·3 per cent.; and what action is being taken to provide full employment in the area.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I am aware of the position in Goole. My local officers are doing all they can to help those unemployed to find other work and offer training facilities where appropriate. In
    842
    considering applications for industrial development certificates, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will take full account of the level of unemployment in the area.
    Mr. Jeger: As there is some doubt in the area as to the Government's intentions, can we have a clear statement as to whether the Government's purpose and policy is to create unemployment and, consequently, to depress the standards of living or to create full employment? If it is the latter, what active steps are to be taken other than the routine reply which I have just received?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I assure my hon. Friend that it is the Government's policy to create full employment. What my hon. Friend is asking us to do is to make more and more areas development areas. When I tell him that the region in which his constituency is situated contains 9 per cent. of the insurable population and that unemployment is roughly the same—just over 9 per cent. of the total population—whereas in the Northern Region, where there is only 5 per cent. of the insurable population, unemployment represents 10 per cent. of the total, he will see why we have to concentrate on the development areas until we reduce those figures.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions and answers are getting rather long.

    Regional Prices Boards
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will take steps to set up separate regional prices boards.
    Mrs. Castle: I do not think that this course would be justified.
    Dr. Summerskill: Would not regional prices boards serve to speed up the investigation of price increases and take into account the variation in prices of the same commodities which occur in different parts of the country?
    Mrs. Castle: I am aware that there are such regional variations, and the Index of Retail Prices takes account of such local and regional variations. I expect a report in a few days' time from my Advisory Committee on the Index of Retail Prices which I think will deal with the question whether a regional price index would be valuable.
    Mr. Doughty: Would not the best way of reducing regional or national prices be to have a change in Government policy, particularly in regard to taxation.
    Mrs. Castle: No, Sir.
    Mr. Barnett: Would it not be better if the Government stopped pretending that they can have anything more than a marginal influence on prices? In the circumstances, is it not impossible to get the co-operation of the trade unions, which is needed to get an effective incomes policy? By persisting with legislation are we not in danger of jeopardising any long-term prospect for a realistic policy?
    Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is going very wide of the original Question. I shall be very happy to debate this matter with him again, as I have in the past, on appropriate occasions. I cannot for a moment accept his defeatism about the possibility of having an influence on prices. We know that already the Government machinery has had a continuing influence, because firms know that all the fluctuations or variations are watched and that we take action wherever we think that is necessary. Already this has had an effect. The powers contained in the new Bill will have an even greater effect.

    Wages and Salaries (Cost of Living)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many wages and salaries are tied to the Cost-of-Living Index by industrial agreement; in what trades; and whether these automatic increases will be rejected under the incomes and prices policy.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): About 450,000 workers are at present covered by these agreements, the largest numbers being in iron and steel, carpets, footwear, textiles and newspapers. Where the agreement was concluded before 20th March, 1968, increases are not subject to the current policy for employment incomes.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the rapidly increasing cost of living due to devaluation, is it not unfair that any group of workers should be able to contract out
    844
    of the Government's general policy of prices and incomes?
    Mr. Walker: The Government's policy is to ensure that people do not contract out in the fashion suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The White Paper, Cmnd. 3590, says:
    "Pay increases based on a rise in the cost of living are not due under the criteria, and should not be conceded."
    The reason for this is that the cost of living rises for us all. It would be wrong if some people, because of a grievance, were able to contract out, as the hon. Gentleman says.

    Redundancy Payments
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will seek to amend the Redundancy Payments Act so as to stop employers avoiding such payments by dismissing workers and then declaring them unsuitable; and how many appeals to the industrial tribunals have been turned down on this ground.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Act already provides safeguards against employers who suggest unjustifiably that dismissal was for reasons other than redundancy. I regret that the information requested in the second part of the Question is not available.
    Mr. Allaun: Is not this an obvious loophole in the Act, because in this case the tribunal said that it could not consider whether the employers' reasons for dismissing the man were good or bad?
    Mr. Hattersley: I think that the case to which my hon. Friend refers in the subject of a later Question. In terms of principle, I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by the knowledge that the presumption in all these cases is that redundancy has occurred and that redundancy payment is therefore appropriate until the employer is able to produce very substantial evidence to justify the opposite conclusion.
    Mr. Heffer: Is not my hon. Friend aware that there has been examples of workers working for 10 to 15 years for an employer and then the employer saying that their work was unsuitable, which is ridiculous, and not paying redundancy

    845
    payment on that basis? This is a loophole. I ask my hon. Friend to take a further look at this. I gave him details of a case.
    Mr. Hattersley: I am very well aware that cases have been brought to our attention of employees having been dismissed for reasons which I regard as altogether reprehensible and reasons which might be different were there a legitimate policy of dismissal procedure at the moment. This is irrelevant to the question of redundancy pay. Irrespective of the merits of his dismissal, a workman can get redundancy payment only if he is genuinely redundant. That is the only question to which I can address myself.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she proposes to take regarding the highly skilled Salford plasterer who was dismissed as unsuitable by his firm after 19 years' employment without any redundancy pay, about whom she has been written to by the hon. Member for Salford, East.
    Mr. Hattersley: An industrial tribunal dismissed an application made by this employee for a redundancy payment, and I have no power to intervene once such a decision has been given.
    Mr. Allaun: Why did this man, after having spent 19 years with one firm, suddenly become unsuitable? It is monstrous. Is the Minister aware that what I said on Question No. 19 was correct, that the tribunal said that it could not discuss the question whether it was a legitimate dismissal.
    Mr. Hattersley: I am well aware of that, because that was the sort of answer I tried to give to a previous Question. The circumstances surrounding this man's dismissal may well be as my hon. Friend describes them. But redundancy payments are for redundancy only as defined in the Act; and, unfortunately, the man did not qualify under those criteria.
    Mr. R. Carr: Does not a case like this underline the need for the implementation of the proposal in "Fair Deal at Work" that every employee should have the right of appeal to an industrial court against unjust dismissal?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have said to the House on previous occasions—and on occasions before that pamphlet was published—that there is a strong case for a system of dismissal procedures in Britain. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the previous Minister of Labour discussed the question with both sides of industry, but this did not merely apply to matters of redundancy payments.

    Dorset
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the latest unemployment figures for Dorset; whether they show an increase or decrease on the previous figures; and how they compare with two years ago.
    Mr. Fernyhough: At 8th April, 1968, 2,670 persons were registered as unemployed in Dorset. This was 40 fewer than in March 1968 and 1,120 more than in April 1966.
    Mr. Digby: I am glad to have those figures, but is there not a case for the Government modifying their policy of discouraging new industry from going to Dorset?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Not at the moment, because the vacancies are now arising in Dorset. I hope that that will continue, because that will inevitably lead to further falls in the present unemployment rate.

    Retail Prices
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the present trend of retail prices in relation to the objectives set out in paragraph 23 of Command Paper No. 3590.
    Mrs. Castle: The retail price index rose by 1·8 per cent. between devaluation and March, 1968. This suggests that traders generally are heeding the Government's call to them to limit price increases to unavoidable increases in costs, but we are keeping the general movement of retail prices under close review.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that many people who believe in the need for prices and incomes policy are most encouraged by the emphasis which she

    847
    is placing on retail prices, which is what concern the consumer, and will she give an assurance that she will continue to apply this distinction between justified and unjustified increases as vigorously as possible?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will have had even more recent evidence of our determination to keep an eye on the level of retail prices by the decision to refer retail margins in the paint industry to the Board.
    Mr. Higgins: If the demand for a domestic product has gone up because devaluation has raised the price of an imported substitute, would this justify a price increase?
    Mrs. Castle: I am not sure that I grasp the full meaning of the hon. Gentleman's question, but if he is trying to suggest that because imported products have increased in price, an equivalent domestic product can be increased in price as well, I would entirely repudiate that, and that is one of the matters we are watching.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Does not the right hon. Lady think that the Government would have much greater control over prices if they were not so extravagant in their spending, which has gone up by over £5,000 million in the last five years?
    Mrs. Castle: I do not accept that for a moment. This expenditure is an integral part of our whole relations with an attitude towards incomes policy because the importance of the social wage, particularly to the lower paid, is very great indeed.

    Liverpool Docks
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will instruct Sir Jack Scamp to carry out a special inquiry into labour relations in Liverpool Docks in order to avoid a boycott, by the merchants and shippers to Australia and New Zealand, of the port of Liverpool which will lead to large-scale permanent unemployment.
    Mrs. Castle: Good progress is being made in implementing Sir Jack Scamp's recommendations for increasing productivity following the inquiry which he
    848
    has already carried out last October. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has been assured by Australian and New Zealand shippers of their desire to foster trade through the port.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that only a few days ago Australian and New Zealand shippers said that because of strikes in Liverpool they would be driven to taking their trade from that port? Is she aware that if that were to happen it would mean the death of the port? Will she do something to put a stop to these strikes and stop this trade being taken away from Liverpool?
    Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the matter does not tally with mine. I understand that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which has considered this matter, has stated that it is highly unlikely that there would be a boycott of the port by Australian and New Zealand shippers. Officials of the Board recently visited Australia and New Zealand and received general assurances about their desire to foster trade through the port.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is talking a lot of exaggerated nonsense; that there are no more strikes in Liverpool than in any other port in this country and that the problems of the port of Liverpool arise from the bad working conditions there, conditions which are now being tackled for the first time on the basis of the Government's policy in relation to the ports?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of the fact that intervention has in this case had a very successful outcome.
    Mr. Fortescue: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that the Seaforth Container Dock Scheme, which is now being actively developed with the full support of the Government, will in the long run inevitably lead to a large reduction in employment in the Liverpool docks?
    Mrs. Castle: From my discussions with those concerned in Liverpool, when I was Minister of Transport, I am certain that the Seaforth development is essential for the continuance of Liverpool as a major port.

    Disabled Persons (Cheltenham)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she is taking, in view, of the increased number of disabled now unemployed in the Cheltenham area, to make funds available to build the sheltered workshop in Cheltenham without further delay.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Unemployment has recently fallen among the disabled in the Cheltenham area. Nevertheless, it has been agreed that a sheltered workshop should be provided for the severely disabled. My Department is awaiting revised plans from the local authority. When these and other details have been studied and approved, a grant will be offered, of which the first instalment can be paid early in the next financial year.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Is he aware that there is now an excellent site available, that there is a substantial number of disabled people in the area and that his reply will be very welcome indeed?
    Mr. Fernyhough indicated assent.

    Yorkshire and Humberside
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she is aware that unemployment figures for Yorkshire and Humberside are worsening while the national figure is declining; and what action she is taking to recognise it as a development area attracting the appropriate benefits now limited to such areas.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I am aware that the rate of unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region has remained unchanged at 2·6 per cent. since January, 1968, while the rate for Great Britain has fallen from 2·7 per cent. in January to 2·5 per cent. in March and April. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for the designation of development areas.
    Mr. Jeger: Is my hon. Friend aware that areas such as those mentioned in the Question are submitting evidence to the Hunt Committee but that a subcommittee of the Hunt Committee while visiting Yorkshire is not visiting Thorne,
    850
    which has an unemployment rate of over 10 per cent.? Will he communicate with the Hunt Committee and ensure that attention is paid to what is the worst unemployment area in the district?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I will certainly see that my hon. Friend's observations are brought to the notice of the Committee.
    Mr. James Johnson: Would my hon. Friend confirm that the figures for Hull follow the same pattern as those for Goole, particularly in the building and construction industries? Would he be shocked to know that I have constituents who are electricians and who are having to find work in Norway?
    Mr. Fernyhough: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would not be shocked, but I hope that we will be able to remedy the position. [interruption.] I would not be shocked because I appreciate, from the experience in my constituency, that specialists travel all over the world. Indeed, we have American electricians working here because of their special skills. Unemployment has dropped a little and, more important, vacancies have gone up by over 2,000 in the last month. I hope that this development will continue.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will the Minister bear in mind that while we are sorry that the Yorkshire and North Humberside area has growing unemployment, we in Lincolnshire, on the southern side of the Humber, are doing very well because our people are working hard and are not subject to strikes?

    Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the annual cost of the staff of the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board.
    Mr. Hattersley: The number and remuneration of staff are matters for the Board to determine. Relevant information is given in the published accounts of the Board. Expenditure on salaries for the seven months the Board was in operation during its first financial year ended 31st March, 1967, was £15,226. The accounts for the last financial year have not yet been published.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the cost fall on the producer, by way of the levy, or on the taxpayer? What steps are being taken to restrain the growth of staff of this Board in the same way as the Department is attempting to restrain it in respect of Government Departments?
    Mr. Hattersley: We are anxious that all industrial training boards should run with minimal staffs because of the obligations on us all to restrain increases in servants in the public service. To answer the first point of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, from now on the Board's costs will be borne entirely by the industry, according to the policy of the Industrial Training Act which his right hon. Friend introduced three years ago.

    Strikes
    Mr. Maddanasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what percentage of strikes during 1967 were in breach of agreement.
    Mr. Harold Walker: From the figures of strikes known to be official, it is estimated that between 90 per cent. and 95 per cent. of the strikes which occurred during 1967 were unofficial. Most of these strikes were in breach of procedure agreements.
    Mr. Maddan: Do not these very striking figures, of 90 per cent. to 95 per cent., underline the need for trade union agreements to be enforceable at law?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. They are not striking figures, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because they follow very much the pattern of former years, and, indeed, are somewhat lower than in, for example, 1960, when the figure was considerably worse. It should also be borne in mind that the figures do not differentiate between strikes and lock-outs. There are some—for example, the recent Roberts-Arundel issue—in which there is obviously a question of deciding where the responsibility lies.
    Mr. Orme: Is my hon. Friend right in respect of these figures? Do not many, of the strikes for which he has given figures start as unofficial ones and later become recognised by trade unions? Should not the position be made absolutely clear?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is correct. Many difficulties arise in defining what is an official and what is an unofficial dispute. In some industries before a strike can be recognised by a union it must be embarked upon, and at that initial stage it is unofficial. As I say, there are difficulties in defining these matters, and we must remember the need to differentiate when different trade unions are involved. In some cases official recognition of a dispute is given while in others trade unions have not given official recognition. These difficulties of definition must be borne in mind. However, the most important thing is not whether a strike is official or unofficial but the total volume of strikes and our anxiety to reduce that number.
    Mr. R. Carr: Does the Minister think that we can have strengthened industrial relations in this country until we reach a position where agreements, once made, are kept? Is he aware that no other industrial country suffers from this disease as we do?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think that we shall reach the situation the right hon. Gentleman seeks until agreements are freely and voluntarily entered into by both sides. For example, the agreement on procedure in the engineering industry, which is a source of considerable dispute, was entered into in a period when the trade unions concerned were subject to duress by the employers. It is when we reach the situation where they are freely and voluntarily entered into by both parties that we might start to consider—but I must not anticipate the report of the Royal Commission.

    Manufacturing and Service Industries
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the change, in numbers and in percentages, in the total number employed in manufacturing, in service industries and in all industries, respectively, in each region of Great Britain between January, 1966, and January, 1967.
    Mr. Hattersley: As the reply contains a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it not a fact that S.E.T. has failed to encourage employment in the manufacturing industries? Will the Government take a long, cool look at the mess they are making and get rid of this iniquitous tax?
    Mr. Hattersley: If that was the supplementary question the hon. and learned

    For service industries, estimates are available only for June each year. The table shows the changes between June, 1966 and June, 1967: service industries under the standard definition used here are not the same as industries which bear the Selective Employment Tax.

    CHANGES IN THE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES IN EMPLOYMENT IN STANDARD REGIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN BETWEEN JUNE, 1966 AND JUNE, 1967

    Manufacturing industries (Orders III—XVI of the Standard Industrial classification)

    Service industries (Orders XIX—XXIV)

    All industries and Services (Orders I—XXIV)

    Change in Numbers (000's)

    Percentage Change

    Change in numbers (000's)

    Percentage Change

    Change in numbers (000's)

    Percentage change

    South East

    -90·5

    -3·4

    -3·1

    -0·1

    -132

    -1·6

    East Anglia

    +2·7

    +1·4

    +1·0

    +0·3

    -3

    -0·5

    South Western

    -5·4

    -1·3

    -5·5

    -0·8

    -24

    -1·8

    West Midlands Midlands

    -52·4

    -4·1

    -14·7

    -1·7

    -74

    -3·1

    East Midlands

    -2·8

    -0·4

    +7·1

    +1·3

    -2

    -0·1

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    -31·0

    -3·4

    -11·1

    -1·3

    -60

    -2·9

    North Western

    -51·2

    -3·7

    -5·1

    -0·4

    -73

    -2·4

    Northern

    -8·9

    -1·9

    -4·7

    -0·8

    -30

    -2·3

    Scotland

    -24·9

    -3·3

    -5·7

    -0·6

    -43

    -2·0

    Wales

    -9·7

    -2·9

    -12·4

    -2·7

    -34

    -3·4

    Industrial Disputes
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will take powers to order a cooling-off period when industrial disputes threaten essential national services.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The law on strikes is among the subjects being examined by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employer's Associations. My right hon. Friend will consider in the light of its report whether it needs to be changed.
    Mr. Baker: Would not the Minister's right hon. Friend find that such powers come under her own phrase, used earlier this afternoon, of "constructive intervention"? Would not she find such reserve powers immensely useful in the sort of situation which nearly developed last week over the Post Office workers?
    Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend does not possess such powers at present. There is one country in the world where such powers have been tried and the Ministry of Labour's written evidence to
    Gentleman had in mind, I am afraid that he asked for the wrong figures, which are irrelevant to S.E.T., or nearly so. If he will consult HANSARD of 26th March he will find Answers showing how successful S.E.T. has been.
    Following is the statement:
    the Royal Commission pointed out that the experiences in the United States have not produced very encouraging results. In fact, the cooling-off period usually leads to a hardening of attitudes on both sides.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the Ministry's evidence, in the United States the lawyers and the legal people have become completely involved, which has complicated the whole position as the result of such legislation?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend's point is to some extent indicative of the difficulties we can get into in industrial relations once we start to become involved in litigation instead of having the flexibility that arises from the present system, for we then start to have to watch rigid, legally defined guide lines.
    Mr. R. Carr: Is the Minister aware that he has given a most misleading account of the experience of the United States in relation to the cooling-off period?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir.

    Unofficial Strikes
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many working days were lost during 1967 due to unofficial strikes.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Certain stoppages are known to have been official, but it is not known whether all the remainder were unofficial, though the great majority would have been. Stoppages known to have been official accounted for a loss of about 394,000 working days out of a total of about 2,787,000 days lost during 1967 through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister agree that unofficial strikes are one of the most grievous self-inflicted wounds on the British economy? What powers would he consider taking to mitigate their effect?
    Mr. Walker: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the harm done by industrial disputes and strikes that ensue from them, but we must not get the picture out of perspective. The House should bear in mind that the total time lost from strikes, either official or unofficial, is only a very small fraction of the total lost through industrial injuries and diseases. When we talk of the effect of unofficial strikes we should bear in mind that some of them arise not from the people directly involved but from outside influences.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does my hon. Friend agree that in a country where relatively few strikes take place, one way to deal with unofficial strikes is to make them all official, and that the right to strike is fundamental to a democratic society?
    Mr. Walker: I do not know who would have had the responsibility of determining whether the London dock strikes in the past few weeks were official or otherwise.
    Mr. R. Carr: Does not the Minister realise that what matters is not whether the strike is official or unofficial but whether it is in breach of agreement?
    Mr. Walker: In earlier Answers I pointed out the difficulty of determining whether a strike is in breach of an agree-
    856
    ment and gave the example of the engineering industry, where the procedural agreement itself gives rise to disputes.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Lighting Standards
    Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will deposit in the Library a copy of the Report prepared by the Ministry of Public Building and Works on the standard of lighting within the Palace of Westminster.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. I am making arrangements accordingly.
    Mr. Lloyd: Since the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the contents of the Report, is he aware that in any modern industrial organisation a minimum of 25 lumens is thought to be necessary for good quality reading, and that there are few places where Members work in the House where the standard is in excess of 10?
    Mr. Peart: I should have thought that I have answered the Question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is quite pleased.

    Visual Aids
    Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Lord Privy Seal what visual aids are now available for use by Members within the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Peart: There are none at present, but I will glady look into any suggestions made by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Lloyd: Would it not, for example, greatly facilitate the work of the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill upstairs if in the presentation of involved and complex statistics such visual aids were available?
    Mr. Peart: I am aware that visual aids and all methods of education are important, but there is a cost factor. I am looking into this.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware, since we are discussing visual aids, that one of the visual aids the House would not welcome very much would be televising the House? We are in enough trouble already without letting the people look at us at the same time as they hear us.

    Scottish Office (Select Committee)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now move that a Select Committee be set up to consider the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Peart: I will certainly note the suggestion, but the scope for further Select Committees this Session is extremely limited.
    Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scotland is going right to the end of the queue for these Select Committees, and that there is a great demand in Scotland for the modernisation of Scottish government? Cannot he hasten the procedure so that we shall get this Select Committee?
    Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend must be aware, there are many Select Committees now. We must see how they work and how they progress. [Interruption.] I might be pressed for Wales as well, and there are other parts of the United Kindom which would press me on this. I must wait and see how things go.
    Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we had sympathetic noises on this question from his predecessor and more recently from his deputy? Will he look at it carefully since if the Committee met in Edinburgh it would impose no further strain on the facilities of the House?
    Mr. Peart: I have always been a great defender of Select Committees, but I believe that for the moment we must see how the present Select Committee system works and then make decisions. I shall note what the hon. Gentleman says.

    Messrs. Thomas Cook
    Sir H. Harrisonasked the Lord Privy Seal what rent is paid by Messrs. Thomas Cook for the use of a room on the interview floor for business purposes.
    Mr. Peart: None, Sir.
    Sir H. Harrison: In view of that rather extraordinary reply, that a commercial enterprise is paying no rent, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider putting out to tender amongst
    858
    travel agents this right to supply Members?
    Mr. Peart: I hope that hon. Members will reflect on their prejudices here. Messrs. Thomas Cook have provided a tremendous service for Members over the years, and there are other organisations. I hope that hon. Members will be very careful before they press me too much on this.

    Catering Staff (Wages)
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he intends to take before the Summer Recess to improve pay conditions for the staff of the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
    A 10 per cent. wage increase was awarded last autumn, and the wage structure of the Department is under review.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that wage increases in excess of 3½ per cent. have been granted? Will he look after the House's own employees and stand up to the Government on their behalf?
    Mr. Maxwell: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his consideration for the staff. However, all right hon. and hon. Members are as concerned as he is about them and I assure the House that the Catering Sub-Committee has this matter very much in mind.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the pay conditions of the staff could be improved if the dining facilities of the House were open to the public during the Summer Recess? Will that be done this summer?
    Mr. Maxwell: The pay conditions of the staff can and will be in due course further improved. We have the question of dining facilities being open to the public under consideration, but I cannot hold out hope that such a proposal will meet the approval of the Services Committee.

BANK OF ENGLAND (MR. CECIL KING)
Mr. Dickens(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on Mr. Cecil King's resignation as a Director of the Bank of England.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Mr. King's letter to me of 9th May stated that he was resigning because he was becoming more and more involved in political controversy. I accepted his resignation without hesitation.
Mr. Dickens: First, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of emphatically repudiating the disgraceful and thoroughly unpatriotic remarks made by Mr. King about this country's international trading position and about the position of our reserves?
Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House feel that he and the Government have listened in the past far too readily to Mr. King and to the Mirror newspapers and the policy they have advocated and far too little to the Government's hon. Friends on this side of the House and to the wider Labour movement in the country?
Mr. Jenkins: I certainly thought that Mr. King's article was irresponsible and I certainly repudiate what he said about the reserves, where he touched upon a practice originated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) which has been continued unchanged ever since.
To the second point raised by my hon. Friend, I would reply that these are matters of opinion. Mr. King is entitled to his opinion like anyone else, but there is no need to take any more notice of it.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the Chancellor aware that, although we have many criticisms of the handling of the economy, these come within the ordinary sphere of political controversy, whereas, to us, matters of sterling and the reserves do not, and that I would wish to keep it that way?
I therefore put simply one question. There are conventions that govern the publication of the reserves. Can the
860
Chancellor assure the House that there has been no change at all in these conventions? If that is the case, why did not he make that clear on Friday morning?
Mr. Jenkins: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says and I am grateful to him for the attitude he has taken. It is slightly different from that which the Leader of the Opposition took, with one of his instant reactions, on Friday. However, in view of what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has said, I will leave that point now.
As I have indicated, the practice in relation to the reserves is exactly the same as that started by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral, continued by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), and defined by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in 1966 in the following terms:
"The figures given of the monthly reserves are quite accurate…but the practice has grown up over recent years—and I think that it is a desirable practice—under which central banks, through co-operation, offset the flow of short-term movements. This is desirable in the interests of world trade and the stability of the exchanges, and I see no reason to discontinue the practice"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 15.]
Mr. Cant: Will my right hon. Friend draw a moral from this experience? Is it not remarkable that sterling should be affected far more by the speeches or articles of a Press baron than by the announcement of a multi-million £ order gained in America by Rolls-Royce? Will not my right hon. Friend see as a solution to the problem not to do anything about the freedom of speech, but to reduce the sensitivity of sterling to the increasing pressures that it is subject to in international financing?
Mr. Jenkins: That raises a wider issue. I have discussed this point with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) on previous occasions. But it is the case at present that the prospects for a secure improvement of the British balance of payments in future are now, as many independent commentators have said over the weekend, stronger than they have been for a long time.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the Chancellor answer the second half of my question,

861
which he passed over? If there has been no change at all and the policy is still the same in that the figures show the trends as trends subject to what the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary said in his statement, why did not the Chancellor make that clear at once, which is what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked for on Friday morning?
Mr. Jenkins: The Leader of the Opposition did a great deal more than ask that. I do not take the view that it is necessary to contradict every irresponsible statement. I thought it perfectly clear that Mr. King was referring to nothing more than the practice started by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral. Indeed, Mr. King made this perfectly clear on television on Friday evening and the financial commentators on Saturday morning took an extremely sensible view.
Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although there may be some mystery about why Mr. King resigned his position as a director of the Bank of England, it is less mysterious than the reason for his appointment? Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position? What are the qualifications of a man appointed to a directorship of the Bank of England? Is there any chance for some of us, including me?
Mr. Jenkins: Not while my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) remains a Member of this House, which I hope that he will do for a long time. This is a question about a resignation and not about an appointment, and that is my responsibility, but it is the view that it is desirable to have certain outside directors of the Bank.
As Mr. King himself made clear, these directors have no access to any secret official figures. It is thought desirable, however, that we should have certain outside persons—of which Mr. King was one—who are able to bring a wider view, if that is the right description, to the position.
Mr. Sandys: Is it not the case that nothing would do more to strengthen sterling than the disappearance of this disastrous Government?
Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir, and I know of no issue with which I have had to deal, either in my present or in my previous offices, which the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) has not tried to exacerbate by entirely mischievous comments.
Mr. Barnett: Does not the statement by Mr. King show the most appalling ignorance? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it indicates the need for courses for directors of the Bank of England?
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. King said quite frankly on television on Friday night that he spoke with no special banking or economic expertise. I am bound to say that I sometimes wish that he would show equally becoming modesty about political questions.
Mr. Hooson: Does the Chancellor take the view that indulgence in political controversy is a bar to the Court of the Bank of England? If it is, why was Mr. Cecil King appointed in the first place, because he was then indulging in political controversy? Secondly, as to the figures, which are part of the public concern, do the reserves include loans from foreign banks?
Mr. Jenkins: The position is exactly as stated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the reply which I quoted to the House. It is one which has existed for a very long time. I do not think that the position could be taken that a director of the Bank of England should never make a remark which could ever be regarded as controversial by anyone. That would be a very restrictive view indeed. But Mr. King, by submitting his resignation, clearly took the view that the totality of his article was incompatible with his membership of the Court of the Bank, and I agree with him.
Mr. Winnick: As a historian, would the Chancellor agree that a view expressed by a former Prime Minister about Press proprietors will also be applied to Mr. King, namely, that some Press proprietors would want powers without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages?
Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Chancellor say on whose recommendation Mr. King

863
was invited to become a director of the Bank? Was it at the invitation of the Prime Minister, or the previous Chancellor? Why are the Government complaining now, when, three years ago, they were as thick as thieves?
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. King was appointed, like many people holding, no doubt, political views very different from those which Mr. King held then or holds now, on the authority of the Government.
Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Mr. King called for the resignation of the Prime Minister the value of the £ went down? Therefore, would my right hon. Friend agree that the value of sterling would go up if he, together with every other Member on this side of the House, stated unequivocally that the Prime Minister will continue for a long time to come?
Mr. Jenkins: I have no doubt that this is so.
Sir C. Taylor: Is it not a fact that Mr. Cecil King was appointed to the Court of the Bank of England because of the tremendous support that he gave to the Labour Party at the last election?
Mr. Jenkins: I do not agree with that, and I think that if the hon. Gentleman were to look through the list of the other members of the Court of the Bank of England, which I have before me, but with which I will not weary the House, he would find it a little difficult to take the view that it sustained his thesis.
Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of his qualifications, a great deal too much notice has already been taken of the views of Mr. Cecil King, and that all that we are seeing is—in a particularly acute form—an example of well-recognised delusions of grandeur which newspaper proprietors have shown over the years?
Sir C. Osborne: While recognising that it would be against the national interest to give the day-to-day changes in the reserves, may I ask the Chancellor to repudiate the second and more important statement by Mr. King, that Great
864
Britain is now faced with the greatest financial crisis in its history? Is that true?
Mr. Jenkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent of thinking that this was the more important of the two statements. I do not think that it is true. As I have made abundantly clear to the House ever since I took over as Chancellor, we are facing great difficulties. We are also facing great opportunities, and I stand by what I said earlier, that provided we exploit these properly, the opportunities for a secure balance of payments surplus are greater than for a long time past.
Mr. Roebuck: In the interests of spreading enlightenment in Holborn Circus, and perhaps the Albany, would my right hon. Friend send Mr. King a copy of the recent speech by the Chairman of the British Export Council, which showed that the nation was on its way to having one of the world's strongest economies? Would he at the same time inform the chairman of my favourite newspaper that its 15 million readers prefer the front page when it makes beauty queens and not when it tries to make Prime Ministers?
Mr. Jenkins: Many of my hon. Friends are making comments, as is their right in the circumstances, but ones to which it is not particularly easy to provide an answer. I am sure that the extremely important statement of the Chairman of the British Export Council has been read, even if not entirely digested, both in Albany and elsewhere.
Sir D. Renton: If he would not think it tactless to do so, would the Chancellor care to remind the Prime Minister of the good democratic principle of government by consent?
Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure that there would be particular value in my calling attention to that.—[Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. Before I call the next item, may I announce that there is a misprint in line 5. The word "development" ought to be "deferment".

BILL PRESENTED
  PRICES AND INCOMES
  Bill to prolong the duration of certain provisions of the Prices and Incomes Acts 1966 to 1967; to extend the maximum period for which standstills in prices and charges or terms and conditions of employment may be enforced under the powers of those Acts, and to confer further powers for requiring reductions in prices and charges and for the deferment of wages regulation orders and agricultural wages orders; to limit company distributions; to limit rent increases and to mitigate certain past rent increases for dwelling-houses, and to enable rents of local authority housing to be changed without notice to quit being given; and for connected purposes, presented by Mrs. Castle; supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. Shore, Mr. Crosland, Mr. Ross, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. George Thomas, and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

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

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the matter of Primary Education in Wales and Monmouthshire, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Peart.]

  ORDERS OF THE DAY

    SUPPLY
    [21ST ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

  TOURISM
  3.47 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Noble: Hon. Members will agree that the subject of tourism is one which is debated too seldom in this House, and yet is one of the major problems in which the country should be interested, and which we should more often debate. Throughout the length and breadth of the country those who are engaged in catering for the tourist industry, whether in hotels, restaurants, or any of the other parts of the service industries connected with tourism, have been gravely disillusioned with the policies of this Government, long before that disillusionment spread as widely as it has done, as we have seen in the last few days.
  These people have this disillusionment because they realise very clearly that from the beginning of the time when the Government took office they have continually stated that the biggest single problem confronting them was that of the balance of payments, and that this was a first priority. No one working in this industry is able to reconcile that with the treatment that the industry has received during the last three years.
  May I summarise a few of the figures relevant so that the House may fully understand. The number of visitors to Britain, and I am talking primarily about the export trade, so to speak, in 1964 was 2½ million. The number rose to 3½ million in 1966, which was an average rate of increase per year of 14 per cent. I have been able to discover from the British Travel Association, which keeps a lot of records of these visits, that in 1967 the figure rose to 3½ million, an increase of approximately 10 per cent. Therefore, the number of people coming to Britain from abroad and spending money here has been increasing at a very satisfactory rate from any Government's point of view.

  867
  The estimate of what those people spent in this country in 1966 is £219 million. I cannot give the figure for 1967, because it has not yet been calculated. This is a very considerable sum of money. When one adds to it the extra £138 million earned by the British carriers of tourists, whether it be B.O.A.C., B.E.A., Cunard, or any of the shipping companies, one gets an immediate impression of the value of the tourist industry to our balance of payments.
  It is estimated that of the £219 million, one-third came from tourists from North America and approximately one-third from European tourists and tourists from overseas sterling countries. The figures vary a little, but they give, broadly, the breakdown of where the money comes from. Of the £219 million, rather more than half is spent on hotel accommodation and meals in restaurants and other places.
  Perhaps it will help if I try to put the matter in some relationship with the export earnings of some of our other great industries. The whole of the textile industry brings into this country about £261 million—rather more, according to the figures for 1966, than tourism. The whole of the aircraft industry, including air frames and engines, brought in only £201 million in 1966. Car and chassis production brought in £234 million; commercial vehicles £138 million; and the whole of our iron and steel exports £215 million. Therefore, the export earnings of the tourist industry are very great indeed compared with any of the other traditional manufacturing industries.
  I quote those figures to put into perspective what was said on Tuesday last week in Commitee upstairs when we were discussing tourism in the narrow context of Scotland. An hon. Member opposite interjected, But we do not want our nation to be a nation of waiters". It is that sort of attitude, expressed too often from the benches opposite, which gives the tourist industry a feeling that the Government are not sympathetic to people who earn their living by working hard, long hours and many hours overtime in an industry bringing vast resources to this country in foreign exchange.
  868
  Over the last two or three years, the Government have taken a number of actions which directly affect the tourist industry. They altered the tax allowances. They introduced the Selective Employment Tax. They disallowed entertainment expenses. They introduced special credit restrictions; a new Board of Trade loan scheme for hotels; special development area building grants; and new building licences. This year we have had announced a new hotel development incentive scheme and new S.E.T. reliefs.
  It would be tempting, but I do not want to be tempted, to go into detail on the various measures which have been introduced by the Government and to analyse in each case whether they are a help or hindrance to the tourist industry. However, I am sure that many hon. Members interested in this problem have read the report which the "Little Neddy" arranged to have made by Cooper Brothers, a very distinguished firm of accountants, which looked in detail at the actions which the Government have taken and which issued its report, which is to be read by anybody who is interested, stating clearly and exactly where damage has been done to the industry by the Government's measures and making some specific suggestions of action which the Government could take to improve the position. I wish to select one or two of the points which I have listed and make a few quick comments on them.
  It would be idle to pretend that this debate could run for five and a half or six hours without mentioning S.E.T. Therefore, I should like briefly, because many others will elaborate what I have to say, to set out the main reasons why S.E.T. is definitely doing harm to the tourist industry, as the "Little Neddy" concluded.
  First, S.E.T. is a perfect example of the Government discriminating against the service industries, because it is less worthy to work as a waiter or cook, or whatever it may be, in the tourist industry than to make bits and pieces of a machine or work on a production line. The second point which needs making, particularly in regard to the new reliefs which have been announced, though not perhaps very clearly, is that the reliefs are based upon criteria which are them-

  869
  selves highly debatable and which in many cases make no sense, especially perhaps because they are based on employment exchange areas which have no relevance to the problem of tourists and where they want to go.
  A number of instances have been quoted in our Scottish debates, and I am sure that my hon. Friends can quote many in England, of the employment exchange area making nonsense of this relief. It is of very doubtful value, at least immediately, because it does not come into operation until September, and, except for one or two favoured areas, September marks, if not the end, then very near the end of the tourist season.
  Lastly, but by no means least, the reliefs are to be given for hotels if they happen to fall in exactly the right area—and nobody with hotels in his area will complain about that. But they are limited to hotels, whereas anybody who has studied the tourist industry, even shallowly, knows that it is made up of hotels, restaurants, and all the other service industries which join together to make the stay of the tourist satisfactory, or the reverse.
  I should like to say a few words about the Board of Trade loans scheme announced about 15 months ago and which are meant to last for one year. It was said that £5 million was available and that the loans were particularly for those hotels able to cater rather narrowly for the export market—hotels which were of sufficient standard to take tourists from Europe, America and other places with plenty of money.
  It is significant that up to January, I think, of this year—at least, that is what the Minister of State, Board of Trade, told us in an Adjournment debate—only rather less than £2 million had been taken up of the £5 million, and not a penny had been taken up in Scotland. So this particular form of loans was certainly not very acceptable to the tourist industry itself.
  To move on now from this, which was the earlier idea which the Government had to help the hotel industry, in particular, and which, as I say, did not appear to have any success, to the scheme which has been announced in the last week or two and which I will call the new scheme, there are many questions which I hope the Minister of
  870
  State will be able to answer us and about which I would like, myself, to make one or two comments, so far as I understand them at the moment.
  The new scheme envisages in the first place a 20 per cent. building grant to hotels; it is moved up to 25 per cent. if the hotel is in a development area; but it is limited, as I understand it, to a total of £1,000 per room in what one may call ordinary areas and £1,250 per room in the development areas. I am very much puzzled as to whether it is intended to be a reflection of what the Government themselves believe the cost of rooms in these areas is.
  I will come back to this very point in a moment or two, but the limit is £1,000 per room, and, quite honestly, I do not know, because nobody has yet been able to tell me, what exactly "per room" means. Does it mean per bedroom, per public room, per room of any sort or kind, including toilets and housemaids' cabinets, and so on? I presume it means per bedroom, but this has not, I think, been made exactly clear.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: If it be per bedroom, and I believe it to be, does that include fixed amenities such as a bathroom attached, and those other things one expects today?
  Mr. Noble: This is certainly an important point. I am sure that the Minister heard that interjection and, I hope, will be able, when he speaks, to answer it.
  There is also, of course, the problem whether, if extensions are made, the same applies to them as it does to a new hotel. There are innumerable questions which, the Minister must know, the trade is asking of the Ministry at the moment, and to which, to date, it has had no satisfactory answers.
  I would like to go back to the point I made a moment or two ago and the cost. I am assuming that it is per bedroom. I had the fortune to discuss with one of our main hotel developers about 10 days ago the most recent figures for the cost per bedroom of hotels which he had most recently built. The answer which I got from him was this.
  In the North of England, just outside one of our main industrial towns, he put up a hotel of the sort of standard which

  871
  nowadays is generally expected, where every room has its own bathroom or shower; it is not a top luxury hotel, but it is a hotel to which no tourist from any part of the world would be ashamed to go. The cost per room came out at just over £10,000. He then built an exactly similar type of hotel in a country district in Scotland; built by the same people to the same standards; and the cost came out at £12,500 per room.
  These are immediately recent figures of cost per room. He is a reasonably astute business person, and I am quite certain he took the lowest tender, which was satisfactory for the standards which he wanted, and that was the figure. These are gross costs and nothing is taken out. We have a figure which is miles above the figure at which the Government grant of £1,000 per room will have any effect at all. He will be left with a considerable extra burden over and above the 20 per cent. which the Government have offered. I know perfectly well, and so does he, that if this particular hotel had been built with a very large number of bedrooms, if, instead of being a 78 or a 90 bedroom hotel, it had been built with 200 or 300, the cost per room would have come down and this would have made a difference to the figures I am quoting. However, the point surely is that in a large number of areas in the country, where we need accommodation for our tourists, it would be the most extreme sort of folly to build hotels with 100 or 200 bedrooms because they could not conceivably be expected to be full for more than a very short time in the year.
  So it does need real skill in judgment as to the size of one's hotel, because what ultimately makes the profit in any hotel operation is the original cost, the price one can charge per bedroom, and the rate at which one has either room occupancy or bed occupancy, according to whether one has single or double rooms.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I am following the right hon. Gentleman with interest, but I am wondering whether he is right about his figures, because £12,500 per room for an 80-bedroom hotel makes the cost £1 million, which is certainly about the cost of a luxury hotel.
  Mr. Noble: Well, I do not think that I actually said it was an 80-bedroom
  872
  hotel; though it was in that region, it was a little less than that. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find out, if he chooses to inquire in any country part of Wales, that the figures I have quoted will be applicable and will be about as low as he will get anybody to quote. They are not my figures. They are figures which have been given to me by somebody who has just completed a hotel in those circumstances.
  On the other hand, it is equally true that the same person, whose firm has been, as I say, expanding in the hotel trade quite considerably, was able to build bedrooms in motels at a cost of about £4,000 in central Scotland, a little north of central Scotland in one case, and, where the cheapest possible materials and construction were used, for just under £3,000 in another. So that if one is prepared to come down to the really cheap range of construction and have the cheapest form of accommodation it is certainly possible to keep within a figure where the 20 per cent. grant will make the cost something below £1,000 per room.
  The point I must make—and I do not want to take up too much time with my own speech, because I know that a great many of my hon. Friends want to get in—is this: if the Government, in their new scheme, are really interested in trying to get hotels built, not in the main industrial areas, but in the more scattered country areas, and are interested in trying to get tourists to come to Wales, outside the industrial part, to the Highlands, the Borders, and so on, then, while the 20 per cent. may possibly be enough to build a hotel in the London area or in Birmingham or Manchester or Liverpool or any of the industrial centres, it will not be anything like enough as an incentive to developers to build hotels in outlying areas, and particularly for these two extra reasons.
  If one wishes to build a hotel, we will say in Edinburgh, Newcastle, Manchester or London, to a satisfactory standard, the sort of hotel which will attract any American or European, it will attract, if one is lucky, during the course of the year, 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of overseas guests. The great bulk of people who will fill the hotel will be people who are on business in that city, and whose expenses are being paid by

  873
  the firm. There is nothing immoral in this. If an executive is sent to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester or Newcastle, he is expected to stay in a reasonably comfortable hotel, and he receives his expenses for so doing.
  In a hotel of this sort, quite clearly the amount that is charged for bed and breakfast is not particularly critical, since the person is not himself paying the bill. He may be physically signing it, but the bill is paid by the company which has sent him there with a job of work to do.
  The picture is different if one looks at what I call the real tourist areas. In these areas probably 95 per cent., and in many cases 100 per cent., of the people who stay in hotels are paying their own bills out of their own pockets. In most cases, as they are holiday areas, a person is paying for his wife and children as well.
  Therefore, if these hotels are to be full, they have to accept a considerably lower cost per bedroom per night than the hotels in what one might call the business areas, even though in certain cases, for instance, in Edinburgh, the city is both a business area and a great tourist centre.
  It is a major problem. When one also considers that away from the main centres of population building costs go up considerably, then one can see the problem in its stark reality. A Government incentive that gives 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. to the main areas—the variation of 5 per cent. depends on whether it is a development area or not—makes it almost certain that the people with money to put into the tourist trade will do all the hotel building in the main business areas. They will not do what I believe is needed in a great many country districts, which is to put up the accommodation without which the tourist industry cannot survive and grow.
  The Scottish Junior Chambers of Commerce have arranged to have a conference this week at Aviemore to discuss the problem of tourism in Scotland. Among the many papers that have been prepared for the conference was a paper, which I think will be discussed on Friday of this week, prepared for them by Mr. Gerard Colley, of the Battelle Institute, Geneva. I do not know Mr. Colley, or what is the
  874
  reputation of the Battelle Institute, but I know that the Swiss, for many generations, have been exceedingly good at catering for tourism, and I suspect that Mr. Colley and the Battelle Institute are expert in this matter.
  I will tell the House the five rules that Mr. Colley said were important if we were to develop the tourist industry in this country.
  The first rule is that one should never attempt to promote tourist traffic until there is somewhere to put the tourist. This is so simple that it ought to have been clear to everybody for a long time. I do not know what other people's experience has been, but mine in the county of Argyll has been that for the last few years, if the weather is favourable, we have a very large number of people wandering around in the evening trying to find somewhere to sleep. In some centres it is not uncommon to find 20 or 30 people who, at midnight, have failed to find anywhere to say and have to spend the night in their cars. This rule is certainly understood by many tourist areas. But it is not just hotels. I have spoken about the problems of producing enough beds for tourists, and the cost of it in the immediate future, but we have a number of other problems, too.
  It may well be that it is satisfactory to a great many people to spend the night in bed-and-breakfast houses, which have been a great success story up and down the country. These people must have somewhere to eat their lunch, and often their supper as well, and there is no relief for the restaurants that provide the essential food for the large number of people who stay in bed-and-breakfast establishments.
  There is also the problem of caravans. A great many people have decided that they will try to help to provide caravan facilities for tourists. They let out caravans by the week or by the day, whatever it may be. Here again, we run into the curious dichotomy with which the Government seem to be inflicted in their dealings with the tourist industry.
  One of my constituents wished to set up a caravan site. I have sent the papers about this to the Minister of State for Scotland, who asked for them last week. My constituent wished to set up the site as part of his effort deliberately to help in the problem that

  875
  tourists have in one part of rural Scotland. As soon as he decided he would do that, he was faced with a letter from his solicitor saying, "Do you realise that if you do that there is a betterment levy that you will have to pay under the new Land Commission, and that this may be exceedingly expensive?" He wrote back at once and said, "How much is it likely to cost?", to which the answer was, "We cannot possibly tell you, because you must do the development first, and then, when you have done the development, we will tell you what it will cost."
  This seems to be a crazy way to encourage people to set up proper accommodation for tourists. This is not a question of the Government raising the price of land by some new decree, for new towns, motorways, or anything like that. This is a person in a small way of business in the wilds of the West Highlands who is trying to help the tourist industry. He is faced with a betterment levy, and he has no idea what it will cost, as he cannot be told what it will cost until he has done it.
  I suspect that very much the same thing will happen to people who decide now under the scheme that they will build new hotels or extensions, and so on. They will get from the Government 20 per cent. per bedroom up to £1,000. This they know, but when they have done that, what will the betterment levy be? Nobody has told them that yet. It may be that the Government, having given them 20 per cent. with one hand, will take 25 per cent. away with the other. How will that help? This is a point about which the Minister might well say a word or two.
  Mr. Colley's second rule is that one should always provide the tourist with sufficient entertainment. This seems to be a very simple and straightforward thing to say, but in how many areas outside the well-known tourist centres has this been done? There are far too many places that I know of where tourists are regarded as summer visitors, and the only entertainment they are allowed is to stroll up and down at the side of the river and become midge-bitten. This may have been satisfactory for their parents and grandparents, but it is by no means satisfactory for the
  876
  modern tourist, who wants to travel with his family and expects them to have something to do.
  The best single example I know of is the centre at Aviemore. It was started by Lord Fraser and two or three others in 1964, with the blessing of the Conservative Government. It was designed specifically to provide sleeping accommodation for 400 people and entertainment facilities for between 1,000 and 1,500. To my mind, it was the right sort of tourist development in a country area. Not only does it provide entertainment for people living at the Centre, but a great deal of entertainment for people living in hotels roundabout. It has been a remarkable success. I was up there a month or so ago when there was plenty of snow. People were motoring there from the North of England for the weekend to enjoy the ski-ing, in a way which would be impossible if that sort of entertainment had not been provided.
  The Government have given a rebate of Selective Employment Tax to the people who work in the hotel. But the success of the operation does not come just from those who work in the hotel, but from those who work on all the ancillary features such as the ski-lifts, skating rinks and swimming baths. All of them have to pay Selective Employment Tax, and at a 50 per cent. increased rate. That is nonsense, because it is looking at only one small section of the overall problem.
  Mr. Colley's third rule was to make sure that the police, Customs and immigration officers are aware of the importance of tourism and take positive steps to encourage it.
  I was reading Which? at the weekend, and it said that it had made an inquiry into London Airport and that almost every letter commented upon the extremely courteous way in which the writer had been treated by Customs officers at Heathrow. So often, one hears criticisms. Although the reports were not specifically from tourists but, I imagine, more from our own consumers coming into the country, it was pleasant to see words of praise directed towards our Customs officers. Indeed, from what I have seen, police, Customs officers and others are very courteous to tourists, and

  877
  I do not think that we have much to learn from Mr. Colley on that score.
  Mr. Colley's fourth rule was that, before one invests in tourism, it is important to do research to establish the viability of it. I am not certain what research is being done by the Government to establish the viability of schemes which are being discussed at the moment. A case in the Scottish context was where the Highland Development Board intended to set up five hotels. We were told last Tuesday that there was no possibility of any of them being viable, and that is probably true.
  There are likely to be a good many repercussions amongst hotel keepers in any given area if it is said openly, as it was last Tuesday, that the Government are using the taxpayers' money to set up hotels which have no possibility of becoming viable and which will compete with existing hotels in the area.
  The last rule by Mr. Colley was that the country's tourist industry should be co-ordinated by a Ministerial body with strong statutory powers. I am not sure that I agree with that, because I do not understand exactly what he means by it. However, I will say a word or two about it in a moment.
  I turn next to the whole problem of costs. Today, tourism probably is the biggest single world growth industry that there is. All the evidence shows that the mass migration of tourists for periods of a week, a fortnight or a month grows year by year and is a matter of very great importance. For the greater part of it, I believe firmly that there has to be very close international competition on costs, and I was worried to read in the Sunday Express yesterday that holidays at home will cost more this summer. The article spoke of increases of up to 12½ per cent. on hotel and boardinghouse accommodation and meals which have been imposed at leading resorts, and there followed a story about the reasons for it.
  This year, we hoped very much that we should get some advantages from devaluation. There were many other factors which we knew would operate against the tourist industry, but we looked to devaluation to work in its favour. I claim no knowledge of the statistics on which the article is based, but if we are likely to see increases of
  878
  up to 12½ per cent. it means that already we have lost practically the whole of the advantage that we have gained from devaluation. It is a serious matter.
  In the world of package tours, it is possible for anyone living in the South of England to have a 14-day trip up the Rhine for a good deal less than the cost of spending a similar period in the North of England or Scotland. That is one of the dangers which have followed directly on the Government's imposition of the £50 travel allowance. It has made it essential for the people providing foreign package tours to bring down their prices and keep within the £50 limit. To that extent, it has made the Continent more competitive, which is exactly the opposite from what the Government intended.
  As many of us know, in the past, continental countries have had great advantages in tourism in that they have cheap labour in hotels and in the construction industry. Those of us who have seen hotels being built in Spain and other places know that they are not very substantial. The cheapness of construction has helped towards the capital costs which have to be made good over the year's return on the capital invested. If our industry is to be successful, we have to keep down our costs. In their policy of taxation, and so on, I do not believe that the Government realise the importance of keeping down costs in the tourist industry. Everything that they have done has appeared to be designed deliberately to put up costs.
  During the debate, I would like the Government to deal with the following points. I would like them to clarify the new scheme that they have announced in considerably more detail than they have so far. I would like them to rethink the whole Selective Employment Tax relief schemes, because I believe that they are nonsense as they are based at present. I would like them to consider what I believe to be the absolute necessity of some differential for hotel building in what might be called selective tourist areas and other parts of the country. The Government have to make up their mind and say clearly that where certain aspects of Government policy, such as the betterment levy, conflict with the need to provide more bedrooms for tourists, they will use their powers to see that the levies are not charged.

  879
  While I do not believe that a tourist board with statutory powers is necessarily the right answer at the present time, it is essential that there should be a Minister in the Cabinet who understands the tourist industry and the enormous importance of the country's invisible earnings. Too often the Board of Trade seems to be concerned with manufacturing and does not realise tthe importance of these earnings.
  If the Government say that not enough money was spent in the past, and ask why they should be expected to spend more money when we did not, I would remind them that they are the Government who said that they intended to create an export-led boom, which is what tourism is. The Government have taken over £22,000 million extra in taxation from our pockets. Some of this money should go back to the tourist industry.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) started by suggesting that we in this House have paid too little attention to the importance of tourism. I agree that this is one of the many subjects to which the House could well devote more attention. One of the troubles is that we tend to get it mixed up with regional development. Tourism spans the whole country and its development would give us help with our balance of payments, upon which the right hon. Gentleman concentrated. We should pay attention to places not for regional development, but for their attraction to tourists.
  We start with London. When we talk about extending the tourist season for Wales and Scotland, we have to remember that the tourist season for London is all the year round. With the concentration of conferences, and so on, London probably has a bigger hotel problem than other places. There are lessons to be drawn from that.
  The right hon. Gentleman was right when he referred to the importance of overseas earnings. One of the difficulties is to separate the overseas earnings from other aspects. If there were a hotel which dealt only with overseas visitors, it would be relatively easy. We have to
  880
  appreciate that the biggest customers for our hotels are our own people. The result of mounting the holidays-at-home campaign has revealed that 30 million of our own people had a holiday in Britain last year and that they spent £560 million. This is the biggest aspect. Therefore, in doing something, as we think, towards overseas earnings, we may not be doing that at all. We have to keep a reasonable balance. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were joined by about 3½ million overseas visitors. Actually it is probably nearer 4 million. They spent £245 million in 1967.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was listening with interest to his point about holidays at home. I am sure he will agree that Blackpool and Scotland which accommodate millions of people every year, are often in direct competition with the Costa Brava rather than another holiday resort here. A holiday at home may save as much as bringing in someone from abroad.
  Mr. Ross: This is why I am emphasising the point. We talk about the numbers who stay at home and who come here. I understand that about 5 million people went abroad last year. All the traditional resorts will have to change their outlook.
  In the past, when there were the traditional Lancashire Wakes and the Glasgow Fair, people moved straight to Blackpool from Lancashire or to Rothesay and down the Clyde from Glasgow. They no longer do that, so we are faced with completely new problems. Instead of going and staying for a fortnight at Blackpool, the North-West resorts, Llandudno, Rothesay or Ayr, as in the past, people tend to go for two or three days to the centre of an area from which they go out. It may be they will stay in that place, but they like to have a measure of freedom in case they wish to go on to another place.
  We are faced with an entirely different problem. As a nation, we have been slow to realise the amount that we can earn if we get into the tourist attraction industry, first, from the point of view of overseas visitors, and, secondly, what we can save by ensuring that many

  881
  more of our own people take holidays at home. Some parts of the country have realised this, because, from a local point of view, it is a desirable way of building up employment, even though only seasonal. In Scotland, we were lucky to have men like Tom Johnston and Lord Rosebery who, over a long period, chaired the Scottish Tourist Board and tried to concentrate attention on many of these problems.
  If we can satisfy the tourist needs and demands of our own people—the great bulk of our hotel users and holiday makers—we shall gain a fair idea about how to satisfy those from abroad. It is not only the visitor from France or Denmark who arrives in the north of Scotland, Barmouth in Wales or elsewhere and looks for something to do during the evening. We have to provide the right kind of accommodation. It may not be a hotel, as the right hon. Gentleman said. It might be a camping or caravan site. It may even be something much more rough and ready for the younger than what is demanded by older people.
  We must be able to do something for everybody. The standards demanded are rising all the time. More and more people want the comfort of a hotel or caravan holiday in the remoter places where efforts are being made by commercial and local interests to see that some entertainment is provided. We have a great interest in seeing that this is a country where the standard for holidays is high. It means that we have a good standard of living. We have to try to get the quality right for our own people. If we do that, I think we shall be able to meet the needs of those coming in in greater numbers from overseas.
  The figures of visitors from overseas in 1967 were surprisingly high. The right hon. Member for Argyll quoted 1966, but there was one particular event that brought hundreds of thousands of people to Britain at that time, namely, the World Cup. Yet, without that attraction in 1967, even more people came and spent more money. It may be that some who ventured as far as London and the areas where the World Cup ties were being played decided it was worth coming back and seeing more. It means a great deal to tourist centres like London and Edinburgh, but it means even more from the
  882
  social and economic standpoint in the remoter areas.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to what had been done at Aviemore. The other day my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Scotland made an appeal for more Aviemores. Other parts of Britain do not have the attraction of snow at the right time of the year, but it may be that by exercising our skill we could find other areas which offer particular attractions. Wales has its national music. Other parts of the country might have other attractions for visitors. I am thinking of such things as sea angling, sand yachting, and other activities to which people would be attracted for their holidays. The development of skiing facilities at Aviemore has given the area a 10-month holiday season. A small Highland village has been turned into an all-the-year tourist area, and all that has happened in less than 10 years.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman interested Lord Fraser in the project and got the scheme at Aviemore started, but local people had appreciated the value of such a development long before that. I admit that the developer came in at the right time, but it must be remembered that he did so with Government support, and I was sorry to see the stinging attack which Sir William McEwan Younger made on the Government's policy for tourism. He said that the Government had given no encouragement whatsoever to Aviemore. The mere fact that what was once a small village is now a thriving holiday centre shows that somebody must have provided a number of things, and perhaps I might give the House some idea of what has been spent on the area.
  It is not sufficient merely to provide a hotel at a holiday centre. Water is essential, and it cost the public authorities £404,000 to provide water supplies at Aviemore. The provision of roads cost £607,000. Housing to support the area cost £313,000. Schools cost £148,000. Board of Trade grants amounted to £366,000. Grants by the Highlands and Islands Development Board for the ski lift and other facilities amounted to £96,000. The figures add up to a total of £1,990,000, which is no inconsiderable sum for the Government to spend on one area to support one development. The spending of that money has been well worth while because the area is attracting more and more people from this country, as well as visitors from overseas. It is

  883
  both a summer and a winter holiday resort, and we must have more Aviemores.
  Mr. Noble: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman realises the point which Sir William McEwan Younger was making, which was simply that since the decision had been taken to set up this centre at Aviemore the Government had withdrawn many of the financial advantages which people expected to have when they went here. I hope that the matter will be put right.
  Mr. Ross: We have not taken away the financial advantage. On the contrary, we have given Aviemore solid support. The answer is to be found in the success of the project.
  I now want to say something about the S.E.T., about which so many complaints are made. It is often referred to at Question Time because it is of considerable importance to Scottish Members. It was said that this tax would destroy the tourist industry, but it has not done so. Last year was an extremely good one for the industry, and there is every indication that this year will be equally good. The changes announced by the Government last year in the application of the tax helped the people in the cities as well as those in the rural areas.
  I am, of course, referring to the provision about part-time workers paying only half the S.E.T. The Government's latest suggestion—which will be debated on another occasion—to give help to certain rural hotels in the development areas is an indication of their willingness to consider the effects of the tax. I think the right hon. Gentleman probably knows that an examination is being conducted into the incidence and consequences of the S.E.T.
  Another thing which people often forget is that today the tourist is more mobile than ever before. This means that more roads must be constructed, and expenditure on the roads programme has never been higher than it is today. As a Scot, I welcome the fact that the great motor roads are sweeping north because they will bring to Scotland our biggest customers, the English, who will be able to spend more time in Scotland because they will need to spend less time travelling to and from their holiday areas.
  884
  Tourism is not just a matter for the central Government. We must provide facilities for people in the areas to which they want to go. In other words, we must attract tourists. We must make them welcome, and we must satisfy their holiday needs. That cannot be done by the central Government. It must be done by people in the localities concerned.
  Mr. Peter Emery: The debate has been going on for an hour and ten minutes. Will the right hon. Gentleman leave the problems of Scotland and deal with the problems of the biggest tourist area in the country, namely, the South-West? A spine road to the area is vital, but the Government appear unwilling to make a decision about it. A crash programme is necessary to provide this vital link with the South-West.
  Mr. Ross: When it comes to a tug-o-'war for money, I am sure that every hon. Member can make a case for his area.
  Mr. Emery: The South-West has not been mentioned.
  Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman takes part in the debate I am sure that we will listen to all that he has to say.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that in deciding on the roads programme due weight is given to tourism and the extra traffic that it brings? I do not believe that it is.
  Mr. Ross: That may be true in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but it must be remembered that the more we improve trunk roads the more we speed people to a point of departure for their chosen holiday areas. In Scotland, we are very much concerned about the roads to Penrith and beyond. We want people to get up to Galloway, Dumfriesshire, Ayrshire, and so on. We must have good, fast roads. If, during the last three years, we had not spent so much money on main roads there would have been very much more to complain about.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the support that we are giving to hotels. This demand by the tourist industry for support for the hotels is nothing new. I remember the many debates when complaints were made about this when the

  885
  right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State. I recall the plan for prosperity and the 1962–63 Report, "The Challenge of Tourism, Scotland's Fastest Growing Industry" A great demand was being made at that time for more Government investment because it was already recognised, as that Report stated, that
  "…it is unlikely that private enterprise will be encouraged to provide all the finance required, the onus of responsibility will rest on the Government, and the Scottish Tourist Board would suggest that just as the Government assisted industry in the post-war years to overcome the initial financial hurdle by building factories throughout the country, the time has come when it should build hotels in rural areas like the Hebridean islands, and lease these out at economic rents to qualified operators."
  The right hon. Gentleman was carping about the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The Board will be doing exactly what that Report was calling for. It is now consulting with operators about the need that exists. Admittedly, this is being done in a particular area, but when we consider what is being done to meet the long-term demands of tourism by the Scottish Tourist Board—and I have no doubt that hon. Members who represent Wales will have comments to make about this, because the same demand exists there—I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should be encouraging the Board instead of adopting a wet-blanket attitude to everything that is being done.
  The provision of hotel accommodation is not the only sphere of activity. The holidaymaker and tourist requires other amenities. In addition to having somewhere to stay, he must have somewhere to go. It is in this connection that the Forestry Commission has done a wonderful job in welcoming people to the forests. Perhaps the Commission is taking a chance, but from reports I have been receiving I gather that people have been well disciplined in their behaviour. They are now able not only to go through our great forests but to use properly run caravan parks, to be welcomed and to be given ample facilities.
  The right hon. Gentleman will recall his valiant efforts to do something to provide facilities of this kind. He introduced a Bill which got a Second Reading and which was designed to impose a levy of £2 10s. on each single bed per year in boarding houses and hotels, the
  886
  money to be devoted to the provision of these facilities. His Measure failed to get any further, but at least it recognised the need to levy money in this way and so provide developers—local authorities and others—with the money to provide these facilities for the tourist and holidaymakers.
  The Government have gone further than that. We in Scotland have progressed further than the English in this matter because we already have our Countryside Act and Countryside Commission, with its headquarters in Perth. By that means we will be able to provide finance, and in turn, provide facilities and help local authorities to improve and organise new facilities. This will not only attract the tourists to the countryside but also preserve our Scottish heritage in the countryside.
  We must attract, welcome and satisfy. More and more today in the regions the value of tourism is being appreciated. People are joining together to provide the necessary facilities to attract tourists. Tourist organisations are already well organised in many parts, including Yorkshire, the South-West—Devon and Cornwall—the Lake District, Northumberland and Durham and London. By meeting and discovering what is required in their particular areas to attract tourists, these organisations can ensure that adequate hotel accommodation is provided—providing the welcome that is needed—along with the right type of facilities, which ensure that the tourist is satisfied. I am sure that we will find the right answers and keep ahead in this matter.
  I pay tribute to the National Trust for what it has done for tourism. Many bodies are involved in the provision of these facilities. Anyone who has seen what the Trust has done at Bannockburn and other historic places will agree that its efforts are contributing greatly to tourism. I gather that the English have tried to do the same, but that their efforts have not succeeded in quite the same way. The efforts of the Trust have resulted in a chain link being developed, with the provision of specially designed reception centres at which holidaymakers and visitors can learn of the things of interest to see and do.
  Another link in the chain that has been forged is at Torridon, where the

  887
  Inland Revenue has, in part satisfaction of death duties, accepted an area and transferred it to the National Trust. Thus, one of the most attractive parts of the country will be available to the holidaymaker, tourist and climber. Operations such as this are not easy to organise and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works has a part to play in the support that is given to historic buildings and ancient monuments.
  Few people appreciate the types of specialist tourists there are. I know several people who will gladly travel thousands of miles to see one painting. If a painting they want to see happens to be in the Kelvingrove Art Gallery in Glasgow, they will go there. Once we have adequate provision for displaying pictures in Glasgow, the Burrell Collection that was left to the city will be a great tourist attraction. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate the large sum of money we are spending on our national galleries and museums, and this, too, has an effect on tourism.
  I assure the House that the Government are greatly concerned with the question of tourism. Some details have been given about the new hotel scheme. The first scheme was in the nature of an experiment and if it was not entirely successful, we should remember that it was of limited appeal because it was related to overseas visitors. If we have learned anything from that experiment, the results can be seen in the new scheme. We are concentrating on the tools for the job, as it were, in the provision of hotel and holiday centre schemes; and rural areas which feel they are being left out should remember the loans scheme under the Development Commission.
  We have increased the grants to the British Travel Association and have vastly expanded the home holidays campaign. In addition, we have created the Countryside Commission. We are now turning our attention to the vital question of whether any organisational changes are required in our tourist effort in our endeavour to create a new spirit that will lead the country into realising the undoubtedly great potential of tourism.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be supplying
  888
  further information about the hotels incentive scheme in a White Paper to be published shortly. That will state that the Government intend to pay increasing attention to tourism. Naturally, I cannot anticipate those proposals, but I hope that this debate will result in a number of constructive ideas being put forward, and we look forward to hearing the thoughts of hon. Members on this subject.
  The debate will be worth while if we can have that type of constructive approach. But it is not all grousing and girning about S.E.T.: there is far more than that to the tourist industry. There is more than hotels and restaurants, and the sooner the House and the country realise that and get down to it, the better.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It is a great pleasure for me to speak again. I have had an advantage which, I think, would be a great advantage to every politician, in that I have recently been entirely deprived of my voice. I am not suggesting that one should be deprived of one's voice for over three months, as I have had to suffer, but it is very good for a politician. It has enabled me to read deeply and, particularly, I have been compelled to listen. That is a signal advantage, not only to me but to other colleagues both here in the Chamber and elsewhere in political life.
  This opportunity has enabled me to do a study in depth of the problems of the tourist industry. I began it in the Caribbean, lying on the beaches of Jamaica in very pleasant suroundings and being able to listen to those concerned with overseas problems. I then did the same in Morocco and Spain and, just before my voice came back, I was able to whisper to colleagues throughout this country about their ideas. Finally, I am deeply indebted to the Irish, because I have absolutely no doubt that the way in which they deal with their tourist problems is the finest in the world.
  I want to take a fundamentally different approach to that hitherto taken in the House. I hope that we all now recognise at last that the tourist industry is, first, the greatest single unit in world trade, not only here but in practically every other country, second, by far the greatest growth industry in

  889
  Britain and throughout the world, and third, tie only industry in this country which is not treated as an industry at all.
  Undoubtedly the first principle is that we must in future treat this as a manufacturing industry—no less and no more—if we want to succeed. That particularly applies to the civil servants in the Board of Trade and the other Ministries who are no less at fault than the politicians of all parties have been for many years. Almost every European country has a substantial system of aid. This includes Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain and Portugal and applies particularly to Eire and Switzerland, from which I derived the greatest benefit in my study, although I looked in general terms at all the other nations.
  The Pope recently described the tourist industry as an industry
  "…the contribution of which adds to the refinement of man's character and the enrichment of his understanding of others."
  That very quotation shows that we want to lift this debate and our approach right above the very "woolly" speech to which we have just had to listen. I call it woolly because it was petty and did not get to the deep problems confronting this industry and the nation.
  In the Caribbean at present, and throughout the Commonwealth, there is a real opportunity for a partnership between Britain and those territories, our colonies and associated territories, to secure a large-scale investment by Britain in those territories in the tourist industry, together with a proper partnership with their peoples. It is interesting to reflect that, although the American Virgin Islands are one of the most highly-developed tourist centres adjacent to Puerto Rico, bringing considerable benefit and betterment to their people and a substantial return on investment to the Americans who hold their investment there, the adjacent British Virgin Islands began their investment only this year.
  It is true that this is directed primarily to the Ministry of Overseas Development, but I hope that there is someone in the Board of Trade who has to liaise with that Ministry in these matters. It is interesting that Sir Geoffrey Crowther of Trust Houses is at present traveling
  890
  through about 40 or 50 islands there because his company is merely one of many among private enterprise which recognises the importance of overseas tourist development.
  They have largely been driven overseas, of course, because of the shabby treatment which they have received from this Government, whose policy, far from being what the right hon. Gentleman called "attractive, welcome and satisfying", has been singularly unattractive, hostile and unsatisfactory in cutting the benefits which were hitherto obtained. Trust Houses alone lost £250,000 in one year in expected investment grants. Of course, it is not just S.E.T. but the burdens thrust upon the industry which have led to these difficulties, and they will have to be reversed very quickly.
  Therefore, our businessmen have a real opportunity to go abroad and ensure that Britain has a real common wealth with these overseas territories by substantial investment now, before it is too late and the plums are taken by the Americans and Canadians, as will undoubtedly otherwise happen. I hope that this will apply not merely through the Caribbean but also through our Asian territories, and our former African colonies, where there is an enormous opportunity and where some of our leaders have already recently gone—in territories like Kenya and Tanzania, and elsewhere. One hopes that the politicians there will have the sense to recognise the importance of tourism and of therefore not taking measures inimical to the interests of the developer but working in partnership with him.
  The proper instrument for our overseas policies is the well-tried and extremely effective British Travel Association, a first-class organisation, which is, however, in the difficulty of being a membership organisation, with no statutory powers. It is probably the right body to be given such powers. There are one or two other matters in relation to overseas which I hope it will stress in its work, because they are vital. The first is the need for regular travel agents' conferences here. The American Society of Travel Agents and all the other travel agents' societies must be invited to this country so that they know what sort of package their people will get—what accommodation, amenities and entertainment.

  891
  Second, it is vital to encourage the international conferences, and particularly what is called "incentive group travel". The Americans, wisely, believe that it is to the benefit of their large companies that employees of very large groups of companies should take their holidays overseas as a bonus incentive. The principal recipient country of this bonus can be Britain. I am convinced that I.B.M. and many other large concerns can be persuaded to come to Britain and confer in our major conference hotels or conference rooms. They can take the opportunity to see Britain as a whole, because there is no reason why their conferring should take place only in London. No doubt they would make arrangements to spend the balance of their time here in other parts of the country. It is essential that the Government and the G.L.C. give urgent consideration to providing proper conference accommodation, not only in the Metropolis, but in other major cities.
  I turn now to the home front. There is no doubt that, for a variety of reasons, the political parties, the Government, and the Ministries have hitherto failed the tourist industry in Britain, despite the numerous speeches made in Parliament, and despite the fact that there is an all-party Committee on this subject, which I regret to say very few members of the Labour Party attend and no member of the Liberal Party attends.
  Mr. Hooson: Are we members of the Committee?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes. I, as Chairman of the Committee, got in touch with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who assured us that he would see the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party. We have never seen a member of the Liberal Party. Our Vice-Chairman is a member of the Labour Party and attends fairly regularly, but we do not see other Labour members often. There is a genuine reason for this. Nobody has yet been able to get it across to members of the Labour Party that tourism is the principal great industry of the future for Britain. The Labour Party believes in the horny handed sons of toil: what is done with the hands is manufacturing industry, but in some way or other tourism is not. I believe this view is changing, but very slowly. It is sympto-
  892
  matic of a debate of this kind that the President of the Board of Trade is absent.
  Mr. Archie Manuel:rose—
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I will not give way. I am about to reply to the intervention the hon. Gentleman was about to make. I regret to say that our shadow President of the Board of Trade is ill, otherwise he would undoubtedly have been present. That was what the interjection was to be, I take it.
  Mr. Manuel: No. I wanted to intervene to take up the hon. Gentleman's assertion that members of the Labour Party are not interested in tourism as such. Many of us who come from Scotland have great problems in our constituencies. Though we are interested in tourism, we recognise that it will provide only part-time employment, with idleness in the winter months. We are concerned to get a more stable industry providing more security in Scotland, thus avoiding depopulation from our areas.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I appreciate that point, but it is better to have some employment of a trained nature than none. In Thanet we are delighted to have the benefit of a stable tourist industry.
  On the home front we have not got the right authority at the moment. Governments composed of both parties have appointed committees to co-ordinate Departments. Dr. Charles Hill began this under the Conservatives many years ago. Nobody has succeeded. This policy has not succeeded because of the wide diversity of interests involved—the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on planning; the Ministry of Public Building and Works on historic buildings; the Department of Education and Science for museums; the Treasury; the Board of Trade, dealing primarily with the export angle, and so on. A decision must be taken quickly to give statutory powers to an authority and to secure Ministerial control over a co-ordinated tourist industry. It will have to cover entertainment, sport, the fine arts, and many other aspects.
  How is this to be achieved? I have always been convinced—so has our Committee—that the first thing to be done

  893
  is to have a Select Committee on tourism. On 5th August last the Prime Minister, in reply to a proposal put up with the unanimous support of our Committee, thanked me for my letter of 26th July asking for a Select Committee and said:
  "I cannot at present say precisely when we shall be in a position to have a firm decision about this but it will be soon after the Summer Recess."
  The Prime Minister went on to say that he thought that it was a good and constructive idea, although he made the case that we should not have too many Select Committees. I fully appreciate that point.
  It is essential to get the right structure for the future of the tourist industry. To this end, albeit for a short time—say, a year—a Select Committee should be set up to decide the proper constitution, functions and structure of the industry. I do not believe that this matter should be in the cockpit of party politics. It would be advantageous to have a commitee composed of hon. Members from both sides of the House with power to call witnesses and to send for papers.
  In Ireland there is a separate tourist board set up by Act of Parliament; it comes under their Ministry of Transport. It is almost entirely independent. That board has power for development, to ensure that the financial asistance which is necessary is provided. On the other side, it deals with marketing, marketability and administration. It deals also with the side of things which is at the moment covered in this country largely by the British Travel Association.
  We need some organisation coming under the aegis of the Board of Trade—I believe that to be the right Department to have the overriding power—but which would be largely a separate corporation with statutory powers. We should set up a Select Committee immediately to get on with this urgent task if we are to attract the large number of tourists which Britain can properly accommodate.
  I want there to be effective local authority, because Britain has recently decided to give 90 per cent. of local authority control to the Conservatives. Most of the people coming in are totally without experience of local government. None the less, they are keen that there
  894
  should be effective and dynamic local government. Tourism is one sphere in which local government can be of the greatest assistance. There must be a system of registering accommodation as soon as possible. Thus, we shall need a registering authority. I do not want the registering authority to be a Government Department. On the other hand, the authority will require inspectors. Eire requires only seven inspectors to inspect all its hotels and to see to the grading of accommodation.
  Eire and many other countries—for example, Greece and the Greek Islands—have a supplemental list called a farmhouse list. Not only hotels and boarding houses, but also guest houses and farmhouses, can be registered. This, coupled with local bureaux, would be of immense value.
  There is no reason why now local authorities should not of their own volition set up voluntary schemes to register and grade their accommodation properly and also have local bureaux particularly in places such as Blackpool, Thanet, Folkestone, Eastbourne and Brighton and other areas where there are considerable numbers of tourists. If an hotel or boarding house did not want to be graded by a local authority, it need not be. It would merely lose the publicity. There would be no need for penalties, because if an hotel quoted prices and charges and did not adhere to them, the deterrent would be not to publish its name in the register the next year.
  It is simple to have registration and simple to ensure that it is carried out. It is done in practically every tourist country in the world except here. Unless and until we do it, we cannot assist the travel operators to operate package tours which are necessary and at the same time enable persons to obtain the quality sought. This House should decide the nature of the authority. Meanwhile, local authorities should go ahead with registration and grading. We could then get a good system. Inspectors—centrally controlled by, I suggest, the British Travel Association, or with powers deputed through whatever new authority is set up—would be responsible for examining and grading accommodation and seeing that it reached the necessary national requirements laid down in the criteria.

  895
  We should consider having resort special development areas. In the early part of his speech, the Secretary of State said that we get tied up with general trade development areas, but those are quite different. There may be an area suitable for the expansion of industry which is already a tourist area. At one time Thanet was such an area. We were graded and we obtained a lot of heavy and light industry as a result. The present Government took us off the list. I did not cavil about that at the time, but now clearly an area such as mine would be very suitable as a special tourist area, particularly as we are to open a new hoverport.
  There are similar areas in the Highlands of Scotland and in Wales and it is vital that they should become special resort development areas. I think "resort" is a better name than "tourist". Those areas must be clearly defined. Again, there is a good precedent for this in Eire. Having defined the area, we must decide what grant it should have. Obviously the grant in such an area must be higher than elsewhere. The present grants are no good, any more than the experimental loans scheme was. That was a farce and we told the Government it would not work. Although £5 million was put up, only £1½ million was used and that related to only a few applicants, a dozen I believe.
  The present 20 per cent. grant will not do. The cash scheme for new development must be up to 50 per cent. in what I call special resort development areas. The 50 per cent. would apply only to bedrooms and bathrooms because there must be different rates for amenities which are entertainment advantages and also for staff accommodation, kitchen improvements and matters of that kind. If a new hotel in a special resort area is a real improvement it should qualify for a 50 per cent. cash grant.
  The money could be obtained on the Swiss lines of a credit guarantee scheme, which is excellent. There private enterprise provides the money on the usual criteria, but the guarantee and interest on the loan should be paid by the Government in cases which meet the Government's criteria. This part of the scheme could probably be worked out later in conjunction with the Board of Trade and the new authority. It could be worked
  896
  out by Parliament when the matter is dealt with in Committee. If, on the other hand, the Government insist on making this decision on their own, I greatly hope that at the very latest it will be made by the end of the year for we are losing time very fast.
  I turn to the question of finance and assistance. The country must recognise that this industry must be treated in pari passu as a manufacturing industry. The effect would be that it would be entitled to reclaim S.E.T. I leave that to be argued by hon. Members who are better able to deal with it than I am. Hotel buildings should be defined in the same way as industrial buildings and should be entitled to the allowances which thereby arise. That is why it is important to treat this industry as an industry.
  I emphasise that fixed plant should qualify as machinery and be free from Purchase Tax. Nowadays it is essential to put in new rooms, bathrooms or kitchens. They are not put in with separate furniture but with fixed furniture—fixed basins, baths and so on, attached to the hereditament. No one in Greece or Italy seeks to tax the fixed plant and equipment. Fixed plant and equipment goes into those countries Customs-free. Why should we treat our hoteliers in a way in which the Greeks would not dream of treating theirs? In Spain there is not only a loan for the whole of the building cost but also for all the equipment which goes into the building.
  There must be financial inducement for new development and improvement. We must be blunt about this. The accommodation in this country, in the main, compared with post-war accommodation in other countries is ghastly. There are nothing like enough bathrooms. No American or Canadian, no one from the new world coming to this country, is prepared to stay in an hotel unless it has private baths—except the very poorest element. There must be a cash grant and interest-free loans repayable over a period of years to modernise accommodation and bring it up to required standards. It is said that we need another 50,000 bathrooms in two years. I believe that we could use double that number if we got to the real heart of the problem.
  These ideas are not new. I do not claim to have done anything more than

  897
  read thoroughly and listen carefully to the leaders of the tourist industry in this country and elsewhere. There is not one original thought in what I have said, yet I venture to suppose that there are a good many hon. Members present who find a good deal of fairly new thinking in it. At least, I hope so. There are certainly a good many hon. Members opposite who, if they read what I have said, will regard it as new thinking, at least in part. But it is not.
  I beg the Government to do something. They have a dismal record in almost every field, including this. They can attack the previous Tory Government, if they want to, saying that they did not do much better when they were in office. But we are not interested in that sort of thing. There are dozens of my hon. Friends here now who were not here five years ago, and there will be many more after the next election.
  If we want to get the benefits of devaluation, let us be sure that we go straight ahead, with the right sort of authority having the right statutory powers, making certain that those who are in control have the right to be consulted about planning for tourism. In Thanet, there was the most appalling situation regarding the development of the new hoverport, and we had to wait 18 months for a decision. That is a scandal. The country should recognise the scandal for what it is, that we do not have a system which can deal quickly with vital problems of that kind affecting the nation. I do not blame any particular Minister for that delay. It is all part of the mumbo-jumbo of different Government Departments, higgledy-piggledy, with different rights and interests. Someone must cut through the red tape. The proper place to do it is here in the House of Commons.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: When talking about tourism nowadays, we grace it with the name of industry, and so it is, but it is treated as an underprivileged and poor relation rather than as a serious industry. None the less, it is an industry with enormous potential, particularly at a time when other industries, notably manufacturing industries, are doing rather badly. Our
  898
  internal domestic tourist industry should be at its highest point of potential when there are restrictions on overseas travel and economic restrictions generally affecting people's ability to pay for their holidays.
  When the economic situation improves, with greater ease of travel abroad and a higher standard of living, people should in addition be able to have more than one annual holiday, so that the potential of tourism is by no means temporary. Just as important as its value in the domestic economy, however, is the importance of tourism as a direct contributor to our balance of payments. We are earning through tourism well in excess of £300 million a year both directly and through the travel services which we provide, and the rate of growth in the tourist industry's earning of overseas revenue has been three times as great in recent years as the average increase in physical export earnings. Moreover, there is in tourism little importation of raw materials to be set off against those earnings.
  Often, the areas with high tourist potential are the very areas which have been neglected in the past from the point of view of other types of industrial development. Frequently, therefore, it is areas which have become depopulated and which our regional policies are concerned to stimulate which are precisely the areas which are suitable for tourist development. Our emphasis in the past has been wrong—this is certainly true of Wales—because we have been concerned more with the development and maintenance of manufacturing industry in precisely those areas which are not suitable for manufacturing and in which we should have done far better if we had devoted our incentives and effort to the development of tourism.
  The great handicap in the tourist industry—this is why when we call it an industry, we put the words as it were, in inverted commas—is that it is by no means an organised and co-ordinated industry. It is highly fragmented, with many small units—boarding houses, hotels, the occasional chain of hotels, small villages and small seaside resorts—with the result that it is difficult to get concerted action from within the industry itself.

  899
  The industry is not very good at projecting itself. I had occasion recently to try to help a friend of mine who wanted to go on a riding holiday in North Wales, in my constituency. After many inquiries through the Welsh Tourist Board, and so on, she was told that there were two or three places which seemed to cater for a holiday resident who wanted to have a week's riding holiday. On arrival, however, she found that there were many places which had accommodation alongside riding schools. These places had never got down to advertising themselves in terms of a riding holiday although they were siuated in a part of the country which is highly suitable for it.
  Our concern today, however, is not so much with what is wrong with the industry itself as with what the Government can do to organise and stimulate it. Here, in developing a point which has already been made, I take Wales as an example, though the argument applies equally elsewhere. There is a whole host of bodies and organisations, private and public, which are involved, but there is no cohesive organising force.
  In Wales, thinking in terms of promoting tourism and considering what research has been done, what grants are given and how training is arranged, one finds a whole range of authorities involved—the B.T.A., the Welsh Tourist Board itself, the Rural Development Commission, the National Parks authorities, the local planning authorities, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Sports Council, and so on—all acting frequently not only with a lack of co-ordination on planning, but even with a lack of co-ordination of information.
  It is most important, as has been said already, notably by hon. Members opposite, that if we are to take this industry seriously, we must break through and think in terms of one controlling body. It could be a private corporation, though I should prefer to see a Government body, but it must be responsible for planning the facilities and resources, for encouraging investment, for involving itself in investment, for training and for covering all the activities connected with tourism.
  I had an opportunity recently to look at the development going on in Southern
  900
  Italy. I looked particularly at the Gargano Peninsula, a peninsula of immense scenic beauty, but which, until comparatively recently, had been hardly populated and had few public services. As a result of the work of the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno, the area has now been opened up and an infrastructure developed, with a road built along the whole Gargano coast through pine trees where previously there was no road at all. While I was there a little while ago, there was hardly any traffic save the traffic of contractors carrying materials for hotels, holiday sites and so on. All this is being done where previously there has been nothing.
  On the whole question of the infrastructure, I feel that the approach of the Ministry of Transport to expenditure on roads, which is based on a formula depending on traffic accidents and delay, is quite inadequate for the tourist areas. What matters in many areas is the construction of promotional roads. We shall not get the development—this is true for tourism as for any other industry—without putting the roads there first. In the Gargano Peninsula, on the other hand, one saw the results of overall planning. The maintenance of standards and of co-ordinated planning was controlled, as was the granting of money and the raising of other revenue, by the one development organisation, the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno.
  We need in Wales to think in terms of that kind of body. The new Welsh Council will have an as yet a somewhat undefined responsibility for tourism in Wales. There is hope there and I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Wales is here this afternoon. I hope that we shall hear something later about what it can do to break through the medley of bodies and organisation involved in tourism in Wales.
  But what are we doing now, and what is wrong with the kind of encouragement and impetus we are giving to the tourist industry? It seems to be a poor relation. Whatever another industry gets, tourism may get after a lot of campaigning and wrangling. Development areas were designated as areas where it was considered possible to stimulate manufacturing industry. That is the basic error. There is a myth that the

  901
  only important thing is the development of manufacturing industries, as though services were less important, whereas certain industries, such as tourism, are almost entirely service industries.
  When we had the Industrial Development Act, which provided reasonable grants for manufacturing industries generally, and very good grants for manufacturing industries within development areas, but there was nothing for the tourist industry. There was very properly a tremendous clamour from tourist interests and after a while we got grants for hotels that could show they were particularly attractive to overseas visitors. But the whole point about making our hotels attractive to overseas visitors is that the development and the improvement should take place first, rather than the hotels' first proving themselves to be attractive. The standards in many parts of Wales are such that we cannot be attractive to overseas visitors without first undertaking considerable capital expenditure.
  On 9th February this year we had an announcement of assistance for small hotels. That was fine, but again it was within development areas. This does not really meet the problem. We pay lip service to being out to help the tourist industry, but have confined ourselves to working through the framework of the development areas.
  On 20th March there was the very welcome news of pretty good grants and loans for hotels—20 per cent. grants outside development areas and 25 per cent. inside them. I am glad that there was no more than a 5 per cent. difference between the two. This is coming nearer to sanity.
  Then we come to the whole question of S.E.T. As with the Industrial Development Act, there was the assumption that the important thing to stimulate in the development areas is manufacturing industry. After a while it has been realised—we have realised it in North Wales—that one just cannot get industry into some areas—yet they may be areas which are tremendously suitable for the development of tourism. So the first stage was that tourism was excluded completely. Then we had the welcome news that certain areas within development
  902
  areas would be exempted from S.E.T., on the basis of their being important tourist areas, in other words, areas with a low percentage of manufacturing employment.
  One sees in the Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Macintosh) last Monday about the percentage of people in manufacturing industries in each of the local employment areas that in many of them in the Welsh development area the manufacturing population is under 20 per cent. Yet one of them, Beaumaris in Anglesey, has 52 per cent. of the employed population in manufacturing industries, and yet it gets it curiously. I am of course very happy that it does get this particular exemption from paying S.E.T. and that Conway in my constituency gets it. But separate figures are not available. The Department does not know separately how many people there are in manufacturing industries, in hotels and restaurants in Conway, but it gets the exemption.
  How does one get the figures for Conway? I approached the Board of Trade this morning and was told the figures are lumped together with Llandudno, but Llandudno is outside a development area and Conway is inside. So I get the figures for Llandudno, which is in my constituency but outside a development area and for Conway, which is just inside the development area. The overall figure is 21 per cent. working in manufacturing industries, which is fairly low. Taking Llandudno on its own, from my knowledge of the area, I can say that a large percentage of the manufacturing workers are in Conway and in Llandudno Junction rather than Llandudno. The ratio for Llandudno I would put on a fairly liberal estimate at about 14 per cent.
  This means that of the 32 areas in Wales which are given this exemption, Llandudno has a lower manufacturing percentage than 19 of them. In other words, in terms of its dependence on tourism, Llandudno, which is outside a development area, has a greater reliance on tourism than 19 of the 32 areas within the development areas which were given exemption from S.E.T., which is pretty rough on the town of Llandudno and indeed on the whole North Wales tourist coast, which is outside the development area.

  903
  The original argument is sound. If one were after developing manufacturing industry it makes some sort of sense to say that Llandudno, Rhyl and so on do not want manufacturing industries. They are tourist areas. Give them all the incentives to set up industry and one may weaken their tourist position. But once one has gone a stage further and realised that in many development areas it is through tourism that one should stimulate them, one finds that one has left these places out on a limb, for they are just as dependent on tourism as are the other areas which we now see are dependent on it within the development areas.
  The town of Llandudno is almost entirely dependent on tourism. Other hon. Members could mention many instances of their own. The N.E.D.C. report lists the profitability of the hotel industry as 2 per cent. lower than that of manufacturing industry. We can take that as being pretty average. Llandudno is dependent on an industry which is not as profitable as manufacturing industry. It has colossally high winter unemployment of over 10 per cent., although I grant that the summer employment figures are very high. It gives employment to an area which is largely in the development area. Many of those who work in Llandudno during the summer live in the development area, but their employers pay S.E.T. for them. There is a virtual close-down of the hotel industry in tourist areas during the winter, but key staff, such as chefs, must be kept throughout the winter, virtually unemployed, and S.E.T. must be paid in respect of them.
  If we are to take seriously the development of this industry generally rather than merely in development areas we should examine this matter. Can the boundaries be changed? I am very doubtful. I do not think that it would make a great deal of sense to bring many more areas into development areas. That would give rise to many problems. This implies that if we are taking tourism seriously, our attitude to incentives and exemptions should not be confined within development area boundaries. When we look at the situation on either side of the boundaries, we see that inside people in manufacturing industry get the
  904
  Regional Employment Premium and tourism is helped. To them that have, shall be given. Outside those areas, from them that have not, shall be taken away by S.E.T. what they do have. This is a very serious situation. If we are to do anything about this Cinderella among our industries, which we call an industry but do not treat as one, the Government must act as Prince at the right time and convert it into what it can and should be.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: No one in this House, certainly not hon. Members opposite, will have much doubt that the balance of payments is the crucial political problem facing the country. Indeed, the political lives of hon. Members opposite and the life of their party may depend on the Government getting it straight in the next two to three years. Yet it is quite obvious that, in respect of the tourist trade, which offers far the biggest opportunity for increasing earnings, we are simply not coping.
  The speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland was full of good will but did not offer much to tourism and it will not be read with much enlightenment tomorrow. I suspect that the tone of back-bench speeches from both sides will be very different. Judging by what has been said so far, there is obvious concern and a great deal of thought, and a number of interesting ideas have been put forward. Judging also by the nods I have seen from them at various times in the debate, hon. Members opposite, as well as my hon. Friends who will take part, will have something to contribute to the ideas for increasing our earnings, and increasing them quickly, in the years to come.
  There is a great opportunity before us. At this moment we are turning tourists away in London, Stratford-on-Avon and Edinburgh—American tourists who could bring in valuable dollars. But they simply cannot be accommodated.
  Sir Charles Taylor: What evidence has my hon. Friend for that statement?
  Mr. Miscampbell: I am referring to newspaper reports. I am not in a travel agency so I must rely on newspaper reports. I understand that the tourist industry was unable to provide accommodation for package tours earlier this

  905
  year. There is a growing need for rooms in the middle range and middle category hotels at reasonable cost all over the tourist areas—indeed, all over the country.
  We have a rich country to sell—lovely countryside, the greatest theatre, wonderful castles and magnificent views. The opportunity is limitless. At the moment we get 3½ million tourists a year. It could go up to 5 million a year. But here again the Secretary of State was complacent. He said that the Selective Employment Tax was not really hurting, and he gave figures. But the truth is that we are bottom of the European league in tourism, which is a growing industry. We are bottom there as in so many other things.
  We are failing to take the opportunities before us. As a Conservative, I cannot bring myself to believe, and I am sure that I should not believe, that it is for the Government alone to help. But the primary effort must come from the Government for certain reasons. Tax is of vital importance to the industry and this lies entirely within the province of the Government. Transport, too, is largely within the control of the Government. The law, in relation to opening hours, catering and wages, is also within the province of the Government. All these are vital features if there are to be changes in the tourist industry.
  But the industry must play its part. It should make a sustained attempt—as there has been in many areas—to provide much more variety and better meals. We need far better services. For example, when one gets to an American city or lands at its airport, there is a battery of free telephones. One simply picks one up and is connected directly to an hotel. I believe that there are some such facilities at London Airport but they are on nothing like the scale one finds even in the smaller towns in the United States. In America, there is also a central booking bureau at an airport so that, if one cannot find an hotel room oneself, the bureau can put one on to other hotels which may be able to provide rooms. We need this sort of system not only in London but in all our great cities and towns.
  Do we pay enough attention to the provision of proper language and trans-
  906
  lation facilities? Can one honestly say that the foreign traveller coming here will be greeted by brochures in his own language, giving him the information he needs about his hotel and the surrounding district and its facilities? The answer is that, with some shining exceptions, we simply do not provide such standards of facility. Nowhere will professionalism pay off more effectively in this country than a high standard of professional and managerial training by the tourist industry. But that is the industry's problem and the Government can help only in a small way.
  We need also to help and develop the package tour, so common all over the continent and in the rest of the world. We have it here as well but on a much smaller scale than elsewhere. The British Travel Association has one person looking into the question of package tours and he has done great work, but the fact that there is only one person in the B.T.A. looking after this aspect is symptomatic of the general lack of effort in this direction.
  There are other things which the industry can do to help itself. Resorts can provide amenities. I think immediately, of course, of Blackpool and the amenities which it provides in the lights paid for by the rates, and for conferences and all that goes to make it a great resort.
  We should also ensure that we sell Britain all the year round and not just in the summer. We have plenty of opportunities for giving a great boost to our tourist industry during the winter months as well, but that will need warm, comfortable hotels if it is to be done.
  What should the Government do? No doubt I shall be echoing much of what has been said and much of what will be said but there is no harm in the Government hearing it again. The whole thing comes down to money. It is no coincidence that Majorca has changed in 15 years from having 50 hotels to 1,500. It was not just because of the sun. It is due to the fact that the Spanish Government have poured money into the hotel industry in various ways.
  We must not continue to treat our tourist indusry as the Cinderella of our export industries. If we are to profit from the position which exists, there must be a complete reversal in attitude by the

  907
  Government. Small grants while helpful and welcome are not enough. We need a complete change. It is remarkable that while hotels pay S.E.T., which is an increasing tax, at the same time out of another pocket the Government try by grants and loans to make these hotels viable. This does not make sense.
  Are grants paid only in respect of the number of bedrooms in a hotel? For example, is it possible for a Victorian hotel to increase the number of bathrooms—and in so doing perhaps reduce the number of bedrooms—and qualify for grant? Whatever the position, any loans that are made for this type of work must be on terms very different from those offered under the old scheme. It seems incredible that while the new scheme started at the end of March—with the old scheme having been extended until that time—we still do not know what is to happen under it. We have been told that legislation is awaited, but in the meantime those concerned in the industry are being advised to keep all receipts in the hope that they will qualify under the scheme. One does not know if one will qualify under it and at present it is rather like working on the Income Tax principle of keeping all receipts in the hope that a few of them will be useful at a later date. This is not the way in which the Government should be seeking to help this great foreign currency earning industry.
  What should the Government be doing to help the industry? A number of things require doing immediately. We now have an opportunity made all the more vital because of devaluation. I understand that it is now cheaper to stay in London than in any other European capital city. I should like to see a Minister whose sole responsibility would be the tourist industry. I appreciate that the Minister of State is keenly interested in the subject, but we see him so frequently at the Dispatch Box answering debates on various subjects and we know that he has a myriad of other problems with which to contend that it is obvious that he cannot, with the best will in the world, devote as much time as he might wish to the tourist industry. Why do we have Ministers for industries which lose money and none for an industry which could earn us a great deal of money?
  908
  I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for the Island of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) when he asked for a greatly strengthened tourist board and suggested that the D.T.A. could be strengthened to provide what is needed. It is important that we have a board which is representative of the broad spectrum of the industry. It should have certain statutory powers of inspection and be capable of doing the necessary research. What is the use of trying to forward the industry without having the facts and figures on which investment can be based? No other industry would seek to carry on in that way. Nobody else would make investment uninvestigated. Why should this industry be left in this position? As with so many aspects of British industry, it would be helpful if we had some hard, well-researched figures, and such a strengthened board could conduct that research.
  We have been warned off the subject of S.E.T., but I must comment on it briefly, if only to say that in this case a clear distinction should be made between industries in development areas and the tourist industry and S.E.T. should be completely removed from it everywhere. I suggest that the tourist industry should be treated as a manufacturing industry, and that is the crux of all the financial incentives for which I would ask. If it is treated in that way, S.E.T. would go, but more important other factors would come in. The industry would receive industrial allowances and these would be extended to cover hotel buildings, and I see no reason why depreciation should not apply in the ordinary way, as though an hotel was an industrial building. The same can be said of investment grants. Is it too much to ask that an industry which could be so profitable if it were not so taxed should not be given grants and enabled to generate its money? Investment grants for equipment and furnishings would be extremely valuable.
  For the past 15 or 20 years hon. Members representing Blackpool have asked both Conservative and Labour Governments for Purchase Tax not to be applied to the equipment and goods used in hotels. This request has so far been turned down, but I urge the Government not to regard the tourist industry as a service industry but as a manufacturing industry and to give Purchase tax relief.

  909
  The Secretary of State said that it was difficult to distinguish between hotels which were high foreign currency earners and other hotels. While I entirely agree, one should not forget that, while many London hotels earn 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of their revenue in foreign currency, while others produce very little by that means, even those which do not earn a great deal of foreign currency are directly concerned with currency saving because they provide holidays at home and so save our balance of payments. I hope, therefore, that as a result of this debate further thought will be given to the need for change in attitude on the part of the Government and the need for looking at the tourist industry, aside from the development areas, as a potentially great foreign currency earner which should be treated as a manufacturing industry and given the tax reliefs which go with such industries.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Dr. Gray.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. I seek your help, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not intervene earlier, because I did not want to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) in his speech. On the Order Paper today appears a Motion in connection with a Bill on prices and incomes, which was presented after Question Time. Several hon. Members have been asking for copies of the Bill at the Vote Office and have been told that copies are not available and that they are not expected until tomorrow.
  This is extraordinary, because at present there is on the tape an indication of precisely what the Bill contains. The House will be placed in an invidious position if the Bill and its details are available outside before the Bill is available to hon. Members. Could you expedite the availability of the Bill in the Vote Office, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a matter for the Government. However, I will have the matter inquired into.
  6.9 p.m.
  Dr. Hugh Gray: Few of my constituents would agree that Great
  910
  Yarmouth follows Blackpool, but certainly the two towns have many similar problems. I agreed with virtually everything said by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) although my constituency is not confined to Great Yarmouth in that it contains a portion of the Norfolk Broads, and the problems of this area are somewhat different.
  There is a consensus between back bench Members on both sides of the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North that we should become professionals about tourism. We should have a Minister, I should say a junior Minister at the Board of Trade, who expressly concerns himself with this subject. We need a co-ordinating body with statutory powers, and there is a case for giving them to the British Travel Association and for greatly enlarging it. In the past, it has done excellent work, particularly in London. Its work of regulation has not been confined to travel but has extended, in conjunction with the Guild of Guide Lecturers, to guiding in London. A professional service in guiding is provided in London and many other cities.
  I regret that the Association does not have provincial offices, and I look forward to the time when such offices are opened. That cannot be done without more money, and I see the point that this money should be tied to the earning of invisible exports. But we can be sure that if money is spent on promoting tourism more tourists will come to this country.
  The British Travel Association still has much too little money to spend on advertising, particularly on the Continent. A thin stream of French tourists come to Great Yarmouth from Rambouillet, but that is as a result of the town being "twinned" with Rambouillet and not through any advertising effort made in the town by the Association. We have a trickle of tourists from Holland. The number will certainly increase once the passenger service which is mooted between Great Yarmouth and Holland is in operation and as a result of the "roll-on, roll-off" service which has been installed. Advertising in Holland of the tourist attractions which Great Yarmouth and the Norfolk Broads and the great City of Norwich can offer should be extended.

  911
  It has been said that there should be a sufficiency of entertainment. Nobody can grumble about the amount of entertainment in Blackpool and Great Yarmouth. There are in Yarmouth shows with the great stars of music hall and the theatre. There is a struggling repertory theatre, bingo, dancing and gambling. Many may think—and I sympathise with them—that it is going a little too far when the local council proposes that the Floral Hall in Gorleston-on-Sea should be made into an amusement arcade. But a council which engages in many municipal enterprises must consider whether they pay.
  I welcome the suggestion that there should be at local level a registry of hotels and lodgings, which should be graded. Local authorities should be encouraged to develop the consumer's point of view. The weights and measures inspectorate in certain local authorities—Bristol, for example—actively invites consumer complaints. I should like to see local councils doing the same thing in respect of tourists and visitors who are dissatisfied with the lodgings which they are offered.
  Steps towards regulation have already been taken by forward looking councils like the County Borough of Great Yarmouth. Because it controls the advertisement in the town guide, which is sent to thousands of people each year, it has insisted that discrimination on racial grounds should not be exercised. It refused to accept an advertisement from a private hotel keeper until he was ready to give an assurance that he would not exercise discrimination. This is very praiseworthy, not only because action was taken on that ground, but because it shows that a great deal can be done by local authorities in regulating what happens in their towns.
  I add my voice to those of hon. Members who have appealed to local authorities to do more to attract tourists. I welcomed very strongly the Civic Amenities Bill of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). He has done much to preserve our historical buildings heritage in tourist areas such as the Norfolk Broads and to ensure that trees are not felled unnecessarily. But the Government should do much more about preserving wild life and nature. They should
  912
  reinforce the efforts made by local authorities towards this end.
  I find the Good Food Guide overoptimistic in what it says about the restaurants in my constituency. I am sorry that many of our regional dishes are disappearing. For example, Yarmouth bloaters are famous, but I should not like to guess how many of those which are eaten are Yarmouth bloaters. In fact, many come from Scandinavia and other places outside my constituency. One reads "Norfolk turkey" on the menu of almost every restaurant, but these turkeys are frozen birds and do not have the taste which one expects to find in a Norfolk turkey which has been reared in a free-ranging way. Far too many vegetables are frozen.
  It is almost impossible to find a restaurant to which one can take friends for good traditional Norfolk fare. It is practically impossible to find Norfolk dumplings. Norfolk cider is disappearing and can be found only at one or two country "pubs". If we are to interest tourists to come from France and other Continental countries, restaurant and hotel proprietors must realise that it is extremely important to offer regional dishes and to get rid of the myth that only breakfast and tea are worth eating in this country.
  That brings me to the attitude of a few boarding-house owners towards holidaymakers. Incredible though it may seem, holidaymakers are sometimes required after breakfast, even on rainy and cold days, to leave their lodgings and are allowed to return only for high tea in the late afternoon. When I took this point up with a constituent, she said, "They are not staying in hotels. If they want to be in their room all day, they must go to a hotel. They cannot come to a boarding-house".
  This is taking advantage of a very advantageous situation. Although I should not attribute this directly to Government policy, I am told that in Great Yarmouth bookings are greatly up this year on previous years and that more British holidaymakers are expected than last year or the year before. But we must attract foreign holidaymakers.
  I was recently discussing those who come to seaside towns for their holidays with a psychiatrist. He said that they

  913
  fell into certain categories. He said that one group of people went to a town once and always returned to it. It was a traumatic experience for them even to venture away from their homes once and therefore they always returned to the same place and sometimes to the same hotel. Secondly, there are people who go to the same town but not the same hotel. Thirdly, there are people who change towns and countries. One reason why more and more holidaymakers go abroad is not only because they are Mediterranean addicts like myself, and want hot sun and cheap wine, but because they appreciate the cooking and the facilities offered. Proprietors in this country will increasingly have to compete and this is something which they must do for themselves.
  However, in the broader aspects it is up to the Government, and I hope the Government will take note of the consensus which has appeared and from both sides of the House. I am very sorry to see that there are not more Ministers present for this debate. I have already mentioned entertainments which are offered in Great Yarmouth by both municipal and private enterprise, and I am very disappointed not to see here the Minister who is responsible for the arts, because one of her jobs should be providing more serious entertainment for those who live in the provinces.
  I deeply regret that symphony orchestras are not required to tour, as part of their responsibility in return for receiving Government grants, and the same is true of theatre companies, ballet companies, opera companies, which should be out and about in the summer seasons, going into the regions where there is tourism, giving performances in the open air and in any buildings which are available. That is something which the Minister should give her mind to, apart from the university of the air, which we all welcome.
  We must make this country vital and attractive from the point of view of those who are going to come here from abroad for their holidays, and also from the point of view of those in this country who think of holidaying here rather than going elsewhere.
  There is, of course, also the regional aspect which is an inescapable one. I
  914
  hope the Government will move away from the dichotomy of development and non-development areas. I come from an area in which average earnings are extremely low—15 per cent. less than they are in other parts of the country. I come from an area in which male workers in manufacturing industry are paid less for a longer working week than is the case in any other region in Great Britain. Of course, like all other resort areas, we have a winter unemployment problem.
  I do not wish to see the Government pouring money into tourism alone, and in Great Yarmouth the development of light industries as alternative sources of employment has been greatly welcomed, but I would reinforce what a previous speaker said about information. It seems to me that we must produce the statistics which apply to smaller areas. We must have statistics available for Norfolk as a county, not for East Anglia as a whole, which includes the north-eastern area of London and other prosperous areas so that the statistics give a completely false picture of average wages. We must have pictures of what is happening in particular towns. That is why I for one welcome strongly the Government action in setting up regional planning councils. These councils will provide such statistics, and then the Government could, if they chose, as I hope they will, to set up a tourist board with necessary statutory powers so that all the information would be available on which it would be able to act.
  I did not enjoy what the Secretary of State said. It struck me as far too narrowly concerned with Scotland, his particular area. Of course, he is a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in Scotland, but he should have been speaking of Great Britain as a whole. He did not present the broad view of policy we had expected, and I hope very much that, when the Minister of State replies tonight, he will make good this omission.
  6.23 p.m.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: I hope the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) will not think me rude if I do not follow him into the wide-ranging and somewhat discursive remarks which he made, though I would join him in one thing he said, and to show my impartiality

  915
  I would go further and say a slight word of censure on both Front Bench speakers. I thought that, certainly for much of the time, it seemed as though we were taking part in a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee, and they did not deal as much as they might with those other parts of the country where the tourist industry is even more important than it is in those delightful places north of the Border of which we have heard so much this afternoon.
  I say straightaway that I am concerned, as also is my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) with the tourist industry down in the South-West, and for one quite overriding reason which I think most of my hon. Friends and hon Gentleman opposite, too, will understand, and that is, that whereas the tourist industry elsewhere in Britain is very often an adjunct to other means of livelihood, with the solitary exception of agriculture and a very small number of secondary industries, tourism is the lifeblood of the West Country.
  There is one specific overriding issue which has not received nearly enought attention in the debate so far, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton mentioned it, and that is the need to improve communications. There were three methods of getting to the West Country. We used to have an air service, but, unfortunately, it packed up. One hopes that either a private company or B.E.A. will find it possible to open an air transport system down to the South-West, for I think that all hon. Members will agree that it is much needed.
  Then it is fair to say, although I am not particularly a lover of nationalised industries, that British Railways have done a pretty good job in the South-West, particularly on the main lines down to Torbay, Plymouth and Exeter. If hon. Members have specific objections to raise about some local lines they will probably make them in due course, but, on the whole, and particularly with the new timetables, I do not think one can grumble too much about the way British Railways are doing their best to help communications in the South-West.
  The story of the roads is really quite another matter, and it really is no good for the Minister, speaking earlier, to
  916
  dismiss this with just a flap of his hand, coming to the House and telling us what the Government are doing for the tourist industry and then, when my hon. Friend raised the one most important single feature for the country's prosperity, saying it is a broader issue. If the Government claim to give a high priority to the tourist industry why is it that roadworks elsewhere are going on much faster, even in a time of stringent financial conditions, than they are in the South-West?
  I want to be very brief because it is only right that on a matter like this we should get a wide range of views from the whole range of tourist resorts, and not from one specific area only, and so I will come straight away to this point. The time has surely come for there to be a really serious appraisal by the Government of the tourist industry. Heaven knows, I am not pleading for the appointment of yet another commission or committee, but Departmentally there could be a reappraisal of the tourist industry as a whole and how we are to evaluate it.
  Each hon. Gentleman who has spoken so far has made the perfectly fair point, so I need not repeat it in more than a sentence, and that is the importance above all of the dual need, first of all to earn more foreign currency directly, to help the balance of payments, and, secondly, to attract our own people to take their holidays at home in the various parts of the country and so save the spending of money overseas. Both these factors are important.
  It is when we look at how the Government contemplate the tourist industry that we see that the lesson of these two factors has not been in any way appreciated. We were told at the beginning by the Secretary of State that it is not just a matter of S.E.T. No one has suggested that it is just a matter of S.E.T., but I am sure that the hoteliers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) are not wholly different from those in my constituency and that it is most unlikely that those initials have not been mentioned in his hearing in his part of the world.
  It is not the be all and end all of everything, but it is fair to say that this industry to which the Government claim

  917
  to attach importance has been given a body blow by S.E.T., a body blow which was already bad enough before it was decided to increase its force by 50 per cent. in the last Budget, and though grants are given, in various amounts in different places, when this tax is the most noticeable fiscal burden which the industry has to carry, for the Government then to say that they are giving this industry priority and have done a lot for it is to try to make a fool out of this House.
  If there is one single solution which the Government could apply to help this industry it would be drastically to reduce S.E.T. It would be better still to abolish it altogether in which case I am sure the industry would breathe a sigh of relief. Of all the items of taxation and Government policy of which the industry complains this is the greatest, and to get rid of this fiscal burden would be to achieve more for the industry by one act than could be achieved by any other measure.
  Earlier on, both the shadow Minister on our side of the House and the Scottish Minister who replied expressed pleasure that our tourist industry is improving from the point of view of foreigners. Although it is satisfactory to see how many people are coming here and how much money is spent, if one looks at the league tables of what is happening in European and other competitive countries, then our performance is not so striking. Once again, we are not doing as well relatively as they are. It is no good talking about absolute figures. A given number of people go on tourist ventures, and at the moment our share proportionately is dropping off compared with some of our competitors.
  We have a unique advantage for foreign visitors, which is not necessarily a permanent one. It is very advantageous for them, particularly for those from across the Atlantic, to stop off in London before deciding which continental country they wish to go on to. This is a bit of geographical luck for us, which is not likely to be permanent, since airlines go in for competitive ways of taking visitors from the New World directly to the place they want to go to.
  I do not want to underrate the efforts which are made by the British Hotels and Restaurants Association, but the
  918
  league tables show that we are not doing nearly as well as many of our competitors, and there is no reason why this should be so.
  I said that I would be brief, and 1 will therefore conclude my remarks with just one plea. I hope that it will not be said at the end of the debate that hon. Members on this side of the House keep coming back to S.E.T., but if the tourist industry is now regarded as playing such an important rôle in the balance of payments, there is no logical excuse for making it suffer under such a burden. If such a burden were to be imposed on manufacturers, there would be revolt throughout all the constituencies concerned, and we all know this.
  Therefore, although it is too late this year, let us hope that before long the Government will come to their senses. Remember, looking back over 60 years, there is only one year when we have enjoyed a favourable balance of trade, without the benefit of invisible earnings as opposed to just direct exports. The most important invisible earnings are represented by the tourist industry. Although the Government are alive to the situation, they could do a great deal more than has been done up to now to ensure to the tourist industry success and prosperity for the future.
  6.34 p.m.
  Dr. John Dunwoody: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), because he has raised some of the problems of South-West England which I shall touch on, although I want to avoid making purely constituency or regional points.
  Those working in the tourist industry in my constituency in West Cornwall certainly have mentioned to me the letters S.E.T. In agreeing with many things which have been said by the hon. Member for Torquay, I would underline the all-party nature of the approach of those of us who have a tourist interest in our constituencies.
  I regret the strictures made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on Labour Members of Parliament. I believe that every hon. Member of this House who has tourist interests in his constituency, irrespective of party, has over the years to the best

  919
  of his ability tried to further the tourist industry.
  Tourism is a major industry. Although it is not a manufacturing industry in the true sense of the word, it is an industry that stands comparison with engineering and car manufacturing. It is also increasingly a highly competitive industry. It has become a professional business. A generation ago the tourist industry was a part-time occupation, and anyone could run a pub, a hotel or a boarding-house. This is not so today.
  The industry is competitive in every town and in every county. There is considerable competition between the different regions. We have seen some indications of that during this debate. There is also international competition that exerts very considerable pressure on the industry in Britain.
  Despite these considerable pressures, we now earn well over £200 million a year in foreign currency from foreign visitors. It is a figure that is rising steadily, and it underlines the economic importance of the industry, not just to certain parts of the country, but to the nation as a whole.
  The opportunities of the tourist industry are enormously increased as a result of devaluation. Devaluation has made holidays in Britain cheaper for most visitors from abroad. It has also made holidays abroad a little more expensive for us in Britain. There is a marginal benefit to the British tourist industry from the £50 limit. The tourist industry does not particularly welcome the £50 limit. We have to stand on our own feet on merit alone, rather than as a result of financial measures that may be necessary from the economic point of view.
  I do not go so far as some people in pushing the idea of holidays at home. Last year was the International Tourist Year, and it is very much in the interest of the tourist industry of this country that more and more people should travel around the world for their holidays, and that more and more foreign visitors should come here. This interchange is good not only from the economic point of view, it also has considerable social and educational advantages. We do not want to become xenophobic in this, any more than in any other matter.
  920
  Most of our discussion today has centred around the place of the Government, and on whether the Government are or are not doing enough. This is a very important part of our discussions, but it should not blind us to the fact that the industry itself must do considerably more to put its own house completely in order.
  There is an enormously wide range of standards in the British tourist industry today. In certain parts of the country, and in certain parts of the industry, standards are phenomenally high. They are amongst the highest, if not the highest, in the world. Some luxury hotels provide a quality of service and accommodation which cannot be matched anywhere else in the world, and it is provided very often at a much cheaper rate than elsewhere. In the same way there is simpler accommodation in isolated parts of the country which is of a remarkably high standard, providing good food, simply cooked, and clean accommodation. But one does not always find these high standards.
  Although there have been remarkable improvements in the last five or ten years in British hotels and restaurants, they still can on occasions plumb the depths, and one can get the most appalling and shocking experiences when travelling around the country. The worst British hotels are still over-priced for the service which they offer. Some supposedly luxury hotels are supercilious in their attitude towards customers, and one can still find accommodation which is not as clean or as satisfactorily equipped as it should be. One can find meals that remind one that we are only just coming out of the gastronomic gloom that settled on the country in the last world war. We find food that is nutritionally valueless and meals that are culinary disasters.
  During the season an area is saturated with tourists and prices are increased. But they must eat and they must go somewhere. Prices are sometimes stepped up artificially. Although this may produce a short-term economic benefit to an area, in the long term it can do considerable damage to the British industry.
  We must look at the kind of meals served. I am alarmed, when I go into a medium grade hotel at 8.30 in the evening, to be told that there is no food

  921
  available. If we are to become competitive in this international tourist market we have to mend our ways.
  I do not want to go into the question of licensing hours, but I am alarmed when I go into a hotel for a meal on a Sunday evening in Mid-Wales, for example, and I find that the people at the next table are having wine with their meal, and I am not allowed to have any alcoholic refreshment because I have arrived by car and am intending to go on somewhere else.
  We must also look at the attitude adopted by the tourist industry in certain cases to children. There are signs of change. One big chain of hotels in the last few weeks has announced that it will no longer charge for accommodation for children who share their parents' bedroom. In many hotels, not only is one charged for children but charged at least as much as for an adult, irrespective of how their accommodation is arranged. It should be remembered that it would be in the interests of the industry to reduce prices a little when a family with three or four children stay in a hotel. It must not be forgotten that the children of today are the hotel customers of tomorrow. In this respect, the contrast with some European tourist areas is quite sharp.
  I believe that tourism is an industry with a considerable future, but we must do more to maintain and improve standards in British hotels. In that connection, I think that the Government could do a little more than they are at present. We hardly know what a hotel is. One almost feels that a person can put up a sign in front of his house announcing that he is running a hotel. It may not be quite as simple as that, but more attention should be paid to the definitions of such words as "hotel". In the last few years, motoring organisations and other groups have done a great deal in the way of classifying accommodation, but more still could be done. The Government could give a lead. The interests of the consumer are not always borne in mind as much as they should be.
  The British Travel Association has an important part to play in all this, and a number of hon. Members have suggested setting up some kind of board with statutory powers to deal with tourism. We
  922
  have had suggestions about the registration of accommodation so that the tourist can be guaranteed the standard that he can expect to find. These are all areas which the Board of Trade would be well advised to look at for some progress.
  Unlike some hon. Members, I welcome what I believe to be the real and positive proposals in the Budget, bearing in mind the economic situation which we face at the moment. In a Budget where over £900 million is raised in extra taxation, it is encouraging that it has been found possible to introduce measures which I believe will help the tourist industry. We have had hotel development incentives of one sort and another in the way of development grant and loan assistance. These will help develop new hotels and extensions to existing hotels, quite apart from other improvements.
  I am pleased that they are to be tied to hotels providing adequate accommodation for the overnight, short-term visitor, who arrives without a booking. As hon. Members have said, tourism is changing. People do not want static holidays where they spend a week or a fortnight in one place. They want to move round and spend two or three days here and there. They do not want to have to plan an itinerary before leaving home. We have to provide the sort of accommodation which will match this changing trend because, if we do not, our Continental rivals will.
  We are told that we are to have a White Paper and that legislation will follow. It is urgent that the White Paper should be published in the not too distant future, and that our large and important tourist industry should not be left in the dark too long. I hope that we shall be given some idea of when it is to be published.
  I turn now to Selective Employment Tax, which has reared its ugly head in nearly every speech. I believe that there is a certain amount of exaggeration about the damaging effects that it is having on the tourist industry, just as there is exaggeration about the benefit that the S.E.T. concession will provide to the industry in the development areas. It is a welcome concession, but it does not help to exaggerate the benefit which will be derived from it. I agree that there is considerable benefit to certain limited

  923
  and more remote rural areas, but the greatest significance of the concession for certain rural parts of the development areas is that it brings to an end the rather rigid S.E.T. classification practice, and we have now an admission that what may be right in terms of classification for one part of the country is not necessarily right for another part. A precedent has been created which cannot be limited to just this one industry, of course, and we look forward to the inclusion of other industries where the same geographical distinctions can be made.
  During our debate, we have perhaps tended to concentrate too much on hotels and accommodation. We forget that the majority of tourists tend to stay in boarding houses, in establishments offering bed and breakfast, or they have caravan or camping holidays. We have to look to the facilities that we provide for caravans and camping, because sometimes we compare unfavourably with our competitors. For the last six or eight years, I have taken camping holidays with my three young children, usually abroad, but not always. Generally, the facilities provided in this country are very poor, and there is a great deal of room for improvement.
  We have talked about the registration of hotel and boarding house accommodation, but something along these lines is long overdue for camping sites. As the responsible Department, I would like to see the Board of Trade taking the initiative here. There is an international trend, towards this sort of holiday which will continue as hotel accommodation becomes more expensive. There are virtues in it for those with younger children who do not fit into an hotel environment quite as well as adults. It has another desirable feature in that it spreads the economic advantages of tourism. In this way, not only the hoteliers benefit, because the advantages are spread over a wider community.
  I am glad that one of my hon. Friends mentioned the National Trust, which has done a great deal of useful work. Our National Parks could be tourist attractions to a greater extent than they are at present, although they would be even more attractive if we could get rid of some of the firing ranges and Ministry
  924
  of Defence establishments which clutter some of them. In that connection, I should like to see the development of more picnic sites along our main roads in tourist areas. Along the roads of our Continental competitors, there are picnic sites every few miles, with rough wooden tables and benches. In this country we tend to sit on wet grass and dirty newspapers when we picnic.
  Then I come to publicity. One can have the most attractive country and the best hotels in the world, but people must be told about them. I often wonder if our publicity is adequate. We hear a great deal about the increasing numbers of foreign tourists visiting the country, but I am afraid that the vast majority confine themselves to limited areas. The great bulk of them go to London, Stratford-on-Avon and Edinburgh, and, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can speak justifiably of the virtues of a holiday in Edinburgh, there are areas outside this rather limited range where we would like to see more foreign tourists.
  For example, the South-West of England is the most important tourist area of Britain in terms of the number of visitors, but it attracts the fewest number of foreign tourists. At present, only 2 per cent. of the total number of visitors from abroad go there. I am certain that the number could be increased considerably. We concentrate too much on putting forward the image of Britain in "olde worlde" terms, laying great stress on the existence of Beefeaters and Shakespeare. We do not publicise sufficiently the scenic attractions and beautiful beaches which we have to offer.
  Mention has been made of the language difficulty. It occurs to me to ask if enough of our tourist literature is translated into a sufficient number of different foreign languages. In which foreign languages do we produce literature and do we produce sufficient? The quality of some official publications that I have seen has disappointed me. They compare unfavourably with those of our competitors overseas. I question sometimes the content of some of the tourist literature which, again, is too closely linked to this "olde worlde" view of Britain.
  We must not be defensive. We should be aggressive. We are defensive about so

  925
  many matters concerned with tourism. We are always bemoaning our climate, as though we never get sunshine and beautiful sunny days in the summer. I have been soaked to the skin on the Mediterranean many times, but nobody ever seems to talk about it. We do not talk enough about good English food. It is something worth remarking about. We do not talk enough about our scenery or our beaches. The beaches of South-West England are the finest in Europe. There is nothing around the Mediterranean to compare with anything in any of our tourist areas.
  There are other problems. One is communications. This subject has been mentioned in the context of the South West by two hon. Members opposite. The South-West is an excellent example of an area where communications are of vital importance to the tourist industry. We are told that our roads are our arteries. If our roads are our arteries, the South-West of England is eternally suffering from thrombosis. One has only to see the Exeter by-pass on a summer weekend. This may be the extreme example, but it damages the tourist industry in that part of the country. A man has only to sit four or five hours in his car on the Exeter by-pass to decide that he will not be going to Devon and Cornwall for his holiday the following year. He will look elsewhere—probably to the Costa Brava or the Italian Riviera. This is the problem we are up against.
  I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies), when he spoke about promotional roads. Far too often we concentrate development on those roads where there is already a need. Let us also think of the results of improving roads. Taking the South-West as an example again, let us see a spine road not just as planned going to Plymouth, but right down into the far South-West, into West Cornwall, Penzance, and see it a great deal earlier than the present plan suggests. This will help the tourist and other industries in a region which has suffered from inadequate transport for far too long.
  Mention has been made of the railways. Branch lines often have an important part to play in maintaining the tourist industry in isolated areas. Air links between tourist areas and the rest
  926
  of the country are also important. The Minister of State at the Board of Trade, who is to answer as Minister responsible for tourism is also responsible for air transport. I appeal to him in that capacity to try to do more to encourage the development of air services in areas like the South-West. Our communications compare inadequately with those in many areas in Western Europe which are our direct competitors. This could be said time and time again for many other parts of the country—Mid-Wales, Scotland and parts of the North—which are important to the tourist industry.
  I now come to what is termed "the season", this very limited period of six or almost eight weeks, when all our tourist areas reach saturation point. During that time one cannot find accommodation. Hundreds sleep in their cars in lay-bys. Yet, at other times of the year—for instance, now—one can go to any tourist area and find any amount of empty accommodation. Could we not do more at national level to spread the tourist season? Are there not things that we could do?
  For example, in terms of school holidays, could we not have a four-term instead of a three-term school year so that many more people could take their holidays in the early summer—May, June and the first part of July? Could we not do more to encourage people taking a second holiday—more and more people are taking two holidays a year—to take it out of season at Easter, Whitsun or in the autumn? This is something that the tourist areas should go for. People who take their main holidays abroad go to the Mediterranean in August for a fortnight or three weeks, but they may have another week at Easter to go to Wales, Scotland or the far South West.
  This is an important subject and a useful debate. To this extent, I welcome the fact that the Opposition have selected it. It is essential that the tourist industry should thrive if we are to put our economic house in order. It is essential not only for the country as a whole, because of its contribution to ending our balance of payments problem, but to whole regions, on which it largely depends, and to certain smaller areas which are entirely dependent on the tourist industry, areas for which there would be no future if tourism were to

  927
  decline and where the only alternative would be depopulation. It is an important and essential industry because, when well run and efficient, it also gives pleasure, enjoyment and satisfaction to so many people.
  6.55 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: Having had a holiday in the South-West, I agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) that the communications need improvement. However, the South has the advantage of a very much longer season, so each area's interest in the tourist trade has its own problems.
  One of the most important things we can gain from today's debate is further information about the figures on which the Government base their calculations for the aid that they intend giving to the tourist industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) spoke of the cost of hotel bedrooms at about £10,000. I have seen surveys in the Financial Times and elsewhere taking figures of around £6,000. No doubt there must be variations in working out these calculations, such as how much one should take for furnishings and so on. I understand that the tourist industry and the Government have agreed that between now and 1970 we have to create somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 extra rooms in this country as a whole.
  We need an investment of between £150 million and £300 million in the hotel trade alone to provide these bedrooms. In view of the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), the Government's proposals are not likely to produce these extra rooms and, therefore, do what is necessary for our economy in accommodating extra visitors from overseas and stimulating holidays at home for our own people.
  The profitability of the industry has been quoted as being 2 per cent. below that of manufacturing industry. One knows the type of industry it is and the amount of manpower needed to run an efficient hotel. We talk about the hotel and catering trade being as important as a manufacturing industry. But it is not a mass production industry. It requires an individual approach by the hotelier and his staff if they are to pro-
  928
  vide a holiday to which people will return another time.
  This brings me straight back to the perennial argument, which has gone through almost every speech today, about Selective Employment Tax. It is one thing to use this tax in an industry where men can be replaced by machines, but it is another when it comes to providing a personal service in the hotel, catering and tourist industry.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke about the money being put by the local authority and the Exchequer into providing roads, schools, and so on, at Aviemore, but he did not say that at the same time they are taking £12,000 out of the Aviemore Centre relating to people working outside the hotel and catering industry. If we are to provide attractive holidays we have to provide sports amenities, sailing, golf, riding, and hill walking. To provide these facilities on a seasonal basis, to provide the manpower to look after them and to provide them at a cost which holiday travellers can afford, is made very difficult by the addition of Selective Employment Tax.
  This brings me to my last point. One sees advertisements every day about package tour holidays. This does not apply to just a few people as in the old days. It applies throughout the whole of the travelling community. Therefore, it is obvious that we must make greater efforts to develop this side of our tourist industry. I understand that in France a special company will help to nurse through the initial stages the setting up of new areas for these holidays.
  In a pamphlet which I picked up today from a B.E.A. desk I see that one can have a 15-day inclusive holiday in Majorca for £38. When I see what it will cost someone to go from London to Aberdeen, I find that he will have to pay £21 for the return fare. Both trips are on night flights. That shows the measure of competition that we are up against. I am convinced that if a large number of people realise that they can go to the Mediterranean one year, to Portugal the next, to Spain the following year, and after that to the Adriatic, the outlook for our industry will be poor if we do not develop the same sort of thing.
  There is a need for the type of hotel which the ordinary motorist can use.

  929
  There is a need to develop camping and caravan sites. The real burden, however, is how the Minister justifies the help which the Government are offering now to build up the tourist industry, knowing how vital it is to our balance of payments.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. David Watkins: In his short but very informative speech the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) stressed the importance of expanding our tourist industry, and I think it fair to say that that has been the theme of all the speeches today. I want to develop that theme and to put a slightly different slant on it.
  For all sorts of very good reasons the tourist industry has tended to be concentrated in certain areas. There are large areas of the country which have a tourist potential, but which have not been exploited, or are only just beginning to be. For a long time foreign tourists have tended to move on a London-Stratford-on-Avon-Edinburgh triangle. The picture is, however, changing, and foreign tourists are beginning to penetrate into other parts of the country. It is, clearly in the national interest to expand the potential of the tourist industry to its maximum.
  We must develop the tourist potential of all the regions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made a passing reference to the travel associations which are springing up in various regions. One of those to which he referred is the Northumberland and Durham Travel Association. The interesting thing about it is that it is developing in an area which is not generally regarded as a tourist area.
  I suppose that the vast majority of people who have no associations with the North-East are convinced that it is an area of industrial grime and slag heaps and nothing else. It has its share of these, but that is only one side of the picture, because in the area from Teesdale to the Cheviots there is one of the largest stretches of the most superb and unspoiled scenery anywhere in these islands, while the scenic beauty of the Northumberland coast compares very favourably with most other stretches of coastline.
  930
  I suppose that the North-East is known throughout the world as the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, and because it is so widely known as such it has a great tourist potential. The problem is how to harness that potential. There is a proposal to establish an open-air museum in the North-East—it will be the first of its kind in England—at Beamish Hall, near Stanley in County Durham. It is an historic mansion standing in nearly 300 acres of fine parkland, and at one time it was the home of the legendary Bobby Shaftoe. Both from an educational and a tourist point of view the proposal presents an exciting prospect.
  This is not a proposal to establish one of those places where people walk around in a silent and musty atmosphere looking at dead items in glass cases all carefully labelled "Do not touch". On the contrary, it is proposed to make a living presentation of the history of the Industrial Revolution in the North of England. Visitors will be conveyed around the site in some of the original electric tram cars and early motor buses.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) referred to the importance of local authorities in developing tourist attractions. The proposal to which I have referred is an interesting example of public enterprise. It was first thought of by Durham County Council about eight years ago, and now has the support in principle of nearly all the local authorities in the region. Unfortunately, there is a danger of the project becoming bogged down, because while the local authorities support it in principle, for understandable reasons they are not able to provide the necessary cash to make it a reality. If it fails, it will be a tragic loss of tourist potential.
  I would remind the House of the Skansen Folk Museum, just outside Stockholm, which was opened as long ago as 1890, and now attracts no fewer than 2 million visitors a year from all over the world. That is the measure of the tourist potential of schemes of the kind to which I have referred. I hope that the Government can give some financial assistance to projects like this. Every speaker has asked for Government assistance and these are valid points, but mine is as valid as any.

  931
  If our industrial heritage has a tourist potential, we must not overlook the attraction of our modern technological achievements. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) deplored the "Ye olde worlde" approach to British tourism. In the North-East, for instance, the advent of the Derwent Valley reservoir has provided a notable fishing and yachting centre. The construction of the Severn Bridge has provided not only a vital link between South Wales and the West of England, but also a major tourist attraction, which thousands of people go every weekend to see.
  Anyone who has driven overseas visitors along our motorways knows that they are tourist attractions, but there is a need to improve the catering in the service stations, where, very often, the quality of the service does not square with the quantity of the price. Adequate catering services are one of the most important necessities. The extension of the motorways to provide easy access to the regions is obviously urgent. Every region of the four countries of the United Kingdom has some tourist potential.
  In areas which are not traditional tourist spots, projects like the open-air museum which I mentioned have a great potential, but require special help to become established. It is surely in the national interest that, in expanding our tourist industry to its maximum potential, every region should receive all possible encouragement.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I will not follow the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) in his remarks, as I do not know anything of his part of Durham, except that it has a good repute. I remember going to the Skansen Folk Museum a few years ago and found it an interesting place. However, the hon. Gentleman will find, in the Welsh Folk Museum at St. Fagan's, near Cardiff, the prototype of the museum which he wants in his area—
  Mr. David Watkins: Being half English and half Welsh, I am well aware of and appreciate the value of that museum.
  Mr. Hooson: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is Welshman from the neck
  932
  up. That folk museum is the inspiration for his own idea for Durham.
  The old Victorian adage that "the customer is always right" has as great truth for tourism as for anything else. We all tend to think that we know what is right for tourists, particularly when Government Departments enter such an industry and try to decide what kind of demand the tourist will have. But the test of a holiday is whether it is enjoyable and different people enjoy different holidays. One never knows what their criteria are. With the evolution of industrial society in the West, particularly with more and more leisure time and increasing wages, there is a growing demand for holidays. People will not be draggooned into deciding how to spend a holiday, but want freedom of choice.
  My first caveat for any Government's position is that the tourists, broadly, are always right and the Government must provide a balanced view of our tourist facilities, so that they suit a wide range of tastes. This raises the rather different question of standards, which we often confuse with standardisation. On holiday in France as a student, I was greatly impressed by the enormous advantage of the Guide Michelin, which, in an entirely detached way, is as accurate a guide as possible to the standard of accommodation, price and food of different hotels. We have nothing to compare with it and I would like to see something similar in Wales, preferably provided by an independent body—
  Mr. Emery: The hon. and learned Gentleman should do it.
  Mr. Hooson: I have not the time.
  Mr. Emery: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman takes an optimistic view, which is unjustifiable.
  Such a detached report as the Guide Michelin could help to set standards.
  I, too, pay tribute to the Irish Tourist Board. Two and a half years ago, when I was on a tour of Europe and visited 12 European capitals in as many days—it was not an American-arranged tour, by the way—I went into a number of B.E.A. offices and in each asked what information they had about Wales. Not

  933
  a single office had any tourist hand-out about Wales. There was an abundance of information on Ireland, and, the Secretary of State will be pleased to know, on Scotland, but none on Wales. This shows how the Irish Government have been concentrating on building up a tourist industry far more effectively than we have been doing in Wales.
  Unlike an hon. Member who praised the English climate, 1 think that it is one of our drawbacks, whether in England, Scotland or Wales. We must recognise that, for this reason, we cannot compete with Portugal or the South of France in the number of sunny days in any holiday. If hon. Members are honest, they should ask where they would decide to go for a holiday and whether they would seek the sun or something else. If the former, then their minds would not move primarily towards Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, or England—or Ireland for that matter.
  What the Irish Tourist Board has been able to do so skilfully is to present Ireland's attractions as a holiday with a difference. A holiday should not only be enjoyable but be different from one's everyday life. The tourist industry of any country is rather like the courtesan, who must first entice, then succeed in her enticement, then seduce and then satisfy to maintain her position. By enticing in the modern world, the tourist industry must put forward not only its obvious attractions—in this country they are London, Stratford, Edinburgh, Snowdonia, the Highlands of Scotland, and so on—but the hidden attractions which the Irish tourist Board has succeeded in doing for Ireland.
  When we have excited the interest, we must provide the services to satisfy the tourist. It is no use having a good advertising campaign if the result is merely to entice a large number of tourists to an area and then allow them to return home feeling dissatisfied. We must also have abiding loyalty by ourselves agreeing that this is the finest holiday that any tourist could have.
  We also need higher culinary standards in some hotels. We are far too prepared to pay a fancy price for a poor meal. Often one gets a better meal in a smaller inn than in a large hotel. We have nothing like the Guide Michelin to tell tourists where to get value for money. If
  934
  one wants to pay a lot of money for a meal in pretentious surroundings, one cannot tell from the A.A. or R.A.C. guide books precisely what one will get for one's money. One can judge the luxury standards, but that is all. The latest literarture of the Welsh Tourist Board is a great improvement on what went before.
  We must also remember that the attractions of the tourist industry can get out of perspective. Although we attract large numbers of overseas tourists, their total number still represents only a small proportion of our total holiday makers. We are mainly catering for the some consumer and we must therefore provide him with the sort of holiday he wants. For example, we in Mid-Wales cannot compete with, say, the Adriatic coast. If a holiday-maker wants a fortnight in the sun, he can he sure of getting it there. On the other hand, we can provide a good family holiday, with plenty to interest all members of the family, with lots of outdoor recreations like fishing and sailing and pony trekking for the children.
  Families can enjoy these pastimes easily and quickly, without the long journeys that are often involved in overseas travel. We should also remember that many people take two holidays a year, while others go abroad one year and stay at home the next. It would be a mistake to sell our poor points, as it were, and keep insisting that because we do not have the sunshine as much as some holiday spots we cannot offer equally good holidays.
  Clywedog Dam, in my constituency, has become quite a tourist attraction. Each weekend many people sail and fish there. As a result of two Amendments which I tabled, and which received the support of the House when the legislation to establish the dam was under discussion, the dam is now almost entirely controlled by local organisations.
  The Minister of State for Wales (Mrs. Eirene White): As the hon. and learned Gentleman is so rightly appreciative of the Clywedog Dam, would he give his support to a project requiring another dam in his neighbourhood?
  Mr. Hooson: I might. The project would have to be considered. There were disadvantages to having the Clywedog

  935
  Dam, but advantages as well. Many people lost their livelihood as a result of it. We must remember what is on the debit as well as the credit side.
  Perhaps the Government could promote a hotel near the Clywedog Dam. I would be only too happy if the Welsh Tourist Board was given funds to do this and perhaps to also provide a sports centre. While I would not object to it being Government owned, I would rather it be let and run by outside people because Government financial considerations are not always propitious for enterprises such as this. Such a hotel could have a Welsh setting and I am sure that it would prove successful. It need not necessarily be sited near the Clywedog Dam. It could be near Bala Lake, or another equally attractive spot. The Government should set an example in this matter.
  In rural areas such as mine a good deal could be done by the Forestry Commission to help foster pony trekking. This is an important pastime. Many small villages in Wales have started pony trekking associations. Because many people learn to ride for the first time on pony treks, they often become more adventurous and want to trek over longer distances. There might, therefore, be scope for pony trekking throughout Wales, starting at one hotel, continuing on to another and so on through the country. The Forestry Commission could do a lot to provide treks for this purpose and the Government, along with the Welsh Tourist Board, could promote schemes of this kind.
  There is much to be said for providing Government grants for holiday developments. I am always impressed by the way in which agriculture is run in this country. Although probably the most efficient of our industries—its productivity has increased more than that of any other industry in modern times—it is run by a large number of relatively small farmers; relatively small in that while their farms are from 10 to 1,000 acres per farm, they are small compared with the size of the industry.
  For many years the agricultural industry has been associated with the Government in many ways, but the Government do not try to run it but merely assist it by the provision of grants and
  936
  the giving of advice through the National Agricultural Advisory Service, and so on. This is an excellent idea—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. We are not discussing agriculture, but tourism.
  Mr. Hooson: I was explaining what sort of help the Government could give for tourism without trying to run the industry. If the Government provided grants and advice there would be ample scope for individuality in the industry.
  I have in mind the provision of camping and caravan sites. I would hate a camping holiday—I prefer greater comfort—but many people love camping. Last year the French Government sent £4 million on improving camping sites in that country. Nothing comparable has been done here. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) lives in an area in which there is a great demand for camping and caravan sites. Much could be done if the Government gave the right type of grants and, through an advisory scheme, inspected sites before grants were given to ensure that adequate standards were maintained.
  Mr. Ross: Is it not being done?
  Mr. Hooson: It is not done on the scale which is necessary.
  Mr. Ross: I did not say that it was done on the scale which is necessary, but there is power under the Caravan Sites and Control and Development Act.
  Mr. Hooson: For hill farm improvement schemes one has to put in plans and have the advice of experts. There is a partnership between the entrepreneur—the farmer in this case—and the Government. This is quite apart from getting local authority approval. The same could be done in the tourist industry. A great deal could be done by the Government to promote tourism in this way.
  I am glad that the Government have taken steps this year to provide greater help for the tourist industry, but I am sorry that Selective Employment Tax was introduced without any real consideration of its effect on the hotel trade. We have seen latter-day attempts to mitigate the effect of the tax on the industry. The tax should have been withdrawn and a new tax introduced which would not have the bad effects which this tax has had.

  937
  Tourism, which is an industry with a tremendous growth potential, must be developed very greatly in Britain as a whole. I hope that we shall recognise that different areas of Britain will be in competition with each other. That is a good thing. The tourist boards should not be all run together under the one umbrella of the British Travel Association. There has been loose talk about the Association being provided with statutory powers, but no one has suggested what those powers should be. I am extremely sceptical about this. I should like to see more independent bodies. I should like the Welsh Tourist Board to be more independent from the Government and in competition with the Scottish Tourist Board and others. In this way we could have a more attractive tourist industry.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. William Edwards: Normally I speak briefly and on this occasion I might speak more briefly because I also have to attend the sitting of the Finance Bill Committee and try to represent my constituents there and in this House.
  I take a somewhat parochial view of the tourist industry and try to represent it in my part of Wales. I take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that we should consider the industry as many tourist industries in the country. Hon. Members opposite have said that we should give consideration to S.E.T. and give all hotels S.E.T. preference. I cannot agree. There are many differences in the make up of the industry. Certain hotels require assistance and some are working under very difficult financial conditions.
  I know a little about the tourist industry in Wales and I agree with the hon. and learned Member that we should have an identifiable Welsh tourist industry working under its own board. If the board is to be strong and capable of improving the industry, it must do rather unpopular things in Wales. If we are to reorganise the Welsh tourist industry and to strengthen the board we should have some element of local democracy in the way in which it is run. It is no use in these days asking an appointed board to take unpopular measures in Wales because they will not be acceptable. They
  938
  will be unacceptable to such an extent that even praiseworthy efforts to reorganise sections of our rural economy will not work because there will be no co-operation.
  We should recognise the importance of this industry in Wales. It may be a reflection upon us that so few hon. Members are in the House to listen to this debate and to show that we are interested in the importance of the industry. It is surprising that some hon. Members who speak most outside the House about the need to develop the new potential of Wales are not present to take part in this debate.
  Why do we say that this industry is so important for Wales? We are a country which depends on old extractive industries which are dying. In South Wales the coal industry is a dying industry and nothing we say in this House will make it anything but a dying industry. In my area the slate industry is dying and agriculture is a declining industry. The rate of decline is very rapid indeed. However much we talk about these industries there is nothing we can do to revive them or to make them employ the numbers which they employed in the past.
  The scope of the tourist industry in my part of Wales is shown by the figures published by the Tourist Board which shows that in my constituency alone there was an increase of about £1 million in something over 12 months. In an area such as mine if we could harness the industry to the aspirations of people in the locality we could do something very important. We could keep within our areas young men with initiative whom we are losing at present because we cannot offer them the kind of livelihood they can command elsewhere. Here is an industry in which young men can use their initiative and make money in the areas in which they were educated.
  We can also show those who come to the area the attractions of living there. Some years ago it was impossible to attract industry to the area because key workers did not want to know about living in Mid-Wales. If they come to the rural areas of Wales on holiday and see the kind of amenities they can enjoy there—the golf clubs that they can join which would not be considered if they were living in Coventry or Birmingham, the yacht clubs they can join and the

  939
  fishing they can take part in—this would assist in the development of a complete society. This is the most important thing about the tourist industry in my constituency and in Wales.
  We should have a board co-ordinating all the various efforts in Wales. I listened carefully to the very able speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). If he were a little kinder in his comments to hon. Members of all parties there might be a better attendance on the all-party tourist committee which he chairs. He made some valuable points. We should recognise the importance of this industry and take a more organic view of it. When we are looking to its future we have to balance the importance of getting a short-term gain and developing the industry in the way the hon. Member suggested to deal with balance of payments, and also to safeguard the amenities of the area where we are hoping to develop the industry.
  Wales realises that the tourist industry is likely to develop in two ways. First, it is likely to develop to cater for those who are searching for amenities like fishing, mountaineering and boating which they can enjoy over a long tourist season. There is also a tremendous demand for caravan and chalet accommodation.
  The problem we shall face in my area is how to co-ordinate these two conflicting markets. If we take a short-term view and develop the short-term potential of the industry in our rural areas by allowing caravan and chalet accommodation to be provided indiscriminately in the short-term, we shall destroy the long-term market. The important market for us is the long-term one, namely, the provision of holiday accommodation for those who want a higher standard of accommodation.
  This may sound strange coming from these benches, but I have to look after the long-term interests of my constituency and of rural Wales. However much we shout about the advantages of a holiday in "sunny" Britain, Britain is not sunny. More and more people realise this. Certain tourist associations which take photographs of bikini-clad models on the north coast of Africa and then advertise these photographs as being a
  940
  true representation of the climate to be found in British resorts are not assisting the British tourist industry. People soon discover that this is not the reality. Someone who goes to a resort to seek the sunshine which has been advertised but finds that it rains all the time there will never come again. This fact is now being realised.
  The quick market, with large numbers of people flocking to resorts in cars, will be a declining market. We in Wales must be very careful not to go for this quick profit and thus destroy the kind of tourist industry which can provide employment over a much longer season than the short-term market will provide.
  The type of co-ordination which is necessary can be provided only by a tourist board. It is remarkable that Wales caters for the kind of market which the Irish Tourist Board will not consider. The Irish Tourist Board advertises amenities which are no better than those which Wales can offer. The only difference is that a person who seeks those amenities in Wales does not have to pay £25 to cross a channel to get there. The Irish Tourist Board advertises in our market—in Birmingham and in London, where we should have a big market. We in the British tourist industry are advertising in declining markets and in an overseas market.
  The British Travel Association has been very much praised. It is doing valuable work. It is valuable from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advertise and attract American tourists. But American tourists are of no use to hotels in Wales. To this extent, we must take a separatist view of the tourist industry. Nearly 95 per cent. of the tourists who come to my part of the world hail from Birmingham. It is a complete waste of money qua Wales for the British Travel Association to advertise London and Stratford-on-Avon in America and hope that Wales will get some fringe benefits.
  I have seen the excellent advertising which goes out for Britain, but the advertising of Wales gives the impression that Wales is some kind of folk museum on the outskirts on Stratford-on-Avon. I am told by hoteliers in my constituency—incidentally, I have some very good ones, perhaps amongst the finest hoteliers in

  941
  Britain—that in their experience many American tourists come to London with the intention of including Wales in their itinerary. When the American tourists arrive in London on a short trip and discover that Wales is 200 miles from Stratford-on-Avon, they never turn up in Wales.
  For this reason, hoteliers in Wales are now distinctly reluctant to accept bookings from American tourists. The American tourists are not being properly informed. Wales is not being sold by the British Travel Association as a distinct tourist entity. Until it is sold as a distinct entity, with characteristics of its own and with a whole ethos of its own, we shall not be able to get the market which now goes to Southern Ireland.
  I hope that I have assured the House of the interest that is taken by my constituents in this industry. I ask the Government to show that they appreciate the importance of the industry. Incidentally, I have always been complaining from these benches about neglect in Wales. I want now to say how much I appreciate the assistance that has been given in the form of S.E.T. relief to hoteliers in my constituency. When I see, through my service on the Standing Committee which is considering the Finance Bill, the way in which we are penny pinching and taking £s off disabled people, and so on, so as to take £930 million out of the economy, I know that we should be grateful for small mercies such as S.E.T. relief. I should be even more grateful if all the hoteliers who complain so much about S.E.T. now had shown appreciation when they got relief.
  However much we complain about the financial arrangements and about the penal nature of S.E.T., I do not believe that it is the financial arrangements which are damaging the Welsh tourist industry. What is wrong is the lack of organisation. We must organise the industry. We must give the Welsh Tourist Board sufficient powers. The tourist associations we have at present will not and cannot do the job. They all depend upon the fees they receive front their members. There ate conflicting interests. The resorts will never agree upon a common advertising programme. Hotels will
  942
  never agree upon common standards. Hotels will never submit themselves to a rigorous inspection system of the type that Ireland has. All this requires—this is where I disagree entirely with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—statutory powers. All these powers should be placed in the Welsh Tourist Board.
  Finally, I repeat that the Welsh Tourist Board should come under the control of an elected Welsh council. It will not make it more effective government, but it will make it more acceptable government. Those who talk about devolution should realise that devolution does not mean that government is more effective. It means that it is more acceptable. It is the acceptability of government which is by far the most important aspect.
  7.49 p.m.
  Sir Charles Taylor: I suppose that I should declare the interest which I have in tourism. For many years, as some hon. Members know, I have been associated with the hotel trade. I was a member of the British Travel Association back in the days of Sir Douglas Hacking, who was a Member of the House many years ago and who subsequently became Lord Hacking. I was a member of the management committee of the B.T.A. until the Government decided to give it some funds, and then it was considered that my position might be an office of profit under the Crown, so I became, and still am, only a member of the council.
  In my view, the British Travel Association does a first-class job. If hon. Members go to its offices in St. James's Street—I have nothing to do with the management now—they will find there brochures in almost every language of the world extolling the virtues of the United Kingdom, including Wales.
  I have here the latest figures for American visitors to the United Kingdom in the 11 months ended November, 1967. Perhaps the Minister has later figures, but the latest I have show that there were 808,000 American visitors, an increase of 81,000, or 11 per cent., over the same period in 1966. That is a good record. There were 1,555,000 visitors from Europe, an increase of 122,000, or 12 per cent., over the previous year. Again, that is good.

  943
  I do not agree with some of the comments about the "olde worlde" publicity in B.T.A. pamphlets. In my view, most of the Association's propaganda is first-class and it has just about the right proportion of "olde worlde" publications. A good many American visitors still come over here, to London in particular, to see the pageantry outside Buckingham Palace and elsewhere. In passing, I must make a comment about the National Theatre. One hon. Member referred to it as a tourist attraction. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have ever tried to get tickets for the National Theatre, but, if you have not, I assure you that, unless you are the friend of a friend of the director, you have no hope of getting a ticket for the National Theatre. So that is not much help to the tourist trade.
  When the debate started, I thought it would be a Scottish debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State both discussed Scotland at length, and it was not until my right hon. Friend mentioned Heathrow that I knew that the English interest came into it. They talked about midges in the river valleys of Scotland, they talked about Aviemore, and the rest. They talked about building costs in Scotland. I am glad to say that hotel building costs in Scotland do not compare with costs in England, and I can only think that Scottish contractors are taking the people who want to build hotels in Scotland for a bit of a ride.
  It was said that there is not enough entertainment in Scotland, not enough for people to do, except walk down the river valleys, over the moors, and so on. But some people go away for a holiday hoping not to be entertained. They go away for a rest. Presumably, they go to Scotland because they want the Scottish scenery and the peace and quiet which Scotland can give. They do not want their holidays organised.
  I am very glad that this debate is taking place because the tourist industry is one of the greatest dollar earners, both direct and indirect, that the United Kingdom has. If I may take the example of a hotel in London with which I am associated, I believe that that business earned more dollars, taking the size of the business into account, than any other
  944
  business in the United Kingdom—and that probably includes the whisky boys as well. Although the hotel is not a banker and only has a little cash desk, last year over £1 million was cashed in foreign currency and travellers' cheques through its little guichet for people who wanted to buy theatre tickets or go to restaurants and shops to buy whatever they wanted. And that had nothing directly to do with the bookings at the hotel. That is a good record, too.
  Conferences have been mentioned. This same hotel has, at vast cost, dug underground in order to build a conference hall and provide all the associated amenities. Because of the enormous number of dollars and other foreign currency which we should earn thereby, I had the temerity to ask whether we could apply for the Queen's Award to industry. I was informed that, because they were not industries, hotels could not apply for the Queen's Award, and we were debarred from so doing. I did not think so much of that.
  I must say something now about the Selective Employment Tax. With the rise in gas and electricity charges and everything else, the S.E.T. has more than counteracted the effect of last year's devaluation. Whereas everyone hoped that we should have more visitors from overseas after devaluation, we have not had the increased benefit we had hoped for. Moreover, the S.E.T. is a double-edged weapon. Not only do we pay the S.E.T. on our own employees in the industry, but we have to pay it indirectly on all the supplies and services, laundry, and so on, which supply the hotel industry.
  I need not say much about what has been done to stop legitimate business entertaining. Foreigners coming to the United Kingdom like to see a few natives around the "joint". An American visiting England likes to think that he will see not only members of his own tour party in London, Stratford-on-Avon, Edinburgh and then back in London again; he likes to feel that there are a few of the locals about who can afford to go to de-luxe hotels in London. Businessmen as a whole never abused the business entertaining allowance. There were exceptions, of course, but as a rule they did not.
  One hon. Gentleman suggested that there might be too few hotels in London.

  945
  For the de-luxe hotels, this may be so during three or four months of the year when they are full. But one cannot run a business, keeping on all the highly expensive staff, the chefs, sous-chefs and floor staff, if the hotel is to be no more than a quarter full during December and January. Although it may be difficult to find a bed in London during the months of high season, there are, generally speaking, sufficient de-luxe hotels in London.
  If they could be built at anything like the pre-war cost, there would be a great case for some more first-class hotels or even second-class "A"-division hotels in London. There is perhaps a shortage of cheaper accommodation in London. Tourists from abroad, particularly from America, are not always the millionaires, and so on, but the many thousands of people who want to come and see what goes on in London, and sometimes in Scotland!
  The standard of British hotels has gone up by leaps and bounds. Generally speaking, throughout the country the standard of British cooking and accommodation has been very good during the past year or so. I urge some hon. Members who have spoken disparagingly about the middle-class English hotel to go and see the improvements that have been made in so many of them. The middle-class hotel in the small town in England compares very well with any similar hotel in France. That is a great advance in English hotel keeping which everybody will be proud of.
  I must come to the question of travel restrictions. It was Hitler and Himmler, with their financial adviser, Dr. Schacht, who first introduced travel restrictions in order to help Germany's balance of payments position before the war. In my opinion, it was the first step towards a police State. How we used to laugh at the Germans in those days when they said that they were allowed out of their country for only three days and must get back! We used to say that it was a great pity, with relationships getting worse in the world, that they could not stay for a few more days so that we could talk about conditions in their country and what went on there. Now the Germans are laughing at us because we are allowed out of the country for
  946
  only a few days on the £50 travel allowance. It is £50 plus £15 cash, which should make it £65, but because of devaluation it now amounts to £50 7s.
  Before the imposition of the £50 travel allowance the average British holiday-maker spent only £40 a year abroad. When there was sweet rationing everybody in the country said, "That is my allowance, and I shall have the whole lot." Directly sweet rationing was removed the sales of sweets went down. The same would happen with tourism. The imposition of the allowance was done only to satisfy some of the Prime Minister's Left-wing friends so that the Government could say, "The rich can no longer spend £100 or £150 on their holidays. Nobody shall spend more than £50 on his holidays."
  I was at Munich last year, at a meeting of the International Hotels Association, and was surprised to see so few British Travel Association posters around. I asked my German friends, "Why haven't you got some of our posters up?" The answer was, "Why should we? You have prevented English travellers from coming here to stay at our hotels and go round our country. We shall put up the posters of Switzerland, Austria, France and other countries that do not deter their travellers from coming to our country." On the whole, countries deal with travel on a reciprocal basis.
  Package deals may be very helpful to many people, but there is a great element of danger here. I believe that it is cheaper to fly to Majorca with a fortnight's holiday thrown in than to buy an ordinary return ticket. That means that airlines, which are mainly owned or subsidised by Governments are subsiding holidays abroad. They say, "We shall give you 15 days in Majorca for, say, £50. The air fare is £50 and the hotel accommodation is being thrown in." That means that the airline must pay the hotel, and the whole thing becomes a racket. Package tours must be looked into, because they are ways in which foreign Governments and, I think, our own, are now indirectly beginning to subsidise some tourism.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Could the hon. Member give some figures to indicate to what extent the numbers travelling to places like Majorca and Spain have fallen because of the present allowance?
  Sir C. Taylor: I could not give those figures, but I should not think that they have fallen at all. I should think that just as many people are going abroad for their holidays, and probably spending on average £10 more per head than before the restriction was introduced.
  I am all for holidays at home, because I represent and live in a seaside resort. In Eastbourne, there is every form of recreation—sea angling, bowls, cricket, football, theatres and dancing, bathing and boating. There are excellent hotels and boarding houses. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies)—and I wish that he were present now—because I do not believe that every boarding-house room in my constituency needs to have a bathroom or shower. Many people who would like to spend a holiday in my constituency want a reasonably priced room and obviously cannot afford either a private shower or a private bathroom to themselves. Therefore, there is still a case for not all hotels—or at least not all smaller hotels—having either bathrooms or showers for each room. It is simply not possible, and it would be nonsensical if it were.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) talked about the Michelin Guide. It is very good, but it would be completely inappropriate for any Government to produce such a guide. That would be strongly resented by the hotel industry, and it would also strongly resent its own industry producing a guide classifying hotels. It is not a bad idea to have it done by a completely outside source, but I do not think that the Automobile Association or the R.A.C. are necessarily the right people to classify hotels. I believe that the Automobile Association said that it would give five stars, or whatever it was, in my constituency only provided there was a children's playroom and a swimming pool. There is one absolutely first-class hotel in my constituency which has no room for a swimming pool. I do not know whether it has a children's playroom.
  But the present Government—indeed, a whole series of Governments—have regarded the tourist industry as "playboy stuff". As has been said, the attitude is that, unless an industry means industry in the true sense of the word, in which
  948
  men and women are guarding machines and getting horny hands, it is not an industry but a sort of "playboy stuff". But what better thing can be done by a place like Eastbourne than to provide rest, peace and recreation and to restore the energy and health of those who work for 48 or 50 weeks a year in heavier industries? Eastbourne, I hope, will always be proud of the fact that it is able to produce such amenities.
  I should not myself mind if there were a Minister of Tourism, but I do not think that the Treasury would give him any authority to do anything on his own. He would be powerless to do anything to help the industry. The only hope for the industry is what it asks for—fair treatment from the Government so that it can get on with its own job and do the best work it can for the benefit of Britain.
  8.11 p.m.
  Lord Hamilton: I shall be extremely brief, since at least three of my hon. Friends wish to partake in the remainder of this extremely important debate: I want fully to endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) and the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) regarding the British Travel Association. In January of this year, I had the opportunity of visiting its Amsterdam and Paris offices and was immensely impressed with the tremendous drive, vigour and enthusiasm shown by the respective managers and staff.
  I believe that the B.T.A. is doing a wonderful job on behalf of Great Britain. Although I am not aware of its annual budget, I hope and trust that the Minister of State, his civil servants and also the civil servants in the Treasury will study very carefully the tremendous economic encouragement given to Bord Fáille by the Eire Government. I understand that this year its budget is £4·7 million, which is highly realistic remembering that the population of Eire is only about three million. This is an enlightened approach to tourism and should be adopted here.
  In the United Kingdom, we must adopt a new attitude towards tourists. The less prosperous nations, through sheer economic necessity, have been forced to develop their tourist potential. Unfortunately, there are still pockets of resistance who tend to treat the tourist as a necessary nuisance, whereas he is

  949
  an invaluable additional consumer, benefiting not only hoteliers but many different types of trade and service industries.
  The relief that the industry can bring to the country's balance of payments must be publicised far more forcefully to the public by the Government, especially at the present time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne rightly said, the status of the industry should be properly acknowledged by the introduction by the Government of a Queen's award for tourism, if the Government really recognise tourism as an industry.
  The Government gave a shy recognition to the importance of the industry with the President of the Board of Trade's announcement of 20th March. But the Government braked far too sharply in its assistance to the industry. Capital investment allowances, which are available to comparable industries, should be reintroduced and the Treasury must agree that alterations carried out within the existing four walls of an hotel can be charged as revenue as opposed to capital.
  The Government must also appreciate that tourist facilities and hotel standards form a vital concept of regional development. Not only are these facilities an important psychological part of management decisions as to plan location, but an area which is not rich in manufacturing or extractive industries can, by developing tourist potential, create not only employment but also much needed additional revenue. This is particularly applicable to my constituency.
  Furthermore, tourism attracts vitally important secondary industries, such as the souvenir trade, which, I believe, in Scotland is worth £7 million per annum. The United States Department of Commerce stated in 1966:
  "If a community can attract a couple of dozen tourists each day throughout the year, it will be comparable economically to acquiring a new manufacturing industry with an annual pay roll of $100,000."
  That is the equivalent of £41,000.
  The Government must assist the future development of tourism in the regions of the United Kingdom by expanding the Regional Employment Premium to include the tourist industry, for it is a fact of life that the more the Govern-
  950
  ment assist this industry the more in turn this industry will assist our balance of payments.
  We should also remember that the tourist industry, unlike others, is strictly limited in the amount of saving it can achieve in manpower through the introduction of labour saving devices. I believe that the advent of the electronic waiter or the computerised barman is still well in the distant future.
  From experience, I find that small hoteliers are vague in financial management and I suggest that the Government should introduce a grant similar to the Farm Business Scheme to encourage hoteliers to implement proper cost and customer control and, of course, proper profit and loss accounts.
  The first impressions of a country are of vital importance psychologically to a tourist. Alas, Aldergrove Airport in Northern Ireland is shoddy in design, structure and maintenance. In spite of a highly efficient and willing staff, there is no apparent managerial control of the building. Wedding receptions and celebrations are allowed to continue unabated. As a result, departing tourists are liable to be pelted with confetti. Again, blaring transistors have been known to drown last-minute business conversations. I trust that the Minister will look into this matter, since it is imperative that the airport should have a departure lounge segregated from the milling throng of spectators.
  Northern Ireland has, even more than other regions of the United Kingdom, an ever increasing economic dependence on air travel. This is particularly applicable to tourist development. A total of 70 per cent. of all passengers are transported during the six summer months, between April and September. There is no doubt that during this period we need more supplementary flight services than we are obtaining. Last year the air fare was raised by an astronomic 60 per cent. If we are to develop further tourism in Northern Ireland we need to introduce, during the summer months, an I.T.X. fare in order to subsidise air transportation of tourists.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. William Baxter: We have listened to a very thoughtful and sensible contribution from

  951
  the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lord Hamilton), and I would commend some of his ideas to my right hon. Friends. Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), I am very much interested in the tourist industry, since I have an interest in a very small hotel. That does not confine my interest to that small hotel. I consider this, as many hon. Members have already said, to be one of the most important industries in the country. Its great potentialities have never been fully realised by succeeding Governments. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, they have looked upon the hotel industry and the tourist trade as being a playboy industry because it was not like engineering or some other industry.
  It was never given its proper place, and we have never realised that by saving money on foreign travel by our own people we are contributing considerably to our balance of payments assets. To encourage people—as we have—to look upon our country, Britain as a whole, as a place where hotel accommodation is not up to standard, and weather conditions not quite what they would desire, and to suggest that all these things are available in some other country across the Channel is wrong. We have to some extent abdicated our responsibility for making people realise that if there is one country in the world which can give relaxation and comfort to tourists, from overseas and within the country, it is Britain. We have never endeavoured to sell the country and its assets to the fullest possible extent.
  These assets do not merely include the natural beauty of our hills and dales and of our parklands, but also our great historic heritage. No other country has so much to offer. Succeeding Governments have not given the proper emphasis to the development of this important industry.
  Mr. Dempsey: Would my hon. Friend not agree that one of the greatest, if not the greatest, disadvantage to holidays in Scotland is the lack of consistently good weather? Would he agree that this is the main reason why people go to Spain and to countries on the Mediterranean, in spite of all that the Government spend? What plans has he for improving the weather?
  Mr. Baxter: That is outwith my control, as my hon. Friend should know. I am capable of doing many things, but not of controlling the weather. I would remind him that bad weather, or rain, is not a very awful thing. There is nothing very much wrong with rain if, on the following day or evening, one gets the beautiful sunshine that we very often get. I left Scotland this morning and it was a beautiful morning. When I got to the airport this morning there was a shower and before I left the sun was out again. I had never seen anything more beautiful than the spring flowers, the beauty of the countryside, the trees and so forth. No place that I have ever visited can compare in such compactness of nature with the great beauty that we have. This is due not only to the sunshine, but to the rain. This is our great asset. We should be trying to sell the beauty of Britain, even in the rain. What is wrong with some rain?
  This has put me off my theme to some extent. Let me return to the main subject. This is an exceptionally important industry and it has never been properly sold. I know of no better places than the south coast of England, the Highlands of Scotland or the valleys of Wales to spend a holiday. I know of no better place, notwithstanding the type of weather we get. The Government and their predecessors have not seized the opportunity with the urgency required. True, they have suggested a scheme to give grants to hoteliers to improve their facilities, but this has been proven to be unacceptable to the industry.
  In addition, the Selective Employment Tax is a very unfortunate tax in every way, but especially so for the hotel industry. It is not sufficient to say that it is being imposed for a good reason. The fact is that it should never have been imposed on the hotel industry. Whether it should have been imposed on other industries is not a matter for debate now. I have my own point of view. There is a scheme before a committee in another place, providing for lines of demarcation to be drawn throughout Scotland. It is suggested that hotels on one side of the line would not pay S.E.T., while those on the other side would. This form of taxation was indeed one of the worst features of the last Finance Bill.

  953
  I implore my right hon. Friends to give serious consideration to wiping out S.E.T. for all hotels in the country. There are ways and means whereby money can be raised without hurting an industry such as this, upon which the nation is coming to depend to an ever greater degree. If the Government adopt this scheme of demarcation, made up on the lines of area employment exchanges, there will be a great deal of discontent and dissatisfaction.
  Many people express the view that hotels are money spinners and that if people have a hotel they must inevitably make considerable profits. If my hon. Friends look at the Scotsman and the Sunday Times, both very commendable newspapers, they will find that there are dozens of hotels for sale throughout the land. The owners are selling them, not because they are profitable, but because they are on the brink of bankruptcy. There is no question but that the problem of S.E.T. is playing a considerable part in reducing the profitability of hotels. But another factor which must be borne in mind is that the cost of foodstuffs to the hotel industry has increased due to circumstances outwith its control, but principally due to devaluation. The importation of foodstuffs has markedly increased and is causing great concern to the industry.
  Another factor which must be borne in mind is the difficulty of getting suitable staff, about which anyone with practical experience of the hotel industry must know. Proprietors must be competitive and they must keep down their costs. They cannot give as high wages as are being paid in other industries. People are attracted to the industrial towns because they can get good wages. In the hotel industry, hours can be uncertain. The employees, instead of enjoying themselves like other people, may be slaving in the kitchen or attending to the wants of visitors. There is not a great attraction to people to work in the hotel industry. We are therefore becoming dependent upon Continental people to work in the hotels. But this is a dangerous situation for the country. The hotel industry should be as viable as any other. It is one of the most important industries in the country. It should be able to pay good and competitive wages to its staff. It will not be able
  954
  to do that if burdens like the Selective Employment Tax are put upon it.
  The Government must give serious attention to this situation. We have talked about the Tourist Board in Scotland. We give it a mere pittance to run its affairs. We do not try to encourage tourists to come to our land. This is bad. No doubt the Board does a remarkably good job. Dedicated people are associated with it. If they were not dedicated, they would not put up with the conditions under which they labour. If we want a good job done, we must pay for it.
  Mr. Dempsey: Taking the southern half of Scotland, three-quarters of the population live in the west, yet the Tourist Board has no office in West Scotland. Its offices is in the east. Should not something be done about that?
  Mr. Baxter: I should be happy if the Tourist Board had more offices, but it has not the wherewithal to provide the facilities. No Government, past or present, has give the Board sufficient resources with which to do the job it is called upon to do.
  I said in the Scottish Grand Committee when this matter was being discussed that, like every other industry, the hotel industry must be profitable before we impose a tax upon it. I do not object in my business activities to paying a tax once I have earned the tax in profit. But I object to penalising any industry by placing a tax upon it before it has got off the ground. This is bad finance. Bad business techniques have been adopted by the Government.
  Mr. Noble: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Baxter: The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear", but he knows full well that the only Bill which he introduced in connection with the tourist industry was one which proposed a bed tax upon every hotel in Scotland. Thank goodness it never went through.
  What is required in Scotland and in parts of England and Wales is a national campaign, backed with a considerable amount of money, to clear away the black spots of ugliness of which we have too many throughout our land. They should be cleared away. There is no doubt about that. A great campaign should be waged for that purpose.

  955
  Next, there should be an arts body of some sort to scrutinise plans for housing schemes and housing schemes which we have and which are being set down throughout our land. It is a disgrace to our civilisation that our beautiful land is being destroyed by eyesores of houses devoid of any artistic value whatever or even good taste. It is fantastic that we should put so much public money into the building for our people of houses some of which are a disgrace to our civilisation and which it is a disgrace to leave to future generations to put up with. We are destroying the very assets which nature created in our land, and destroying them by man-made efforts. This is a question which succeeding Governments have not solved, and they ought to be ashamed. It is desirable and necessary that housing schemes throughout our land should be looked at from the artistic point of view, not just from the point of view of providing accommodation.
  There are one or two other things which should be done. Special grants should be paid to the hotel industry to make the industry more effective and more profitable. The one basis of our prosperity must be profitable industry. This has got to be accepted by all. We cannot have an expanding economy unless it is based upon profitable industry. It was said by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lord Hamilton) that the Regional Employment Premium should be paid. I should have no objection to that. I think it might be a very desirable thing to do. Anyway, it should be looked at.
  I shall conclude now because many hon. Members want to speak. This question of the tourist industry is a very urgent matter which requires the most serious and grave thought by my hon. and right hon. Friends. It is an industry which can pay dividends in the future of our nation, if only we realise, as I have said, its great potentiality. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do something immediately to rectify the wrongs and mistakes of the past.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), I have sat throughout this debate endeavouring to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To
  956
  enable him and others to take part I shall, unlike the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who has just come in, keep my remarks short. I shall not repeat what has been said before, but I declare my interest in hotels, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor).
  What interests me is the fact that no other Members have declared their interest. I would contend that every hon. Member in the House who has anything whatever to do with industry has an interest in the tourist industry, because there is no industry or profession, be it that of a doctor or of a churchwarden or of a shopkeeper, who is not interested in tourism.
  The difficulty about it is that, generally, tourism is looked upon as being the business only of hotels. Hotels are only the advertising media which bring tourists to this country. So they should be the most encouraging item of the whole lot. Mention has been made of the fact that the Governments of other countries, like Spain, Austria, Switzerland, Portugal, encourage their hotels as important means of attracting visitors whom they desire to attract because they know that the visitors will spend money in their countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has referred to his well-known hotel and the £1 million which has gone over its counter.
  Why should the Government decide that the hotel industry is the one industry which should be milked more than any other? For no other industry has to pay Purchase Tax as the hotel industry does on most of its raw materials. No other industry which has such an export record has to pay Selective Employment Tax. It is quite farcical that a woman who makes a bed in a factory gets a bonus, whereas a chambermaid who makes a bed in a bedroom is penalised.
  Mr. Cyril Bence:She gets a gratuity!
  Mr. Costain: This just shows the stupidity of Selective Employment Tax.
  In my constituency of Folkestone we have a special contribution to make to the tourist industry, since we, like very few areas, are able to deal with day visitors. It is remarkable that 50,000 of

  957
  our fellow-countrymen cross the Channel every year on day-trips to the Continent, and only 5,000 people come here from the Continent. The potential there is even greater because of the greater population on the Continent. Why does it not happen?
  People living on the Continent do not have the same love of the sea as we have, as a nation. Many of our people cross the Channel for the sake of travelling on a ship. Continentals do not cross the Channel, as they do not like the sea and think it is something to be deplored. The prospect of a Channel Tunnel makes it more likely that people would bring their cars over, and travel in this country. I have an Adjournment debate later this week when I shall be dealing with this matter.
  The number of day visitors could be increased if the Government would make better facilities available at the ports. I know how well the staff at the ports work, and I know the conditions under which they work. For years I have been trying to get better facilities at Folkestone. It is altogether out of proportion that people who come for a day visit should have to spend half an hour out of their three hours in going through immigration. If we go to the Continent we are cleared through Customs and immigration within minutes; yet when they come to this country it takes half an hour or more. That is something which the Government could improve without incurring extra cost.
  Some visitors come over for a shopping spree, and it is interesting to see the shops that they go into after coming off the ship. Some are well known, some are not so well known. There again, there is the difficulty over Purchase Tax. Now that it is illegal for a British citizen to hold foreign currency, surely it would not be too difficult for the Government to allow a visitor from overseas to pay for goods by traveller's cheque, or in foreign currency, free of Purchase Tax, if he signs a declaration to take the goods out of the country on the same day. There could be spot checks. Many shops in the area would do much better business if simple facilities of that sort were available.
  Equally, many more short tours would be taken by overseas visitors if better
  958
  parking facilities were provided. With the possibility of a Channel Tunnel within five or six years, I visualise that many people will want to travel through the tunnel just for the novelty. They will want to come through in their motor cars, and we ought to be able to give them better parking facilities in the town.
  I would add my support to the proposal for a hotel register. I accept that things of this sort should not necessarily be done by the Government. There should be encouragement to private enterprise to introduce such a measure.
  Our facilities for visitors to this country are improving, and I accept all that has been said about the improvements in hotels and catering. I would like to see more facilities provided for visitors with yachts. Overseas, a great many facilities are provided for yachtsmen. At last year's Boat Show, firms from towns in the North of France had their own exhibits, which gives some indication of the interest in small craft on the Continent. However, we have not yet the facilities that they have, and one has only to travel to Holland or France in a small boat to see how they are welcomed. The harbour facilities at Folkestone may not be fully occupied once we get a Channel Tunnel, and I would like to see arrangements made there to provide marinas and other facilities for visiting yachtsmen.
  I had intended to make a rather longer speech, but I will conclude my remarks on that point, because I have undertaken to be brief to enable two of my hon. Friends to contribute to the debate.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), because I know that he planned to speak for at least 12 or 15 minutes, but has been good enough to limit himself to six or seven so as to enable my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wing-field Digby) and I to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was most generous of him.
  I, too, will be as brief as I can, but it would be wrong, however, not to comment that I considered the opening speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland to be probably one of the most unoriginal speeches on a really major

  959
  topic that we have ever heard from the Dispatch Box. It is not that the problem has not been stated. In the annual report of the British Travel Association, Lord Geddes said what I hoped would have been the basis for today's debate. Last October, he said that a national body with policy-making powers was necessary if the tourist industry was to develop its export-earning potential.
  Lord Geddes continued:
  "We are convinced that the time for advice and persuasion has passed and that there can be no lasting solution until the national tourist organisation of one of the world's leading tourist countries is given a more direct part to play in the development of our resources. Our board, with the advice of our management staff, have invited the Government to consider what further action might be appropriate."
  I hope that the Minister of State will address himself to that most important question put by the President of the B.T.A. and give us some of the answers which were woefully missing from his right hon. Friend's speech.
  In my few remarks, I want to make four main points. First, it is imperative for the Government to treat hoteliers as industrialists. Too often, they are treated as rather nasty necessities in a business which is not officially recognised by the Board of Trade as being vital to the nation's economy. That is a situation which must be corrected, and the state of the industry will not improve until it is.
  Then I must mention Selective Employment Tax. A number of hon. Members have suggested that it would be wrong for the debate to centre on it. That is correct, but let no member of the Government believe that Selective Employment Tax and the relief given to hotels is not the largest single issue affecting the industry at the present time.
  In this connection, perhaps I may quote from letters that I have received from two associations in my constituency. The first of them is the Sidmouth Hotels and Caterers' Association which wishes me to make a strong protest at this further discrimination against the hotel industry. Its letter says:
  "The increase of 50 per cent. in September will force many hotels to close during the winter months which have up to the present remained open, employing a large percentage of local labour. The consequent dismissal of employees would force them to draw unemployment money for about six months in the
  960
  year and in some cases, no doubt, National Assistance in addition. It seems grossly unfair that a resort like Looe (which is classed as in a development area) should be exempt from this tax, whilst a seasonal resort like Sidmouth should have to bear the full burden."
  I have a letter from the Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton and District Hotels Association also asking me to make representations to the Government? I am doing so today. Average unemployment in Exmouth, which is not a development district, is as high as, if not higher than, certain areas in the South-West which are classified as development districts in the matter of obtaining industry. Hotels in those areas will get direct assistance, thus creating considerable unfair competition with hotels in other areas.
  It is important that the House should realise that in three years the Treasury has been allowed to soak hotel owners to the tune of about £20 million by the abolition of investment allowances and a further £20 million in Selective Employment Tax. Against this impost of an extra £40 million, it has "graciously" set up a £5 million loan scheme for the trade to draw upon. My latest information is that only £1 million has been drawn upon, so, on balance, one sees the hotel industry approximately £39 million worse off.
  On the financial side, I suggest one original idea. In most speeches today hon. Members have asked for more money in one shape or another. We realise that in our economic situation that is difficult. Therefore, I will suggest a scheme to help the hotel industry without the Government having to find a great deal of money to finance it. Improvements in hotels and boarding houses—particularly the smaller ones—would do well if the Government would underwrite or back the necessary borrowing or overdraft to finance them.
  This is not an entirely new method of Government action. It has happened in a number of instances previously—certainly concerning house purchase. The risk to the Government would be very small. Application could be made in the normal manner. Such a method would stimulate greater investment in improvement in the hotel industry, and the amount which the Government would be called upon to meet would be very small. It is a new idea. Will the Government consider it?

  961
  Concerning tourists and trying to save foreign exchange, will the Government provide counters at London and Manchester airports for incoming travellers to purchase their one bottle of tax-free whisky on arrival instead of paying foreign currency overseas to bring back their tax free allowance? Nearly everyone who goes abroad imports something. Why, for goodness' sake, give the foreigner the opportunity of making his profit on it? Why not let that bottle be purchased in the airport before going through Customs? Although it may be illegal, I buy a bottle of malt whisky going out, I have two nips while away, and I import it again. In that way I may be saving the country a bit of foreign currency. Why not have a method like that at airports?
  I now turn to the beaches of this country. I believe that a great deal more stimulation has to be given to the hotel industry and to local authorities to emulate foreign countries concerning the running of beaches. This does not mean that we have to make private all aspects of our beaches. That would be a non-sense. But on many of the larger beaches it would be proper to allocate a small section to be run by the local authority or, if necessary, let out on a concession so that the beach can be properly staffed, cleaned and raked and where the numbers using it can be regulated.
  There could be proper tents or cabanas for changing, tables and umbrellas for the sun, and, perhaps more important in this country, wind breakers behind which people could sunbathe. That is done in the Scandinavian countries. France and Italy have done a lot to provide amusements for the children. They have such things as the Hippo and Mickey clubs which have never been adopted here. I suggest that it is necessary for us to provide that kind of entertainment for children on the beaches.
  I return to the most important need of the South-West, the spine road. The South-West takes between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of all the tourists in this country, and unless people can get to the area the tourist industry will not achieve the increase that it needs. The Government have gone wrong in believing that they can improve the situation
  962
  by providing the spine road in small stretches at a time. The Honiton by-pass is marvellous—and we no longer get traffic jams there—but jams occur at Gittisham Bridge, where the road narrows from four lanes to two. The Government should institute a crash programme to get the spine road completed by 1973. That is what the Tress Report advocated, and there is no reason why the Government should not provide that road if they want to do something for tourism in the South-West.
  I hope that my short speech has not been too disjointed. I have tried to deal with the major points in the hope that one more of my hon. Friends who has also sat through the whole debate will get an opportunity to take part in it.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: We are nearing the end of the debate, and I shall have to compress my remarks. There has been general agreement during this wide-ranging debate about certain things. One is that perhaps this country is not doing all that it can to cash in on the foreign currency of tourists from abroad. I am sure that we all have ideas about how that can best be done.
  The tourist industry is the second most important industry in my constituency. It is next in importance to agriculture, but it is not the kind of grand hotel industry which has been mentioned today. It is a question of small hotels, the problem of caravan and camp sites, and the planning problems that arise out of that.
  I must refer to the problems created by the S.E.T. and the fact that as we are not in a development area we do not receive any benefits. Immediately after the Budget I received a letter from a county councillor. He is an hotelier, and he has had a lot to do with those problems. He said:
  "Once again the Government has dealt a shattering blow to the holiday and tourist industry in the South-West. This is the only real industry which Dorset has in addition to agriculture and it brought £14 million into the country in 1967."
  He went on to give a list of the extra costs which he would incur and which would have to be passed on to the customer.
  We have a large and expanding industry in Dorset, but a large proportion

  963
  of it consists of holiday makers from this country. I am certain that a larger number of foreigners could be attracted to our part of the world. We heard earlier about open air museums. Dorset has many attractions. There is Maiden Castle, the Cerne Giant, and it was from Dorset that some of the earlier settlers went to America. Yet these visitors from America and elsewhere cover just a small triangle between Stratford-on-Avon, Oxford and Cambridge and do not penetrate to the South-West. Part of the reason is inadequate publicity and much more could be done to tell of the things which can be seen there. In Dorset this is partially because ours is a small county and we cannot afford to spend much on publicity, but I meet many foreigners who would like to explore these interesting things which we have to show them.
  The time has come to accept in principle the idea, which exists in France and Italy, of holiday roads. There is a glorious coastline in Dorset which we have taken great trouble to preserve, yet there is not a decent coast road along it. If that had been in France, I am sure that there would be a spendid scenic road. I understand the reasons for economy in the road programme, but it is high time that we accepted the principle that holidaymakers need their own roads.
  We have an enormous influx of population seasonally, creating all kinds of problems for local people, but we willingly accept those problems. We should like to see more foreigners coming to us and should like them better informed of what we have to offer. Not only are roads necessary for industrial development in the South-West: they are an absolute essential for the tourist industry.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Blaker: The debate has amply justified the Opposition's choice of tourism as a subject for a Supply day. Our previous debates on the subject have tended to be Adjournment debates just before a recess, which get squeezed into very narrow limits. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who is the chairman of the all-party committee on tourism, for the fact
  964
  that he has so often initiated those Adjournment debates. The House will agree that he made a powerful speech today. It might cost a certain amount to implement all his suggestions, but I hope that the Government will, nevertheless, seriously consider them.
  The great disappointment has been the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was a non-speech. It has been described as woolly, but that is a compliment. It contained no answer to any of the pertinent questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble). Would it not have helped our debate to have had some of those answers early, rather than—as I hope will be the case—in the winding-up speech?
  The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) suggested that our approach to tourism should be a non-party one. I wish that it could be, but I fear that that would be difficult to achieve. There have been a number of speeches from Labour Members today and this is something new in my experience of debates on this topic. The great problem in obtaining a nonpartisan policy is the fact that the Labour Government as a whole—there are exceptions—show no evidence of any understanding of the tourist industry.
  This has been well signified today by the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, who, while I have been in the Chamber—and that is most of the time—has not even put his head into the Chamber, has not even attended, let alone spoken. That is a sorry reflection of his party's lack of interest in this subject.
  The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) referred to conversations he had had with a psychiatrist who had interviewed tourists to discover their motives for selecting various resorts. It would be interesting if the psychiatrist could interview selected members of the Labour Party to understand the reasons for their antipathy towards tourism. I have a few suggestions, one being that the basic formation of the Labour Party is Karl Marx, from whom one learns a lot about heavy industry but very little about tourism. I have the impression also that the fact that tourism is about hotels, beds, bathrooms and food is somehow felt by hon. Gentlemen opposite to be rather reprehensible.

  965
  I recall a vigorous intervention from an hon. Gentleman opposite a couple of years ago when we first debated S.E.T. He said that he would be delighted if the number of waiters, doormen and porters at the Savoy Hotel was reduced as a result of the tax. I conjured up a mental picture of wealthy visitors from abroad staying at the Savoy and making their own beds, cooking their own meals and cleaning their own shoes. I wondered how many of them would return to the Savoy.
  It is this basic attitude of most hon. Gentlemen opposite which leads to the inability of the Labour Party to treat the tourist industry as an industry. In many speeches today hon. Members have pleaded for it to be treated as an industry on a par with others. If one's basic attitude is to give a lower priority to tourism—the attitude of the Labour Party—it is not surprising that hotel building is subjected to the same system of licensing as office building. I mention that as a small example from the early days after Labour came to office. It is not surprising if one deprives hotels of investment grants and imposes increased S.E.T. It is not surprising that the first hotel loans scheme should have been the colossal fiasco which it turned out to be. The reason is that the approach of hon. Gentlemen opposite is wrong. It is not surprising that it does not occur to them that the Queen's Award for Industry ought to be available to the tourist industry.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite are still living in the nineteenth century, when tourism was the preserve of the rich. They have not hoisted in the fact that in the twentieth century it is no longer the preserve of the rich but a mass activity for people of modest and even slender means. And now we are on the brink of a further revolution in tourism, because within two years the jumbo-jets will be carrying 350 people at a time across the Atlantic, and we must be ready for them.
  Tourism is one of the world's fastest growing industries. In the 12 years after 1952 it quadrupled. Has another industry of this size had such a growth record? Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that the growth in our tourist earnings has been so good in the last few years that nothing more need be done by the Government. The Secretary of State more or
  966
  less said this, when he declared that there could not be much wrong with S.E.T. because Scotland had had a good tourist year. It is this attitude among hon. Gentlemen opposite that we wish to see eliminated. The fact that we had a good year should make us want to increase the industry's earnings. It certainly does not mean that we can sit back and rest on our laurels. I want the Government to accept that the potential of this industry is beyond anything they have yet envisaged.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet was a little unkind about the record of the Conservative Party in connection with the tourist industry when we were in power. I do not say that we fully appreciated the potential of this industry, but our charge against the Government is that owing to their basic attitude they have not had a policy at all on tourism. They have consistently and foolishly discriminated against it and against the nation's interests. Their efforts to correct their errors have come too late, have been piecemeal, and have created even more problems; and they still have a very long way to go.
  What are the main needs of the tourist industry? First, more hotel beds. Hon. Members have said we shall need 30,000 more by 1970 and some even suggested that 50,000 will be necessary. Secondly, there is modernisation of existing accommodation. The British Travel Association estimated only two years ago that one quarter of the hotel bedrooms were seriously in need of modernising. Studies made by the "Little Neddy" in 1966 showed that the inadequacy of suitable accommodation was the main impediment to increased bookings by foreign travel agents.
  One obstacle which stands in the way of new building and modernisation, as has been shown by recent investigations, is that the return on capital is inadequate. That emerges from the study by the "Little Neddy". Fourthly, the industry, while modernising and expanding, has to keep its prices competitive. Finally, it has to get staff to run its businesses. My information is that the industry is short of staff to the tune of 50,000.
  With that background and these needs of the tourist industry, what have the Government done? Everything they did in the first three years made the situation

  967
  worse. As regards the rate of return on capital, the loss of investment allowance made the industry's interior assets 13 per cent. more expensive.
  Sir C. Taylor: There is a shortage of staff in the hotel industry all over the world, so there is competition from every country for trained staff. The industry is doing what it can to train more people, but there is a shortage all over the world.
  Mr. Blaker: I am grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend, which reinforces considerably the point I made.
  Another way in which the Government have damaged the industry is by rates of taxation. There is an extra £2,200 million a year on the general rate of taxation and this affects the tourist industry as much as any other. Thirdly, there is the S.E.T. I make no apology for talking again about Selective Employment Tax. I intend to talk about it a lot. It seriously damages the rate of return on capital. The report by Cooper Bros. says
  "The impact of these measures",
  S.E.T. and loss of investment allowance—
  "on the profits of firms in the industry and on returns on capital investment has been severe."
  That statement was made before the increase to 50 per cent. in Selective Employment Tax made by the Budget.
  The story of S.E.T. is the story of this Government. In 1964 Labour was:
  "Poised to swing its plans into instant operation"
  according to the manifesto. In 1966, so unready were the Government when they brought in the tax that they adopted for its application the Standard Industrial Classification, which was intended for something totally different. Then we had all the battles about charities, the disabled and the over-65s, in which the Government had to abandon their position in face of logic. In 1968, so well organised are they that when they give relief to hotels in parts of development areas, they adopt a classification again totally unsuited to the purpose it is intended to achieve.
  Let us consider the significance of the refunds of Selective Employment Tax which are to be given to certain hotels in development areas. The Government
  968
  estimate the total value of the refunds at £1 million. They are taking from the industry in S.E.T. and investment allowances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) pointed out, £40 million. That puts the matter into perspective. The choice of areas for the refund is absolutely crazy.
  The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies) tore his own party apart in a most accomplished way on this point. The places which will not get the refund include Edinburgh. Edinburgh has only 700 hotel bedrooms with baths. That is all there are in the capital of Scotland, perhaps the second most important tourist place in Britain. Those hotels will not receive the refund. Hotels in Perth will get it. Hotels in Llandudno will not get it. Those in Conway will. The list of anomalies is unending.
  The refund of Selective Employment Tax, in the way which has been adopted for it, does not correspond to any recommendation which has been made to the Government that I know of. The Bland Committee recommended that ways should be found to relieve industries which earn invisible exports of the burden of S.E.T., but it did not suggest a test for refunding S.E.T. which is based, not on export earnings, but on something totally different.
  We are glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he is appointing Mr. Reddaway to conduct an investigation into this tax, presumably—indeed, obviously—because of the many complaints which have been made about it and about its unsatisfactory results. Was it not curious that the right hon. Gentleman should choose the speech in which he announced that appointment to announce an increase of 50 per cent. in the tax? If a tax is so unsatisfactory that only two years after its introduction a very highly-qualified professor must be appointed to investigate it, I should have thought that that occasion should not be taken to announce an increase in the tax.
  However, we on this side welcome Mr. Reddaway's appointment. We could wish that the terms of reference were a little wider, because it might have been useful if Mr. Reddaway had been asked to look into some of the arguments which have been used to justify the tax, so

  969
  far as any of them are still used by the Government, because many of them have been abandoned. There is the argument that the tax would somehow redress the balance of taxation, which formerly had been too heavily against manufacturing. This presumably was a reference to Purchase Tax. Purchase Tax is not a tax on manufacturing. It is a tax on the consumer. The consumer in this context is the hotel and the restaurant business. So Purchase Tax is a tax on the hotel and restaurant business. I hope that Mr. Reddaway will make that clear.
  There is the argument that only 10 per cent. of the turnover of the tourist industry represents exports. That argument was shot down by the Bland Committee. I hope that we shall not hear that argument again, because the Bland Committee pointed out that the average import content of exported manufactures is 20 per cent. but that the average import content of all service exports is only 9 per cent. What is more, hotels and restaurants receive payment on the nail and do not have to wait for anything up to 10 years for payment.
  I wonder if the Government have thought of this point in connection with exports. Twenty per cent. of visitors to Britain, the numbers of which have been mentioned, come here on business. They are business visitors, not just tourists. If they stay in a scruffy hotel with poor services, will they have a good impression of Britain's dynamic and up-to-date industrial performance? Hardly likely.
  Then there was the argument that the S.E.T. would release employees from services who could be taken up in manufacturing. That argument was ably disposed of by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) during the Second Reading debate of the Finance Bill. He was a member of the Cabinet when the S.E.T. was introduced, so who could speak with greater authority than he?
  What are the results of all these misguided policies? First, the Government's policy for tourism, so far as they have one, is in conflict with their regional development policy. Second, the problems of the hotel trade have been aggravated. By 1970, to put it at its lowest, 30,000 beds will be needed. That is a high proportion, bearing in mind that, according
  970
  to my information, there are only 190,000 hotel beds in the country. What is needed, therefore, is the equivalent of 100 hotels each of 300 beds in 2½ years, and the actual rate of building of new hotel beds is 5,000 a year. On present form, we shall fall a long way short of the target.
  Far from accelerating our rate of provision of hotel beds, hotel companies have been cancelling projects. I know of one company which has within the past two years cancelled or postponed projects for 420 beds. That is just one company, and the same is happening with many others. Where will all the visitors sleep, the 5 million or 6 million visitors who will be with us by 1970? Instead of building hotels in Britain, the big companies are investing in hotels abroad. One can run through the list—Grand Metropolitan, Rank, Fortes, Trust Houses—they have been turning to Sardinia, Barbados, Spain and France. One group has bought up three hotels in Paris. Why?—very largely because of the tax burden which hotel companies have to bear in Britain.
  Thus the Government's tourism policy, so far as they have one, is working, also, against their overseas investment policy. Progress with modernisation also is being held up. Even if we can find accommodation for the millions of visitors we hope to have in 1970, one wonders whether it will be sufficiently good to persuade them to come back.
  Now, the hotel development incentive scheme. One hon. Member spoke of the Government pouring money into the tourist industry. That is an odd phrase. There is no question of the Government pouring money into the tourist industry. They are grabbing it out of the tourist industry, and the question is how much is to go back of what has been grabbed away by discriminatory measures which penalise the tourist industry as compared with others.
  There is to be a White Paper soon. It is a pity that we have not had it so far, but I hope that, when it does come, the Government will be prepared to give, if it seems suitable, a full day's debate on the White Paper. We on this side thought it right to devote today's debate to tourism, and it is very likely that we shall want to have a fairly substantial debate on the White Paper when it comes out.

  971
  Can the Minister of State at the Board of Trade tell us something about the scope of the grant scheme? Is it to be available not only for new building but, equally important, for modernisation? Will it be available, for example, for projects such as knocking two houses together to form a bigger boarding house? Will it be available for the conversion of rooms into bathrooms? Will it be available for the conversion of existing buildings into holiday flats? The holiday flatlet business is perhaps the fastest growing sector of the holiday industry at present, responding to a growing demand for self-service accommodation. Will it be available for things other than bedrooms, such as sun lounges, which are very popular in many parts of the country, or conference facilities? Are we right in thinking that the maximum contribution is £200 per bedroom? If so, it seems to me that this will not do very much more than offset the extra cost of building which has resulted from devaluation and other measures, the rise in S.E.T. and the rise in Purchase Tax.
  In the new scheme will the Government avoid interfering in the businesses of the hotel companies in the way which seems to have caused a good deal of trouble in connection with the previous hotel loan scheme? I believe the degree of intervention which the Government have sought to exercise has been one of the reasons why the previous loan scheme was a fiasco.
  I should also like the Minister to deal with the question raised by one of my hon. Friends of what the present situation is. Do we understand that the previous loan scheme expired at the end of March but that there is no statutory authority for the future grant and loan scheme? I understand that legislation will be introduced, but not until the next Session. Are we right in understanding that we are now in a situation in which people doing work, which may or may not qualify for grant, will have to wait for about a year, holding on to their receipts and hoping that when the legislation is ultimately passed the expenditure will be eligible for grant? That seems to me to be a very curious situation.
  I cannot understand why the Government were not ready to introduce a new
  972
  scheme by the end of March. Is there any reason why they could not have been ready at that time?
  Mr. Emery: My hon. Friend will recall that in answer to a Question the Board of Trade suggested that the legislation was coming forward as soon as possible. The inference appeared to be that it would be this Session. If it is to be postponed, we should know about this.
  Mr. Blaker: I hope that the Minister will deal with this point. It was my impression that he had given a reply which suggested that next Session was more likely.
  To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, the "Little Neddy" Report said that action was urgently needed. What about some of its other recommendations? What about the suggestion that the new loan scheme should have a moratorium on repayments of capital and interest for the first three years? What about the recommendation that the Government should apply in full development area legislation to the hotel industry? What they intend to do is nothing like that. What about the suggestion of the "Little Neddy" that industrial building allowances should be granted to the hotel business? Why have not the Government adopted any of those sensible recommendations?
  Although they have taken a step forward with the new scheme, the Government are a long way off accepting the recommendations which have been made to them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll said, if this scheme is right, with its level of 20 per cent. grants, for the generality of hotels in the big cities and towns—London, Birmingham, Edinburgh and so on—it cannot be right for the purely seasonal hotels, for reasons set out in the report of Cooper Brothers. This is no doubt why the British Travel Association has recommended in its document, "Development of Tourism 1968", that in addition to the general incentive scheme which it recommends, and which I suppose is reflected by the Government's proposals, specific help should be given to hotels in seasonal areas.
  There have been many interesting suggestions in the debate—for example, about ways to lengthen the season, about

  973
  fixing a date for Easter, about local authorities issuing lists of accommodation with gradings, and about registration. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to say something about the Government's own proposals for registration. It has been suggested that Britain is eminently suitable for more active holidays. A convention centre in London has been proposed. There have been many more such useful ideas. I want to add three points.
  First, the Government should pursue the idea that the personal exports scheme should be adapted, if possible, in such a way that visitors are able to buy goods free of Purchase Tax over the counter. How far have Government studies gone on that?
  Secondly, the "Little Neddy" should make a special study of the catering industry, because the Cooper Bros. report was devoted principally to the hotel industry. They said that the information they had on catering was inadequate. But this is an important aspect which should not be neglected. Thirdly, what preparations are being made to improve immigration procedures in preparation for the introduction of the jumbo jets?
  Some of these suggestions for improving the tourist business are important, some are of lesser magnitude. Let us now consider the most important thing we are asking from the Government. First, I do not ask the Government to appoint a Minister for tourism. It seems to me that it is more important to have a Minister in the Cabinet who understands tourism and is energetic on its behalf than a Minister exclusively devoted to it who is of lesser rank.
  Secondly, we do not ask the Government to give the tourist industry more protection. We are not asking for an extension of the duration of the £50 travel limit but for its abolition. Of all the O.E.C.D. countries, only Yugoslavia has a lower foreign travel allowance than we have. That is a disgraceful situation. The £50 limit is a breach of the I.M.F. rules, at least in spirit. It calls the law into contempt and it has done nothing to help the home holiday industry, which last year had its worst season for some time and which depends on the general level of prosperity in the country.
  I ask the Government to take a step forward. The new régime in Czechoslo-
  974
  vakia—still a Communist Government—have declared as part of their programme that foreign travel shall be a right and not a privilege. It is not asking too much of the Minister of State to say that his party also subscribes to that view.
  What we are asking for is a revolution in the attitude of the Labour Party to the tourist industry—a revolution which will give the industry equal treatment with other modern and growing industries. We are asking it to get rid of its out of date mental attitude, which sees tourism either in terms of Claridge's and caviar or of out-of-date small hotels in back-streets with broken bed springs. We ask the Government to see tourism as a big modern industry with a tremendous export record, capable of contributing to the life of the regions and costing very little in imports.
  It is necessary to change the attitude of the country as well, because I do not think that most of our citizens sufficiently understand the importance of the industry. But before that can happen, it is necessary for the Government to change their attitude. If they will do that, the other problems will fall into place. The problem of roads will receive proper priority, and my hon. Friends have shown the importance that they attach to that. The problem of taxes will receive proper treatment and we will have no more stupidities like S.E.T. Hon. Members on this side of the House have shown by their speeches that they understand these things. What I am asking the Minister is this: will he bring the rest of his party—because he understands these matters, I believe—into the twentieth century?
  9.35 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), like one or two other hon. Members, made considerable reference to the Scottish flavour which flooded into this Chamber earlier. As an Englishman, I am an avid reader of the debates in the Scottish Grand Committee. Having read the most recent, and then seeing that the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) was to lead for the Opposition on this important subject, I not unnaturally suspected that a considerable part of the debate would deal with Scotland. For that reason I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Secretary

  975
  of State for Scotland dealt with the opening of the debate.
  I shall resist the temptation to deal in detail with Scottish questions, and I shall also resist the temptation, which most hon. Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South, resisted, to be aggressively party political. I do not give a rap about the past in this industry. It is not profitable to say, "We are doing better than you did", or, "You did worse than we did". It does not matter. What matters is to try to get all Government policy on the right lines.
  While resisting the temptation to be party political, I will also resist the temptation to be complacent. From figures quoted there are signs of growing development in this industry and we welcome it. That does not mean that we can sit back and imagine that all is well, because it is not. While I shall resist these things I shall refer to such things as S.E.T. and the performance of the British Travel Association, to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) paid a very nice and well-deserved tribute.
  No one would suggest that the S.E.T. is welcomed by the industry, or directly benefiting it. It does not, no tax ever does. A number of hon. Gentlemen on both sides have been unduly alarmist about its effect on the industry. The yield from the industry has been about £20 million. That represents about 1 per cent. of turnover. I do not say that it is pleasant, that it does not cut profit margins, but it is not critical. It is serious to some, but not critical, and we ought to get that figure in our minds, to get a sense of proportion about the effects of this tax.
  The industry does not bear the whole of the burden. It has dealt with some part of it—and this is not a development which I relish very much—by increased charges. So far as we can see, it has dealt with part of it by increasing productivity and a better use of manpower.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not see how the figure could be 1 per cent. of turnover. In the average luxury hotel, it is, beyond doubt, 5 per cent. of turnover. In the ordinary run of hotel, it is at least 3 or 4
  976
  per cent. The figure of 1 per cent. means that there must be virtually nothing in respect of the small hotels.
  Sir C. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has not got it right.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. We can have only one intervention at a time.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I am prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir C. Taylor: In the hotel in London with which I am associated, it cost £60,000 least year.
  Mr. Mallalieu: The figure will vary from hotel to hotel, but the tourist industry is not composed solely of luxury hotels. Luxury hotels are a very useful part of it, but there are many one-man or two-men hotels. The yield represents about 1 per cent. of turnover over the whole field.
  Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: But does not my hon. Friend feel that in deprecating the significance of the S.E.T. when it is fully applied he is indirectly demoting the degree of advantage given to hotels within selected parts of development areas which are boosted now as a result of being relieved of this tax? My hon. Friend makes the relief almost trivial.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I did not intend to suggest that the relief is trivial, but it is not a large amount. The result of the reliefs under the latest proposals of my right hon. Friend will be to increase the yield, not by a half, but by about one-third.
  My duty as a Minister responsible for tourism is to do all I can to ensure that actions by other Departments do as much good and as little harm as possible to the industry with which I am concerned. My duty is to see what alterations it is necessary for me to urge upon my colleagues. But when we make a change—and these reliefs are a small change—instead of people saying, "Thank you for small mercies", we are attacked sharply about demarcation lines, and so on.
  Mr. Emery: The figure of 1 per cent. which the hon. Gentleman gave is causing some concern among us on this side of

  977
  the House. If one takes the figure of £10 million a year from S.E.T., which is approximately what it is raising, that would put the turnover at over £1,000 million. If it is £20 million over the whole period, the figure would be £2,000 million. What does the hon. Gentleman estimate to be the turnover of the whole industry?
  Mr. Mallalieu: The figure of yield which I gave was £20 million. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can work it out from that. If there is any doubt about this, I will look into the matter.
  As the House is aware, the whole subject of S.E.T. is being considered by Mr. Reddaway. When his report will come out I do not know, but I hope in the not too distant future, and when it does it will, again, be my job, under the pressures from the House and from the industry, and from my own inclination, to urge upon my colleagues whatever changes seem desirable for this industry.
  One or two hon. Members—I think the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lord Hamilton) was one of them—were asking about the amount of grants to the British Travel Association. Here, referring to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackpool, South was saying about the attitude of the Government to the tourist industry, I would say, without going back on my wish not to make party political points, that the fact is that the grant to the Association at the moment, for this year, is £2,950,000, and this is just three times what it was in 1960. I doubt very much whether it is yet enough, but it is a tremendous advance.
  Mr. Noble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way but I do wish that he would not try to mislead the House in this way. The Government have taken an extra £40 milion out of the industry, and yet he says he has given back £1 million here and £1 million there and that that is a great advance. Do not let him say that to the industry, because it will tell him the truth.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I am dealing specifically with the British Travel Association, as a symptom of the attitude of the Government towards tourism. I think—indeed, I am sure—that the right hon. Gentleman will say that money spent on the Association is very well spent indeed.
  978
  If I have got to make the point, it is very much more money under this Government than it was under his. But it is a trivial point.
  Various hon. Gentlemen have talked about the need for devolution, especially in terms of the British Travel Association, and, indeed, the Association itself, as the hon. Gentleman will well know, has been following a policy of devolution. It is not only for the establishment of the independent boards in Scotland and Northern Ireland and Wales, but regional bodies are now being developed—Yorkshire is one example; that was the very first one; I think the latest is that for the Lakes counties—all with the idea of getting the regions to take an active part in their own development.
  I was asked whether there should be competition about publicity. I am not myself in favour of competition internationally to any great extent about publicity, because I think that would be duplicating, and might be wasteful, but there is real virtue in competition internally between the various regions, and that is going on in a substantial way.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the Minister, at long last, come to the point? Who is to have the authority for running the tourist industry—he, the Board of Trade, the British Travel Association, or who? No body has got statutory powers. Come clean. Who in the Government will deal with this industry? Let us have an answer.
  Mr. Mallalieu: This is one of the difficult things. The hon. Gentleman made a long, and, I thought, extremely interesting speech, very much longer than I have time to make, He might have condescended to understand that I shall come to that very point.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Time enough to answer it.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I shall not have much time, given the interventions which are so frequent.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll and a number of other hon. Members asked about the new hotel incentive scheme. In particular, they asked about the meaning of the £1,000—not £200 as an hon. Member suggested—per bedroom limit. The grant on new building is for 20 per cent.

  979
  of the cost of construction and fixed equipment, excluding the cost of land. This covers the constructional cost of all rooms, whether they are bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens or lounges. The bedroom comes into it in this way: the total expenditure is divided by the number of bedrooms provided. If the total expenditure on a hotel with 100 bedrooms is £500,000, the grant, as opposed to the loan, will be £100,000, which is £1,000 per bedroom.
  The reason for setting that sort of limit is that, by and large, subject to correction, the luxury hotels are the most viable at the present time, but they are not necessarily the ones that are most important to the tourist industry, especially in terms of package tours, which are now becoming a major feature of the industry. The package tour trade is in the medium priced hotels, and it is to them especially that the grants are aimed.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll quoted a number of figures about the cost per bedroom. The £12,000 per bedroom must be for a highly luxurious hotel. I have information from a chain of hotels that in the slightly above-medium range they reckon that bedroom costs are from £4,500 to about £6,000. This is in the medium range, but it is a range that covers the country reasonably well.
  Mr. Noble: In the Highlands?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I do not know whether or not they have one in the Highlands. The difficulty about hotels in the Highlands, and indeed about all hotels outside the major industrial areas, is that the trade is so seasonal, and I will come to that point later.
  I am delighted that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has regained his voice, and I hope that he enjoyed the sun in the Caribbean; but his reading is deficient. He was urging upon us a scheme of hotel registration, but my right hon. Friend had already announced that this is precisely what will be done.
  I should add, in terms of the new hotel incentive scheme, that we hope that the White Paper, which will include a reference to registration, will be published on the 21st of this month. Admittedly, after that there will be a delay before
  980
  legislation, but we hope that, by publishing with the White Paper the details of the scheme, and by telling the industry that terms will be on offer which are not worse than those in the White Paper, it will be possible for them to begin preparations and planning, and, indeed, the early stages of construction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies)—
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Who will inspect the hotels? How will they get a grading? Will this all be in the White Paper?
  Mr. Mallalieu: We are still having discussions with the industry and with the British Travel Association, who are interested parties, on the exact mechanics of the registration scheme. But we hope to be able to go ahead at an early date.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Conway was anxious to get more co-ordination of tourist activities in Wales. He suggested the establishment of an entirely new body. However, I doubt whether that is really necessary with the existence of the Welsh Council which can draw together all the interests concerned—
  Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: But without executive powers.
  Mr. Mallalieu: Well, it is drawing them together, and I will come in a moment to the problem of organisation.
  However, before doing that, I want to turn briefly to the subject of camping sites. The House will be aware that, in the near future, it will be possible for England and Wales to follow in the steps of Scotland and provide grants of up to 75 per cent. for the development of camping sites. Although hotels form an important part of the tourist industry, as many hon. Members have said, they are not the only part. An increasing number of people prefer to camp.
  In the past, our facilities have not always been comparable with those that one finds in Italy and France. The Countryside Bill provides for the substantial improvement of facilities and, the moment that they are ready, I hope that the British Travel Association will begin advertising on the Continent that Britain is very much in the market for campers.
  In the debate, a great many questions have been asked. It has been suggested

  981
  that the Government should look at the possibilities of extending the holiday season so as to get over seasonal difficulties. Suggestions have been made about improved Governmental organisation. Some hon. Members would like to have a Ministry of Tourism. Others have suggested setting up statutory bodies. Clearly, the present set-up is not satisfactory and it is for that reason that, for months past, serious and detailed work has been done on finding out exactly the right way to organise the Government machine is so far as it is concerned with tourism. Before long, I hope that those deliberations and consultations will be concluded. I could not set a date, but we shall publish our views and proposals as soon as we are ready.
  The hon. Member for Blackpool, South suggested that what was needed was a change in attitude in the Labour Party. However, I think that a change in attitude is needed throughout the country, and it is something that is beginning to take place. The importance of tourism is becoming realised everywhere now. But it is not only an attitude of Government or of parties. It is an attitude of individuals who have the privilege to serve their fellow countrymen and visitors to our shores. That is where there must be a change of attitude. Just as it is essential to get Government policy right, so it is essential that people who serve the public should get their attitudes right. If we can induce such people as waiters, barmaids, and so on, to be as pleasant to their customers as they are to their friends, we shall have performed a useful service.
  The industry has been very much boosted as being of tremendous help in the battle for the balance of payments, and rightly so. That is a vitally important point. Equally important is the fact that through this industry our own people and people overseas can come and enjoy the wonderful facilities that this country can offer. I hope that everybody concerned with the future welfare of this country will do everything they possibly can to make this great growth industry an even greater success in future.
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Export Guarantees Bill [Lords] and the Firearms Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Fitch.]

  EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.1 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill consolidates the Exports Guarantees Acts of 1949 to 1967, as amended by the National Loans Act, 1968. It is, therefore, consolidation right up to date. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills has reported that it has considered the Bill and regards it as pure consolidation and representing existing law. I recommend the Bill to the House.
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I compliment the draftsmen of this consolidation Measure in having reduced to such a surprisingly small compass a very important subject covering five Acts and part of another one.
  There is one point on which perhaps the Solicitor-General might assist the House. The repealed Acts dealt with the issue of guarantees by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Those would be continuing guarantees under the statutes which are now repealed. I have no doubt that somewhere in the Bill those guarantees are validated, even though the Acts under which they were issued are repealed, but I have been unable to find it in this consolidation Measure. It seems to me that if the hon. and learned Gentleman could put on record that guarantees issued under these repealed Acts continue valid under this consolidation Measure—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that we are discussing on Second Reading of a pure consolidation Bill whether the Measures to be consolidated should be consolidated or remain as separate Acts.
  Mr. Page: I was not endeavouring to go into the merits of the Bill in any way. I was asking whether the repeal of the statutes mentioned in Clause 11 would have the effect of invalidating existing guarantees.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fitch.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  FIREARMS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.4 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill has received the consideration of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. It is pure consolidation and represents existing law.
  There are two points which I think it right to mention. I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will interpret it as some tribute to him that I endeavour in this fashion to anticipate what would be fair comment upon matters arising under the Bill.
  It will be seen that Clause 60(2) provides that
  "This Act shall come into force on 1st August, 1968."
  The original intention was that these provisions should come into force on the day appointed under Section 106 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, for the coming into operation of Part V of that Act.
  That would have been very convenient, but the two matters got out of step, as inevitably happens from time to time in developments of this kind. The firearms provisions of the Criminal Justice Act came into force on 1st May last. When it was no longer possible for the Bill now before the House to come into force on the same day as the relevant provisions of the 1967 Act, it was thought convenient to have a fixed future date. It is in that way that the date of 1st August has found its way into the Bill, and it is thought that that date will afford to those
  984
  concerned with the matter a reasonable interval of time in which to consider the provisions of this Measure.
  The second point which I think it right to mention at this stage is that the Theft Bill in its present form proposes to amend this consolidation Bill. I readily acknowledge that it is always a pity when a consolidation Bill has to be amended soon after it is passed. It is the kind of point to which the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not tempt himself to go out of order. We are discussing whether the original Measure should be consolidated under this Bill. We cannot discuss the effect of the Bill on the Theft Bill or vice versa.
  The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I was seeking, I hoped within the rules of order, to indicate a matter which I thought would be helpful to the House, but in view of your Ruling I shall not pursue it.
  It is clear from what I have said that the Government have had that aspect of the matter in mind. It is a point to which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has drawn our attention from time to time, namely, that when there is consolidation it should as far as possible be effected at a moment in time in the development of legislation when there does not necessarily follow an early change in the law. In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I shall say no more about that, and merely recommend the Bill to the House.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: The Solicitor-General anticipated some comments that I might make on Clause 60(2). If I understand his remarks concerning the Criminal Justice Act, 1967,—which I gather were in order—we can take it that all the provisions of that Act which are included in the Bill have come into operation. I think I am correct in thinking that, and therefore it is purely consolidation of those provisions.
  Even though it may be necessary at some future date to alter the Bill when it becomes an Act, I do not criticise that on this occasion because I think that it is essential to have a consolidation Measure before those who have to put the firearms

  985
  law into operation. That was undoubtedly in the Government's mind in bringing forward this Measure now.
  I hope that I shall be in order in raising one point in connection with Clause 6. When consolidation Measures enact a Statutory Instrument within the Bill, that alters the law in that the Statutory Instrument can no longer be questioned in the courts as being ultra vires. The House normally accepts that in a consolidation Measure, but perhaps the Solicitor-General can help the House in connection with Clause 6(3). There is, in the margin, a reference to a Statutory Instrument and in the text to an Order made under Section 9 of the Firearms Act, 1920,
  "(the former enactment corresponding to section 18 of the Firearms Act 1937 and this section);"
  incidentally, the 1937 Act will be repealed by this Bill, but it seems misleading in form to quote the Statutory Instrument in the margin.
  If it is re-enacted in this Bill, this should be clearly said and this should appear in the repeals Schedule as an Order repealed and converted into a Statute. As the matter stands, it is neither one thing nor the other. I cannot say whether the effect of Clause 6(3) is to consolidate a Statutory Instrument—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that on Second Reading we cannot discuss the effect of subsection (3). We are deciding, on the Second Reading of this Bill, which is a pure consolidation Bill, whether the Measures which are consolidated in it should be consolidated or should be treated as separate Bills.
  Mr. Page: Is it not permissible, Mr. Speaker, for me to point out an ambiguity in the Bill and its form? In this Bill, there is mentioned in the text an Order which is not repealed in the repeals Schedule, and there is a reference quoted in the margin. There is merely a question of the form of the Bill and an ambiguity, as to whether it consolidates that Statutory Instrument. If it does, it changes the law—and the House should be so informed—in that
  986
  that Statutory Instrument cannot then be revoked nor its validity questioned in the courts.
  Perhaps the question of whether it can be revoked is the most important, since one would not expect its validity to be questioned after 47 years or so. This should be explained and not perpetuated in this ambiguous form—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, this is an old battle between the hon. Gentleman and myself, as he knows. This is a consolidation Measure. A number of Measures are proposed to be consolidated and the only question on Second Reading is whether they should be consolidated or whether they should remain as existing, separate enactments. The hon. Gentleman knows that.
  Mr. Page: I wish neither to labour the point unnecessarily, Mr. Speaker, nor to appear not to accept your Ruling on it. I do not have the reports of the debates before me, but we have debated before the question of Statutory Instruments included in consolidation Measures, and it has been said in those debates that this fact should be drawn to the attention of the House. If this is not done by the Consolidation Committee itself, it is right for someone to call it to the attention of the House on Second Reading. That is all that I have been doing.
  The Solicitor-General: This matter deserves looking into. I think that the marginal note setting out the relevant Statutory Instrument had effect only as a matter of reference to delineate the words
  …an order made under Section 9…"
  and that it had no effect beyond that. That would be my interpretation now, but the matter will be looked into.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fitch.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  FISH AND MEAT PASTES
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I beg to move.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Fish and Meat Spreadable Products Regulations 1968 (S.I. 1968, No. 430), dated 15th March, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be annulled.
  I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary in his place because, as he knows, this Instrument has caused a certain amount of anxiety to a firm in my constituency—Farquhar, North & Co. of St. Mary Cray—which has been manufacturing fish and meat pastes since 1890. I have had some correspondence with the hon. Gentleman on behalf of this firm about one part of the Regulations to which the company takes strong objection.
  The Instrument has been discussed at length between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Food Manufacturers' Federation. I understand that all the points raised at the beginning have been cleared up, with this one exception. In this case, the Ministry has insisted on increasing the meat content of meat pastes from 55 per cent. to 70 per cent against all the advice of the trade and Farquhar, North & Co.
  I should, perhaps, also explain that the food manufacturers have no objection to the Regulations from the point of view of fish pastes, because the content must be as high as 70 Per cent. for reasons of palatability. Apparently if the content is allowed to go as low as 55 per cent. it is soon noticed; and, in fact, fish pastes on the market already conform to the figures in the Regulations.
  The manufacturers do not quarrel with the 70 per cent. minimum content of meat which the Regulations prescribe for meat spreads. They accept paragraphs like 4(1)(h):
  "… "chopped X in jelly" "minced X in jelly" or "flaked X in jelly", the description being completed by inserting at "X" the name of any meat…"
  and 5(1)(f):
  "… "potted X and Y", "chopped X and Y", "minced X and Y" or "flaked X and Y", the description being completed by inserting
  988
  at "X" the name of any fish and at "Y" the name of another main ingredient…"
  It all sounds rather like what a manthematician might have for tea.
  It is only this one aspect of meat pastes to which manufacturers have taken objection. I do not understand why the Minister, having obtained such a wide measure of agreement with the manufacturers, has chosen to fall out with them on this one issue. I have not been able to elicit the reasons as a result of my correspondence. The main reason—indeed, what I gather to be the only one—is that this increase from 55 per cent. to 70 per cent. was recommended by the Food Standards Committee in its 1965 Report on fish and meat pastes. In correspondence, the Minister referred me to that Report, which I have carefully read, but the reading of it does not advance any argument, except the negative one that both pastes used to have the same compositional standard before the war and that it was thought a good idea that equality of standards should be restored.
  When I wrote to the Minister at the end of last year the Parliamentary Secretary replied and he merely paraphrased that Report of the Food Standards Committee and added that it had always been agreed that the standard should be raised to 70 per cent. at a convenient opportunity. I take issue with that. It certainly had not been agreed with this firm and, as far as I know, neither had it been with the Food Manufacturers' Federation. The whole basis of the Minister's case, following the line of the Food Standards Committee, is that if one kind of paste has a minimum content of 70 per cent. of its principal ingredient, all other pastes must fall into line.
  When I wrote a second time to the hon. Gentleman asking him to justify this increase on objective criteria, he replied on 1st January and part of his letter stated:
  "It is difficult to see exactly what would be the wholly objective criteria; the Committee reached the conclusion on meat paste, just as in other reports they have made recommendations for the proper minimum meat contents of sausages, meat pies, luncheon meat and other meat products."
  The hon. Gentleman is not arguing that there is a particular magic in the figure of 70 per cent., but it has been applied

  989
  to fish products and apparently the Ministry is making this fall into line.
  I hope that it will be generally agreed that the real criterion is the palatability of these products whether 55 per cent., 70 per cent. or whatever figure is in the Regulations. For chicken and ham spreads the minimum content has to be 70 per cent., because it is found that if one goes lower the stuff does not taste very nice. The manufacturers, being sensible and wanting to sell chicken and ham paste, have always adhered to the 70 per cent., but they have not found it necessary in the case of meat paste—whose principal ingredient is beef—because in that there is little difference in the taste whether it is 55 per cent. or 70 per cent as laid down. Experience has shown that the public do not notice any difference, because there has been a steadily growing consumption of meat paste with the minimum content of 55 per cent. practically every year since the standard was introduced.
  There is no particular magic in 70 per cent. because in other products such as sausages the meat content is far lower. In the Sausage and Other Meat Products Regulations, 1967, a minimum content of 50 per cent. of beef is specified. Apart from the fact that no one has asked for this increase, the main reason why my constituents are opposed is that inevitably their costs will go up. I do not know exactly what this will mean in terms of prices, but one can hardly imagine that there will be increases of half-pennies when the half-penny is shortly to be demonetised. If manufacturers are to recover the additional costs imposed by these Regulations the price of a 2½ oz. jar would go up from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 4d. and the small 1 oz. jar price would go up from 7d. to 8d., an increase of no less than 14 per cent. This may appear to have a very small effect on the cost of living index, but if the Government are serious in wanting to keep prices down, no increase however insignificant should be deliberately provoked by their actions.
  I have no doubt that the Minister will argue that since the Regulations will not come into force for three years these economic factors may be neglected, but even if one were to assume that during this breathing space for manufacturers for another three years a higher rate of
  990
  growth in the economy can be achieved and hence the control of prices will be less essential than it is today, it is wrong to make the Regulations now because of two further considerations. First, if the Minister is prepared to wait for three years it would be surely practicable to announce the decision now but to defer making the Regulations until 1970 and to make them conditional on the economic revival of the country between now and then.
  Secondly, I do not think the Minister may quite have appreciated that in order to meet the deadline of March, 1971, manufacturers will need to begin packing for dispatch by early 1970 with the result that their costs will increase in only two years' time, not three. I sincerely hope that we shall have recovered from our present economic difficulties by early 1970, but I do not think it would be at all safe to bank on it. There is nothing whatever in the existing Regulations to prevent manufacturers from offering a choice of meat pastes based on a 55 per cent. meat content and a 70 per cent. meat content to the public.
  The fact that very few have actually done so proves that, as the Food Manufacturers' Federation said in a letter to the Ministry last September:
  "there is very little difference in flavour between them."
  The Federation offered to send samples of meat paste with a 55 per cent. and a 70 per cent. content to Ministers for them to taste and to verify that there is no difference. I shall be interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman accepted the offer and whether he has actually sampled these meat pastes and can solemnly assure the House that he can tell the difference. It is rather like "Stork" and butter. The hon. Gentleman would have to admit that he was not able to tell the difference.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. "Stork" and butter are just outside these Regulations.
  Mr. Lubbock: Butter is put into some of these pastes, Sir, but I will not pursue that point. What I have been discussing is a product which is bought widely by economical housewives and which is very popular with children. It is cheap and simple to use. Thousands of families eat these products every day for their tea, because of their simplicity and cheapness. By forcing the manufacturers to increase

  991
  their prices as a result of the Regulations, the Minister is acting contrary to the interests of the consumer. I hope that, in the light of the arguments I have advanced, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will withdraw the Regulations.
  10.25 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for the way in which he has raised this subject. As he has said, we have had correspondence about it over a considerable period. I do not mind taking part in the debate. I thought that the hon. Gentleman gave the whole argument away in his concluding sentence, because he said that there was very little difference in the taste. If there is very little difference in the taste, the hon. Gentleman cannot argue that this change will curtail sales. I leave the hon. Gentleman with the thought that his concluding sentence defeated his own argument.
  Mr. Lubbock: What about the price?
  Mr. Hoy: I will deal with that argument later. I have just dealt with the argument on taste. Having demolished that argument, I will move on. The argument on these Regulations, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, has been centred on the minimum meat content of meat paste, but they cover much more ground than this and before turning to the main issue I should like to say a few words about the purpose and general scope of the Regulations.
  The Regulations are part of the series we have made on meat products in the course of the last year, the others being the Canned Meat Product Regulations, the Sausage and Other Meat Product Regulations, and the Meat Pie and Sausage Roll Regulations.
  These four sets of Regulations provide, in our view, a good and flexible control over the composition and labelling of the whole range of meat products and are thus a major step forward in consumer protection in this field. The purpose of all these Regulations has been to give the consumer products of a good basic standard correctly and informatively labelled.
  992
  The labelling of meat and fish pastes and similar products has always been a matter of considerable difficulty, particularly the problem of distinguishing a product which consists entirely of the meat or fish mentioned in its name from one which has a meat or fish which gives it its character and flavour but also contains other meat or fish. The 1951 Code of Practice dealt with the problem by calling the fully named-meat product ham paste or ham spread and the mixed product meat paste ham or meat spread ham. This distinction was very confusing and probably very few consumers indeed understood it.
  On the advice of the Food Standards Committee, we have decided on a simple distinction. The named-meat product only will be called "ham spread" and the mixed product "ham paste". It is true that these distinctions may not be obvious to the consumer at first glance, but we hope that in the three years before the Regulations come into force consumers will come to understand this very simple distinction.
  We have also laid down names and composition for the other types of spreadable products such as potted meat, chopped meat, minced meat, chopped meat in jelly, dressed crab and similar products to which butter has been added. We have, I think, produced a reasonable solution to the difficult problem of controlling the meaning of the word "pâté", which rather baffled the Food Standards Committee.
  The provisions extend very much further than the existing Meat Paste and Fish Paste Regulations of 1951. They lay down simple names which will be of benefit to the consumer. They will also assist manufacturers by bringing clarity into this rather vexed subject.
  The provisions of these Regulations have been generally welcomed by all concerned, with the exception of the provision on minimum meat content, to which I now come. The restoration of the 70 per cent. minimum meat content of meat paste has been welcomed by all, or nearly all, the interests consulted except the manufacturers. When the meat paste Regulations were made in 1951, there was a tacit understanding that, as soon as the immediate difficulties of meat supplies were at an end, the prewar parity between meat and fish pastes

  993
  would be restored and the level of meat in meat paste should be raised to 70 per cent. This was to be done as soon as the time was ripe. The question has always been, is the time ripe?
  The attitude of the manufacturers' organisations has changed somewhat on this. They have always said, "Perhaps we ought to be good, but not just now". We take a rather different view. Only since the proposals for Regulations were published have they positively opposed raising the meat content. Whether they have entirely abandoned their view that the time may one day be ripe, I am not quite sure.
  Our attitude on the matter is simple and, I suggest, sensible. The problem has twice been considered by the Food Standards Committee. In looking at the question of the right names for these products, when reviewing food labelling, the Committee could not ignore the apparent anomaly that the minimum fish content of fish paste was set at 70 per cent., whereas the minimum meat content of meat paste had gone down to the very low figure of 55 per cent. Even though it was not strictly within its terms of reference in the labelling review, the Food Standards Committee felt bound to draw attention to the question and to recommend that the meat content should be raised to 70 per cent.
  Mr. Lubbock: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is this connection between fish and meat pastes, why not a connection between meat paste and sausages, for which the Regulations lay down a meat content of only 50 per cent.?
  Mr. Hoy: If the hon. Gentleman will just wait a moment, I am drawing attention to that comparison, which was one which the Food Standards Committee made. I am telling the House what that Committee said.
  To us it did not seem proper to implement this recommendation—which was made in 1964—before asking the Committee to make a full separate study of the whole question of the composition and labelling of all fish and meat spreadable products. This the Committee undertook. After careful consideration of all aspects of the problem, it again recommended raising the meat content
  994
  of meat pastes to 70 per cent. This was the second time the Committee had done so, the second time at our special request when we had asked it to examine the matter once more.
  Thus, we had a recommendation from the Food Standards Committee, after really mature consideration, that we should take action, action which for more than 15 years had been recognised by everyone as sensible to take at a suitable opportunity. It is undeniable that the level of 70 per cent. of meat will give the consumer the likelihood of a better product in every way.
  It is true that the amount of meat is only one of the factors which affect quality of meat pastes and it is more crucial in some cases than in others, but, if we are to make one single simple provision, I am sure that this is the one which will best ensure that the consumer gets meat paste of reasonable quality, a product which one can really say justifies the name meat paste.
  A significant number of pastes already meet the proposed new level, not just the one mentioned by the hon. Member, and they are already sold in a fairly wide price range. I do not think, therefore, that when it comes into force in three years' time this change is likely to have a very significant effect on prices to the consumer, certainly not compared to the benefit he will obtain.
  This is a decision that has been put off and put off for the past 17 years. We did not think it right to put it off any longer. Successive Governments have received representations that a change should be made. We think it wrong to countenance any more delay. Whenever that change was made it could be argued that the time was inappropriate, and it is unlikely that the time will ever come when it could not be said that a little more delay would probably be prudent. We decided to make a firm decision now, but to allow an unusually long time—three years—before that decision took effect, so that changes in recipes and so on could be planned in advance and made smoothly. The long period of preparation will give plenty of time for any economic effects to be dealt with. This is surely the right decision.

  995
  The hon. Gentleman disagrees, but I find that a little difficult to understand. Inspired by the dynamism of his party, he needs more than 20 years to deal with meat paste, apparently. One hesitates to guess the speed with which his party would deal with more weighty matters. But perhaps I misunderstand the hon. Gentleman. By the time this comes into force, 20 years will have elapsed—
  Mr. Lubbock: The difference between the Minister and me is that I do not believe in legislating just for the sake of it. He is not correct in saying that there has been a widespread demand. I do not have people queueing up at that door of my advice bureau asking for the content of meat in meat paste to be raised forthwith. Therefore, I think that the Regulations are unnecessary.
  Mr. Hoy: I am not saying that people are queueing at the hon. Gentleman's door. I am only saying that he has one manufacturer queueing at his door, telling him that the Regulations should not come into force. The manufacturers have a vested interest. I am not objecting to that, but my job must be to protect the consumer, not only in Orpington but throughout Great Britain. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is saying that some firms—and many, if not most, already meet the required standards laid down here—require more than three years to produce a label. I find it difficult to understand, because we have gone out of our way to meet them in this respect. I should have thought that we have proved very tolerant. I can only think that the hon. Gentleman is making this case for that firm, and that it is a case in which he does not have a very great belief, because there has been almost universal agreement that the minimum meat content in the current Regulations is too low. The hon. Gentleman must face up to that.
  Further, as the Food Standards Committee said, there is no satisfactory reason why there should be different compositional standards for meat paste and fish paste. The consumer deserves a product with a higher compositional standard, and I think that he wants it. A number of consumers have taken the trouble to say so to us and to others over the years. If the hon. Gentleman reads the reports he will find that to be correct.
  996
  The only argument is really about "when?". We think, having started to carry out these long investigations, that it is right to bring them to a conclusion. We recognise the economic difficulties of the present time, and though this is no reason to diminish our endeavours on behalf of the consumer—indeed, quite the reverse—it is sensible to allow a good time before the Regulations come into force. This we have done, and I think that all reasonable and legitimate difficulties have been met. Therefore, I confidently ask the House to reject the Prayer.
  Question put and negatived.

  BUILDING INDUSTRY (AGRéMENT BOARD)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Arnold Shaw: I am glad to have the opportunity tonight of raising with the Minister of Public Building and Works a subject which is of concern to all who take a real interest in the building industry, and one in which I believe the Minister is greatly concerned. This is the question of the Agrément Board and the disappointingly slow rate at which agrément certificates are being issued.
  I would not for one moment dispute that we need a body such as the Agrément Board to test and approve new materials. From a Ministerial reply I gather that something like 300 new products come on to the market in the construction industry every year, and there is clearly a need to sift and to assess these so that designers and builders can know just where they stand.
  It is obviously impossible these days for a private individual to keep up to date with developments on his own and distinguish the good from the bad, yet unless this is done people are shy at accepting new ideas which may be of considerable value. So we need the Agrément Board, or something like it.
  The Minister's recent replies in the House reveal that so far only eight certificates have been issued by the Board,

  997
  but in answer to a question at the beginning of February this year the Minister indicated that twice this number would be issued by mid-April. The Board was set up over two years ago and I am sure we had all hoped for something rather better than this. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that all that can be done to expedite the issue of certificates is being done, and whether the Board's organisation is the best in all the circumstances.
  I accept that the Board cannot issue certificates faster than the manufacturers can be persuaded to submit their products for testing. It seems to me a weakness of the present system that manufacturers have to pay something like £750 for the necessary testing in order to get a certificate. This must surely have a discouraging effect in a field where encouragement is so necessary.
  I understand that in some Continental countries the cost of testing has government subsidy, and even if we cannot do this I should like to hear from the Minister why the cost of testing is so high and whether something cannot be done to reduce it. Even a small reduction might persuade manufacturers to approach the Board for certificates.
  The Government are at present paying the Agrément Board a grant-in-aid of £60,000 a year. This is as nothing compared with even the wastages in defence expenditure, and a relatively small increase here would probably enable manufacturers to obtain their certificates at a more reasonable figure. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider this. It seems a small thing to do in support of an industry which makes such a major contribution to our economy and which, in particular, builds the nation's houses.
  It has been suggested that, because the Board depends on its income from manufacturers to keep going, there may in time grow up a tendency to give a product of marginal value the benefit of the doubt because "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Is there any evidence of this happening yet, and has the problem been considered? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are adequate safeguards?
  Another weakness of the present system is that not only is there no compulsion on the manufacturer to obtain
  998
  an agrément certificate, but also a product with a certificate will not necessarily satisfy the local authority under the Building Regulations.
  There are many places in the Building Regulations where a "deemed to satisfy" clause operates to the benefit of certain materials and methods of construction so that local authorities are bound to accept them as satisfying the Regulations. But the fact that a product has an agrément certificate does not automatically bring it within the scope of the "deemed to satisfy" clauses and it is difficult to see why it should not, granted the very comprehensive testing which the Board must have given before issuing the certificate.
  I should like to see the discretion of the local authorities to reject such products as not satisfying their particular interpretation of the Regulations removed and certificated products always treated as being within the "deemed to satisfy" clauses. The Building Regulations make frequent reference to British Standards and this brings me to another point which gives me some little concern.
  We live in an increasingly complex society and there are already a number of bodies working in the testing and approving of building materials. For instance, the British Building Research Station has a division devoted to research in building materials. From my observations, it is doing a fine job. The British Standards Institution lays down manufacturing standards for materials. A number of private research organisations and trade associations sponsored by industry also have an active interest.
  On to this situation has been granted the Agrément Board, which not only tests and approves building materials but also issues technical notes on methods of assessing and testing products. I ask my right hon. Friend whether these activities are properly co-ordinated and how the system works. It seems to me that there is every danger of an already confusing situation becoming even more confused.
  Finally, I must ask my right hon. Friend whether enough is being done to secure publicity for the Board in the right quarters. So long as we have a voluntary system rather than a compulsory one, it

  999
  is clearly very important to gain full publicity for it to ensure that the maximum possible use is made of it, otherwise we shall have failed miserably in the object of making the industry more progressive and facilitating innovation.
  This requires publicity to encourage manufacturers to apply for certificates, but also to stimulate the small local authorities who have to approve products under the Building Regulations, and designers, who must be made aware of the new products and convinced that it is safe to specify them. Even the building contractor is involved in this, because he must absorb the necessary new techniques of working with non-traditional materials and erecting them properly.
  All this amounts to the need to give wide publicity to the work of the Board and to ensure wide distribution of its various publications. I am not convinced, from what little we have seen so far, that all that is necessary to be done in this field is being done and I hope that my right hon. Friend has been considering this point.
  To sum up, I am in favour of the Board but I am not convinced that it is yet working as efficiently as it might be. The rate of issue of certificates is very slow in relation to the number of new products coming onto the market, and they are relatively expensive for manufacturers to obtain. The application of Building Regulations to certificated products is far from clear and the relationship of certificates to privately obtained research results in such cases as British Standards also seems to be confusing. Finally, the Board needs more publicity. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to tell us tonight what plans he has to deal with this problem and the progress we may expect to see in future.
  10.49 p.m.
  The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Robert Mellish): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw) for raising the whole question of the Agrément Board, and doing it so very ably. It is, as he said, a subject in which I have personally taken a considerable interest. I have looked at the facts and figures and have discussed the problems
  1000
  with members of the Board and I shall try to give him as full an answer as I can.
  First I would remind the House that the idea of agrément is totally new to this country, and is bound to take some time to gain general acceptance. My predecessor recognised the need of some machinery to test and approve new products for the benefit of the construction industry, and set up an official Committee to inquire into the problem and to study existing practice on the Continent.
  The Committee came out firmly in favour of an agrément system and the Board was set up along the lines recommended in its Report. This was early in 1966. The Board had to appoint a director, set up its organisation, devise and plan testing procedures and facilities, and then stimulate the interest of industry. It was not therefore, until the spring of last year that it was in business in a substantial way. My hon. Friend said that 300 new products were coming on the market every year. This is true. The indications are that only about 100 of these are suitable subjects for agrément certificates. The remainder are new versions of existing products, with little or no innovation, or which comply with existing British Standards, which the Board does not aim to duplicate, or are already subject to some other testing and approval scheme, such as that for solid fuel appliances.
  Thus, the gap to be bridged is not as large as it might at first appear. My hon. Friend mentioned that only eight products have so far received certificates. There are many more in the pipeline. The important figure is the rate at which manufacturers are entering into testing contracts with the Board, and this is now running at about 25 a year, with something like 100 inquiries in various preliminary stages. This means that the Board has still obtained only about one quarter of the potential total market. We have still a long way to go. This is a very creditable achievement in the short time that the Board has been effectively at work.
  One point which must be remembered is that there is an inevitable time-lag between the submission of a product for testing and the issue of a certificate. There is no queue of new products waiting for testing and manufacturers are

  1001
  sometimes very slow in replying to the Board's formal offer to undertake testing. Frequently the Board has to devise entirely new test procedures for a new product involving fundamental and time-consuming research. Moreover, the Board is certifying that a product will be satisfactory in use over a long period, which means carrying out tests over a period of time to see how it stands up in practice.
  In addition to the eight certificates we have issued, 20 other products are going through this process. While the Board has made an apparently slow start, I am well satisfied with its performance to date, and there should be a steady flow of new certificates from now on. This is entirely dependent on its success in persuading manufacturers to submit products for testing.
  The fact that some manufacturers, having obtained one certificate, are already coming back with further products for testing, is very encouraging. As the use of agrément grows, I feel sure that more and more manufacturers will come to appreciate the value of having a certificate. Now that the Board is a member of the European Union of Agrément, its certificates can be accepted abroad, and this should be of great value in the export market. When the system was set up, the Government took a deliberate decision that it should be a voluntary rather than compulsory system, and that manufacturers should meet the full cost of testing and assessment. We want to proceed by persuasion rather than coercion, and I am sure that the industry welcomes this. Compared with the vast sums which manufacturers spend every year on promoting and advertising their products, £750 or thereabouts, for an agrément certificate is a small and worthwhile expense. I see that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who is a member of a very famous firm, with a famous name, is present, and would, I am sure, be the first to agree with me.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the certificates gave exemptions from Building Regulations, more manufacturers might be keen to take them up?
  Mr. Mellish: I shall come in a moment to that point about the Regulations.
  1002
  My first task, as I see it, is to get industry as a whole to understand what an agrément certificate is.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help the reporters if the right hon. Gentleman will speak up.
  Mr. Mellish: I am glad to do that. The trouble is that when there are so few here in the House one tends to speak quietly, but, of course, I am only too glad to speak up and make their lives that much easier.
  I was saying to the hon. Gentleman that I shall be dealing in a moment with the Building Regulations, and I had been dealing with a point which had been raised, and saying that compared with the vast sums which manufacturers spend every year on advertising and promoting their products £750 is a small and worth-while expense. Being able to say that one has an agrément certificate will soon be a valuable—I hope, even an essential—sales point, and if firms regard the cost of the certificate as part of their marketing costs they will soon find that they are getting value for money.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the grant-in-aid to the Board and suggested that it might be increased to cover the costs falling on manufacturers. The grant-in-aid was not intended to subsidise the work of testing. In the present economic situation I could certainly not justify increasing it in order to subsidise manufacturers, and this would be contrary to our policy. I would hope that, as the Board gains in experience, and the volume of testing increases, costs would progressively come down, but this is a matter for the Board's decision in the light of its own balance sheet. Costs are always bound to reflect the extent of testing necessary, which, in many cases, can be quite considerable.
  The fact that the Board draws its income from manufacturers need not give rise to any fear that it will be biased in their favour. This is certainly not happening at the moment, and the Board has in fact referred a number of products back to manufacturers with the suggestion that further development work will be necessary before they are suitable for certification. In reaching its conclusions it draws on specialist scientific and expert knowledge whenever necessary and

  1003
  wherever it may be. Several Government Departments have assessors on the Board, and in the last resort the Board is answerable to me for its objectivity and fairness, and I have no reason to fear any bias occurring.
  I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) about the Building Regulations. This is, of course, mainly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but I can tell the hon. Member, and my hon. Friend, that my hon. Friend's suggestion of bringing agrément certificates within the scope of the "deemed to satisfy" clauses, although an attractive one, would require amending legislation which is beyond the scope of this debate, and you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order if I were to pursue that.
  However, my right hon. Friends and I have tackled this problem in another way. The Board consults the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Scottish Development Department about the application of the Building Regulations to any product which it may be testing, and it includes a statement in its certificate explaining its relationship to the relevant Regulations. The Ministries draw the attention of all local authorities to certificates as they are issued, and they indicate whether the Regulations are, in their opinion, satisfied, and, if not, whether they would consider it appropriate to grant a waiver. I am confident that manufacturers and designers will find that agrément certificates are increasingly understood and accepted by local authorities.
  I want to say a few words about the problem of publicity. I have just explained how we draw the attention of local authorities to certificates, but it is, clearly, just as important to reach the manufacturer, the designer and the contractor. The whole system depends on the willingness of the manufacturer to submit his products for testing, and on convincing him that certificates are worth having. The experience of those firms which already have certificates will be valuable here, and it is significant that firms are already asking for very large numbers of copies of certificates—in one case, as many as 40,000—to distribute to their customers. Meanwhile the Board
  1004
  is arranging receptions up and down the country for designers and manufacturers to explain their work; it is having exhibitions at building centres, giving lectures, and so on. The third reception went off very successfully a fortnight ago, and stimulated a good deal of interest in the Board's work and a number of inquiries. I have agreed with the Board that it should intensify its publicity activities.
  In the case of local authorities, designers, and the contractors, the most promising approach is the associate membership scheme which the Board set up some time ago. For a small subscription, associate members can receive copies of the Board's publications—certificates, news letters, annual report and so on—and already some 4,000 copies of each publication are being circulated in this way. The membership list is growing, and the Board will seek to encourage this. There is a special subscription rate for students who are the designers of the future. If they learn all about agrément now they will be in a position to influence the industry for good in the future.
  My hon. Friend pointed to the number of organisations already interested in this matter, and to the danger of confusion arising. Both the Board and my Ministry are well aware of this, and we have taken a number of measures to avoid unnecessary overlapping or duplication of work.
  First, an agrément certificate is valid for only three years, and can normally be renewed only once—and then only if the circumstances justify it. This has been done deliberately, since by the time the certificate expires the product should be sufficiently established for there to be a British Standard covering it, and the Board has no wish to duplicate the work of the British Standards Institution.
  Second, the Board will not normally accept for testing a product which is covered by some existing approval scheme. Third, most of the Board's testing work is undertaken for them by the staff of the Building Research Station, but they are free to place the work with other research institutions or laboratories if this seems appropriate. Thus, the Board can see that the work is done at the place where the greatest expertise in the particular subject is to be found, and that there is no duplication of effort.

  1005
  Finally, the technical notes issued by the Board on methods of assessing and testing products should help to promote greater uniformity throughout the testing.
  It is my intention to make the Board the national authority for the testing of new building products and techniques—those not covered by British Standards—and the main centre of technical expertise on this type of testing. Thus, its existence can help to co-ordinate and simplify responsibility.
  I hope that I have succeeded in showing some of the difficulties which the Agrément Board faced in launching this entirely novel operation, and how those difficulties have been and are being tackled. I trust that my hon. Friend will agree, in the light of all this, that the Board has made remarkably good progress with a difficult task, the end result of which will be of great value to the industry.
  I shall certainly continue to watch the Board's progress with great interest, and to help it in any way I can. I can assure the House that I shall not be finally satisfied until the rate of certification comes somewhere near the rate at which appropriate new products are coming on to the market. We can all help in this by giving all possible publicity to the Board's work and to its value. We ought to consider whether anything further can be done in the public sector to stimulate or encourage the use of agrément certificates, and I propose to look into this.
  I would make this last appeal. I hope that the technical Press of the building industry, which is very able and compet-
  1006
  ent, will give this debate tonight some publicity. This is what the Board is asking for.
  This industry is one on which I have made many comments, but basically it is an industry which is progressive, and which is anxious to do an even bigger and better job. This system of agrément certificates will, I believe, help them to do this. It is ignorance of the fact that the Agrément Board is in existence which has more than anything else to some extent retarded progress. I hope after this debate, if the technical Press will back me on this, that the industry will know of this Board and will support it.
  Mr. Costain: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has sent rather a cold douche of a circular to local authorities on agrément, and can he not put ginger into that Department?
  Mr. Mellish: I am in a mellow mood, and if I were to say what I think about local authorities it would spoil the debate. Circulars have to be sent to local authorities to make them understand clearly the importance of what particular Ministers need them to understand. I am not responsible for the circulars which have been sent. I will look into it. Local authorities, who are one of the biggest customers of the building industry, must recognise what agrément certificates really mean.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Recommendations)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Recommendations)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Employees
  Employees
  Royal Commission on Trades Unions and Employers Organisations (Cost)
  Royal Commission on Trades Unions and Employers Organisations (Cost)
  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Departmental Transactions (Computers)
  Departmental Transactions (Computers)
  Guaranteed Working Week (Negotiations)
  Guaranteed Working Week (Negotiations)
  Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Area (Planning Force)
  Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Area (Planning Force)
  Industrial Disputes (Stoppages)
  Industrial Disputes (Stoppages)
  Manufacturing (Female Part-Time Employees)
  Manufacturing (Female Part-Time Employees)
  James Brown & Co. Ltd. (Closure)
  James Brown & Co. Ltd. (Closure)
  London Docks (Strikes and Demonstrations)
  London Docks (Strikes and Demonstrations)
  Redundant Older Men, Northumberland
  Redundant Older Men, Northumberland
  Redundancy Payments (Personal Case)
  Redundancy Payments (Personal Case)
  Employment (Manufacturing and Service Industries)
  Employment (Manufacturing and Service Industries)
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Survey of Women's Employment
  Survey of Women's Employment
  Early Warning System
  Early Warning System
  Wage and Salary Increases
  Wage and Salary Increases
  Civil Servants (Industrial Disputes)
  Civil Servants (Industrial Disputes)
  Michael Colliery, Fife (Closure)
  Michael Colliery, Fife (Closure)
  Unemployment Pay (Member's Letter)
  Unemployment Pay (Member's Letter)
  Manufacturing Industry (Operative Hours)
  Manufacturing Industry (Operative Hours)
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Select and Standing Committees (Publicity)
  Select and Standing Committees (Publicity)
  Dining Facilities
  Dining Facilities
  Computing Facilities
  Computing Facilities
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  SAUDI ARABIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  SAUDI ARABIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS
  HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS
  GREECE (POLITICAL PRISONERS)
  GREECE (POLITICAL PRISONERS)
  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS COUNCIL)
  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS COUNCIL)
  ALGERIAN OIL (RHODESIA)
  ALGERIAN OIL (RHODESIA)
  UNITED NATIONS TRUST FUND FOR SOUTH AFRICA
  UNITED NATIONS TRUST FUND FOR SOUTH AFRICA
  EUROPEAN SECURITY
  EUROPEAN SECURITY
  SOUTH YEMEN (AID)
  SOUTH YEMEN (AID)
  PASSPORTS
  PASSPORTS
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Liverpool Bus Strike (Supplementary Benefit Payments)
  Liverpool Bus Strike (Supplementary Benefit Payments)
  Benefit Payments
  Benefit Payments
  Widow's Pension (Personal Case)
  Widow's Pension (Personal Case)
  Pensioners (Levels of Benefit)
  Pensioners (Levels of Benefit)
  Supplementary Benefit Payment (Personal Case)
  Supplementary Benefit Payment (Personal Case)
TECHNOLOGY
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (Civil Non-Nuclear Work)
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (Civil Non-Nuclear Work)
  Aldermaston March
  Aldermaston March
  Burfield Royal Ordnance Factory (Demonstration)
  Burfield Royal Ordnance Factory (Demonstration)
  Hearing Aid Batteries (Report)
  Hearing Aid Batteries (Report)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Non-rechargeable Projects)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Non-rechargeable Projects)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Rechargeable Projects)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Rechargeable Projects)
BOARD OF TRADE
  European Free Trade Association (Communiqué)
  European Free Trade Association (Communiqué)
  Butyl Rubber (Report)
  Butyl Rubber (Report)
SCOTLAND
  Social Work (Scotland) Bill
  Social Work (Scotland) Bill
  Hovercraft
  Hovercraft
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Indirect Taxes (Increases)
  Indirect Taxes (Increases)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Local Government Employees (Pensions)
  Local Government Employees (Pensions)
  Developing Countries (Private British Investment)
  Developing Countries (Private British Investment)
  Burmah Oil Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Burmah Oil Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  J. N. Nichols Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  J. N. Nichols Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Bovis Group Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Bovis Group Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Roadstone Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Roadstone Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Administrative Class Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Administrative Class Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Tax Relief
  Tax Relief
  Liverpool Bus Strike (Tax Repayments)
  Liverpool Bus Strike (Tax Repayments)
  Decimal Currency (Newspaper Advertisements)
  Decimal Currency (Newspaper Advertisements)
  National Insurance Charges (Newspaper Advertisements)
  National Insurance Charges (Newspaper Advertisements)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Woolwich-Erith Marshes (Development)
  Woolwich-Erith Marshes (Development)
  New Towns (Capital Cost)
  New Towns (Capital Cost)
  Government Expenditure (Nottingham)
  Government Expenditure (Nottingham)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich (Surplus Land)
  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich (Surplus Land)
  Biological and Chemical Warfare
  Biological and Chemical Warfare
  Lulworth Range
  Lulworth Range
  Forces' Pay and Allowances
  Forces' Pay and Allowances
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Zambia (Kenya Resident's Passport)
  Zambia (Kenya Resident's Passport)
  Biafra (British Companies)
  Biafra (British Companies)
  Wireless Station. Francistown
  Wireless Station. Francistown
  Zambia and Rhodesia (Official Visits)
  Zambia and Rhodesia (Official Visits)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Passports
  Passports
  Law of Contempt (Review)
  Law of Contempt (Review)
  Government Expenditure (Nottingham)
  Government Expenditure (Nottingham)
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Entry Visa (Mrs. Ajala)
  Entry Visa (Mrs. Ajala)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Bilingual Marriage Certificates
  Bilingual Marriage Certificates
  Government Expenditure (Nottingham)
  Government Expenditure (Nottingham)
  Personal Case (Mrs. Forsyth)
  Personal Case (Mrs. Forsyth)
  Birth Registrations (Wales)
  Birth Registrations (Wales)
  Poisoning (Deaths)
  Poisoning (Deaths)
  Heart Transplant Patient (Publicity)
  Heart Transplant Patient (Publicity)
  Advanced Surgery (Publicity)
  Advanced Surgery (Publicity)
  Departmental Staff (Wales)
  Departmental Staff (Wales)
  Departmental Work (Analysis)
  Departmental Work (Analysis)
HOSPITALS
  Attempted Suicides
  Attempted Suicides
  Accident Cases
  Accident Cases
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  National Plan (Fertiliser Usage)
  National Plan (Fertiliser Usage)
  HOMOSEXUAL ACTS (ALLEGED INCITEMENT)
  HOMOSEXUAL ACTS (ALLEGED INCITEMENT)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Industrial Training Scheme
  Industrial Training Scheme
POST OFFICE
  Non-Industrial Staff (Wales and Border Counties)
  Non-Industrial Staff (Wales and Border Counties)
GAS
  Revenue Per Therm
  Revenue Per Therm
COAL
  Publicity
  Publicity
  National Coal Board (Brick-Making Interests)
  National Coal Board (Brick-Making Interests)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Clyde Port Authority (Survey)
  Clyde Port Authority (Survey)
  Non-Industrial Staff (Wales)
  Non-Industrial Staff (Wales)
ELECTRICITY
  Dual-Fired Stations
  Dual-Fired Stations
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Wolverhampton (Empty Classrooms)
  Wolverhampton (Empty Classrooms)
  Expenditure (Urban Areas of Special Need)
  Expenditure (Urban Areas of Special Need)
  Departmental Staff, Wales
  Departmental Staff, Wales
  Administrative Staff
  Administrative Staff
  Irchester, Northamptonshire (Infant and Junior School Accommodiation)
  Irchester, Northamptonshire (Infant and Junior School Accommodiation)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
TRANSPORT
  Road Vehicles (Spot Checks)
  Road Vehicles (Spot Checks)
  Road Vehicles (Weight and Length)
  Road Vehicles (Weight and Length)
  Administrative Staff (Women)
  Administrative Staff (Women)
ROADS
  Neasden Circus, Brent (Underpass)
  Neasden Circus, Brent (Underpass)
  Motorways (Average Cost)
  Motorways (Average Cost)
  Primary Road Network, London
  Primary Road Network, London
  North Circular Road (Diversion)
  North Circular Road (Diversion)
WALES
  Welsh Planning Board
  Welsh Planning Board

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

RHODESIA: SIR FREDERICK CRAWFORD'S PASSPORT
LORD CARRINGTON: 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 any further statement to make on the confiscation of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I regret that I am not in a position to make a further Statement to-day. My noble friend Lord Shepherd hopes to do so shortly, probably to-morrow.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
THAMES VALLEY WATER BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

PASTORAL MEASURE
2.36 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Pastoral Measure, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Measure.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I rise to move that this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Pastoral Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The Pastoral Measure is the longest and most complex enactment ever to have received the approval of the Church Assembly and to come before this House for Affirmative Resolution. Its purpose, in a few words, is to enable the Church of England to meet the demands which the many changes taking place so rapidly in this country require of it, and so to fulfil its responsibility to the nation by making the best possible use of the limited resources in manpower and material at its disposal.
Your Lordships will be well aware of the movements of population taking place all over the country. Large areas once residential are being zoned for industrial and commercial purposes; people are moving to new housing estates and new towns, and provision must be made for their spiritual ministration. Increasing œcumenical good will makes denominational co-operation a real

3
possibility. New pastoral techniques may be necessary if the Church is to deploy its skills in the best way possible. It is considerations of these kinds which are reflected in the provisions contained in this important Measure.
Its theme is summed up in Clause 2(2) of the Measure, on page 2, where the duty of the Diocesan Pastoral Committee is set out in the words that, having regard to the traditions, needs and characteristics of individual parishes, they shall
"have particular regard to the making of provision for the cure of souls in the diocese as a whole, including the provision of appropriate spheres of work and conditions of service for all persons engaged in the cure of souls and the provision of reasonable remuneration for such persons".
The Pastoral Measure is in the main a consolidating enactment, and save for certain important exceptions it contains little that is without statutory precedent, as will be seen by the number of repeals set out in Schedule 9. The sections of the Measure which provide new powers are for the most part those dealing with the disposal of churches declared to be redundant and the provision for the creation of group and team ministries. About these I shall have something to say later.
The Measure as it is now presented to your Lordships is the result of a long period of thought and discussion. Its immediate history goes back 14 years when in 1954 the Church Assembly set up a Commission, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, to prepare in consultation with the Church Commissioners a Measure to consolidate, with such amendments as might seem necessary or desirable, existing legislation relating to the re-arrangement of pastoral supervision and of diocesan boundaries.
Meanwhile, two events of considerable importance took place, the results of which had to be incorporated in the framing of the new Measure. The first was the Report of a Commission, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, advising the course of action which should be followed in solving the problem of what should be done with redundant churches. The second was a report prepared by Mr. Leslie Paul on the payment and deployment of the clergy. This report was a long and con-
4
troversial document, and its recommendations are still under survey by the Church. But one section commended itself immediately to the Church Assembly which directed that the proposals should be incorporated in the Measure. This was the recommendation that power should be provided for the setting up in appropriate cases of group or team ministries. So the Measure contains not only the results of the work of the Ilford Commission but as well the outcome of the Bridges Commission and partly of the Paul Report.
The Measure received prolonged and careful scrutiny by the Church Assembly. It was considered for revision at the Spring and Summer Sessions of 1966 and at the Spring and Summer Sessions of 1967. The Measure was given final approval at the Summer Session of 1967. A Division was not requested and only one contrary vote was recorded against it. Your Lordships may therefore rest assured that there has been no undue haste in the preparation of this important Measure. If anything, the contrary is true, for in a rapidly changing situation the Church urgently needs greater flexibility to deploy its resources to the best advantage. The Measure incorporates powers going back in some instances over a hundred years. It includes powers taken to meet the needs of reorganisation as a result of war damage and now found to be needed for wider application. It incorporates powers which the situation to-day makes essential if the Church is to be efficient in its ministration. All these are now brought together in the Pastoral Measure.
Your Lordships will have before you the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament upon the Measure which records the opinion of that Committee that the Measure is expedient. The document contains as an Appendix the comments and explanations of the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly upon the Measure. The issues raised by the Measure are set out in the Report in such detail and with such clarity that it would be otiose for me to go over ground which is covered so adequately by that document. I will therefore confine myself to one or two points of special new importance or of some controversy and deal with them as briefly as possible.

5
First, I refer to the modification in the Measure to what is popularly known as the "parson's freehold". Your Lordships are probably aware that once a clergyman has been instituted to his benefice he has a lifelong tenure and can be removed from it only by his own choice, sometimes for health reasons, or, if he has been found guilty of an ecclesiastical offence, by order of an ecclesiastical court. Clause 24 of the Measure provides that a pastoral scheme may dissolve a benefice (and indeed, in an unlikely circumstance, an archdeaconry) even if the incumbent withholds his consent. This is not a new principle, since under the Reorganisation Areas Measure 1944, which was introduced in order to deal with the problems created by war damage and immediate post-war reconstruction, it was possible in certain carefully defined circumstances to remove a clergyman from his benefice. That Measure is now almost spent; but this power has proved to be so valuable that it is now permanently incorporated in this new Measure.
Perhaps I may illustrate the necessity for this power by outlining a hypothetical case in which it would operate. The Pastoral Committee of a diocese in the exercise of its responsibilities might well decide that drastic reorganisation in the heart of a big urban area was necessary. There might have been re-zoning whereby areas previously residential had now been developed for industrial or commercial purposes. Parishes and their churches which once ministered to a large residential population would have completely changed their character. It might well be essential that a number of parishes should be merged, or that a group or team ministry should be established.
Under the present system, if the incumbent of one of the parishes involved were unwilling to co-operate, the whole scheme could be defeated. If he were a young man, an essential scheme of reorganisation could be held up possibly for forty years. The Measure therefore provides that if, after the most careful scrutiny at more than one level, the scheme is considered to be desirable, it cannot be thwarted by the non-co-operation of a single clergyman.
There is no possibility of victimisation. Under the Measure an incumbent would be an "interested party". He would
6
therefore have the right of personal audience before the Pastoral Committee of the diocese. He would receive a copy of the initial proposals. He would have the right to make representations to the Church Commissioners on receiving a copy of the draft scheme. Finally, he would have the right of appeal, either in person or through counsel, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If the Bishop and these three bodies, the Pastoral Committee, the Church Commissioners and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, all decide that a Pastoral Scheme was essential for the good of the Church, it could hardly be held that a clergyman was being harshly treated if he were to lose his benefice, especially since he will be very reasonably compensated under the terms set out in Clause 25 and in Schedule 4.
Perhaps the fairest way of putting the matter is to say not so much that an incumbent would be deprived of his benefice but that when, owing to changed circumstances, his benefice is adjudged to be redundant, this fact must be faced, the clergyman found work of comparable scope, or else compensated for his loss of office. Under the Measure he would be compensated on terms which are far more generous than those which are provided elsewhere, under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965.
The second matter to which I would refer specifically is the power to suspend the presentation to a benefice. There already exist under the Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure 1953, which incorporates powers which have been in action since 1946, powers whereby a Bishop may, in certain circumstances and after due consultation, declare that for five years, or a lesser period, the patron may not present to a living, and meanwhile the Bishop must make adequate provision for pastoral oversight. The five-year periods may be renewed after consultation. This is an extremely useful provision because it allows for experiment in, say, holding two benefices together, without the finality of a formal union of benefices. Or it makes possible a waiting period when, for example, it may be necessary to build a new parsonage house, when it may be necessary to see the plans for the development of the area and how roads are going to be constructed. It thus often acts as a protection of the rights of a

7
patron, because if, owing to the circumstances of the parish, the patron cannot find anyone ready to accept his offer, then under existing law, after six months his right of presentation passes by lapse to the Bishop. Under the existing Measure the patron's rights are frozen, and when final arrangements are decided upon he may resume his rights under the new arrangements. The present Measure also protects the rights of parishioners, since the Bishop, on invoking suspension, must make proper pastoral arrangements so that the parish is not left for a long period of uncertainty with no-one to look after it.
That is the existing law, and the new Pastoral Measure incorporates this system with certain modifications. Under the old measures the Bishop, with the consent of the Pastoral Committee and the patron and after consultation with the parochial church council, may suspend presentation. Under Clause 67 of the new Measure the consent of the Pastoral Committee must be obtained and the parochial church council consulted, but the patron need only be consulted: his permission is not required. The reason for this is that if the Pastoral Committee decide that certain action is necessary, it is hardiy suitable that the patron, whose rights are concerned with an appointment, should have the power of vetoing the Pastoral Committee's decision. Indeed, one of the underlying principles here is that no individual body shall have the right of vetoing a decision that seems right to the Pastoral Committee of the diocese.
There are two other areas in which the rights of patrons will be affected by the Measure. The first is Clause 69. When it has been decided to initiate proceedings for a scheme of pastoral reorganisation, the patron, on being notified, may not exercise his right of presentation. This, for obvious reasons, is intended to prevent a patron from thwarting the proposals of the Pastoral Committee while the matter is sub judice. The period of restriction in the Measure is up to three years. Under existing powers the period of restriction is only one year. The period can only be three years as a maximum, but it is necessary to have this rather wider scope since a big scheme of reorganisation may well take
8
longer than one year to prepare. Moreover, this clause restricts the latitude allowed to the Bishop under the 1949 Pastoral Measure, since he can stop presentation temporarily under the new Measure only when he has directed the Pastoral Committee to consider reorganisation. Under the 1949 Measure, which is in force at the moment, he can act on his personal discretion.
The further point at which the patron's rights are affected is involved in the legal powers provided by the Measure in Clauses 19, 20, and 21, for the establishment of group and team ministries. As I have reminded your Lordships, these reforms are the outcome of the recommendations of Mr. Leslie Paul. It is now widely recognised that the best way of providing pastoral oversight for certain areas is not by having a number of independent parishes, each with their own individual incumbents, possibly with a curate, possibly without. This often leads to an undesirable parochialism in the worst sense of the word, and it leads to isolation and loneliness.
Therefore the Measure provides powers for the establishment, when desirable, of team ministries, in which the cure of souls in an area is shared by a team of ministers in one parish; or of group ministries, whereby a number of independent parishes are established as a unit working together. The advantages of such arrangements will be immediately apparent. There can be a greater sense of fellowship and purpose between the clergy; there can be a co-ordination of special knowledge and expertise. There can be one member of a team, or group, specially experienced in education, another in youth or children's work, another in psychiatric therapy, and so on. Such planning can only lead to greater pastoral effectiveness.
Your Lordships will readily appreciate that such group or team ministries can be fully effective only if there is overall planning of the team or group. The purpose would be thwarted if a patron could appoint one member of the group or team ministry who might not fit into the overall plan. It is important that the person who is to be the chief minister in the new arrangements should be someone who commands the confidence of the diocese. So, when a team ministry is

9
created, the appointment of the rector will be made by a patronage board and not by the patron, though under paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs (3) and (6) of Schedule 3 regard must be paid to the interests of the patrons, who can have voting rights on the Board. Should the team ministry at any time be terminated, the rights of presentation revert to the patron.
When group ministries are set up there is a slight modification in the rights of a patron. The first holder of a benefice in a group ministry may be designated by the scheme and not by the patron; and for subsequent appointments the Bishop must be consulted who, in turn, must consult the other incumbents of the group, and there is an appeal to the Archbishop if the Bishop withholds his approval.
My Lords, the system of patronage in the Church of England, whereby a variety of individuals or bodies have the right to nominate a clergyman to the Bishop for institution to a benefice, is one which is under a good deal of criticism and scrutiny at the present time. It is no part of our consideration to-day to go into the wider issues presented by the patronage system. At this time all that is necessary for me is to suggest to your Lordships that the inroads made upon the rights of patrons in the Measure are very modest and are essential if the necessary reforms contained in it are to be effected. It will always be borne in mind that patrons are "interested parties" in any scheme with full rights of objection throughout the system.
Finally, my Lords, I must draw your attention to Part III of the Measure which contains important reforms in the procedure for dealing with redundant churches. This problem has been with the Church for many years and has been the occasion for not a little controversy. The Church has a heavy enough burden to bear in keeping in good condition the churches which are needed for parochial purposes, and you will readily understand that church people are reluctant to spend much needed funds in keeping in repair buildings which are no longer needed for public worship. Who is to decide if a church shall be pulled down? Who is to provide the funds for the upkeep of a building of historic or aesthetic value no longer needed for public worship? These are the sort of questions which were put
10
before the Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Bridges, which reported in 1960. It is upon that Report that Part III of the Measure is based.
Briefly, the procedure will be as follows. When, by a pastorial scheme, a church is declared to be redundant, the redundant building will be vested in the diocesan board of finance pending a decision as to its future. The Measure provides for the appointment by the Archbishops, after consultation with the Prime Minister, of an Advisory Board whose function will be to advise on the historic and architectural qualities of any church which is declared redundant. It also requires every diocese to set up a diocesan redundant churches uses committee, whose job it will be to find suitable alternative uses for redundant churches. If the Advisory Board has said that the church may be demolished, or if a suitable use has already been found, then a redundancy scheme may be issued immediately. If not, the diocesan uses committee will have up to three years in which to find an alternative use If it fails to do so, the Advisory Board can again be asked to think about the possibilities of demolition. If the church ought to be preserved, it will be transferred to a Redundant Churches Fund also set up by Her Majesty.
The financing of this scheme is clearly a matter of great importance. The Bridges Commission recommended that the upkeep of such churches should be a charge upon the funds both of the State and of the Church. Her Majesty's Government have agreed to contribute up to £200,000 in the first five years, and the Church Commissioners have undertaken to provide a similar sum. In addition, it has been agreed that one-third of the sale price of redundant churches and their sites, up to a ceiling of £100,000, shall be contributed. In short, therefore, by this part of the Measure a redundant church of no intrinsic importance and for which no alternative use can be fund may be sold or demolished and the site sold. If it is considered to be of historic or aesthetic value it will be preserved by a Redundant Churches Fund. This fund will, for the first five years of its working, have up to £500,000 at its disposal for this purpose.

11
The fund will be administered by the Redundant Churches Fund, which will consist of a chairman and not fewer than or more than six other members, all of whom shall be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York transmitted through the Prime Minister. The function of the fund is to hold such redundant churches as are felt worthy of preservation and to administer such funds as are made available for the purpose. Since these funds are to be derived partly from Her Majesty's Government and partly from Church sources, and since the trustees of the fund would have to be of sufficient standing to secure the confidence of the Government, the Church and the public, it was thought right to propose that their appointment should be in the hands of the Crown. I am able to inform the House that Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to indicate that she would be willing to appoint the trustees.
Part III contains the details of the working of this scheme, including one important exception to the normal pattern contained in Clause 66, which allows the vesting of certain buildings of exceptional quality in the Minister of Public Building and Works. It is hoped that this part of the Measure will remove what has been a long-standing problem for the Church and provide a smooth and uncontroversial means of dealing with an area of the Church's responsibility which has for long been difficult and perplexing.
These, my Lords, are the main areas of reform contained in the Measure. There are, of course, a number of other detailed changes to which attention is drawn in the Reports of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament and of the Legislative Committee of Church Assembly. I do not think your Lordships would wish me to go into each one of them. I need do no more than to remind your Lordships once more that this long and detailed enactment is the product of many years of prolonged and careful study, and owes much to a number of people, among whom should be noted the noble Lords, Lord Ilford and Lord Bridges, and the Bishop of Warrington, who most skilfully steered the Measure through its many stages of
12
Church Assembly procedure. A word of thanks should also be expressed to the officers of the Church Assembly and the Church Commissioners, whose expert knowledge has been essential in the framing of these proposals. The Church has waited long for the powers contained in the Measure. They are not very radical; some would wish that they were more far-reaching. But they will go far to enabling the Church to put its house in order to meet the challenge of the rapidly changing character of society and to use its resources to the best possible advantage in fulfilling its duty towards our people.
I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 32 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's Report indicating that Her Majesty has placed Her prerogative and interest at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of this Measure. Her Majesty has also given Her approval to the proposal that the appointments to the Redundant Churches Fund should be Crown appointments, and the Prime Minister is content with the proposed arrangements outlined in Clause 42 of the Measure for the Advisory Board. I trust that this Measure will receive an Affirmative Resolution from your Lordships.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Pastoral Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
3.7 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I rise to add only a very few words to what has been said by the right reverend Prelate. My excuse for intervening in this discussion is that I was the Chairman of the Commission appointed by the Church Assembly to prepare this Measure.
Our task was primarily to consolidate the existing legislation relating to the rearrangement of pastoral supervision, which includes the union of parishes and benefices, the adjustment of parish boundaries and the holding of livings in plurality. Furthermore, we were given certain powers of amendment which we exercised where it appeared necessary or desirable to do so. This proved a formidable task, involving the examination of something like 40 Acts of Parliament

13
and Measures of the Church Assembly stretching right across the whole field of the 19th century. The law of the Church has become involved and in many respects highly obscure. The need for a Measure of this nature is urgent and insistent. The obscurity and complexity of the existing law is an obstacle to those changes which are essential if the Church is to keep abreast of changes in the life of the people whom it serves and is to be in a position to make the best use of her resources in manpower and her material assets.
We aimed at furnishing the Church with a reasonably clear, contemporary code of law governing these essential changes and we endeavoured to make it as simple as we could. In dealing with matters of this nature, simplicity is not easily achieved. We have done our best. How far we have succeeded in our purpose the future alone will show. But at least I think we can claim that it is no longer necessary to search through a mass of legislation, much of it passed to deal with circumstances which were entirely different from the circumstances of to-day, in order to ascertain how changes seen to be essential can be carried out. Whether the future will show that we have succeeded or failed in our aim, I do not know. But, at any rate, I hope that this afternoon your Lordships will speed this Measure on its way by accepting the Motion which the right reverend Prelate has just moved in such eloquent terms.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I should like to help speed the Measure on its way, and for that reason I shall speak for one minute only. There is no need to commend the Measure in greater terms than the excellent statement which the right reverend Prelate made. My only reason for rising is that for the last twenty years I have been the nominee of successive Lord Chancellors on the Ecclesiastical Committee, and, as one member of that Committee, I should like to say that I associate myself with the Motion and think that in these different days the Church needs a Measure of this kind as soon as it can get it.
3.12 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester has explained in
14
very lucid terms the main purpose of this Measure but, if your Lordships will bear with me, there is one side of the problem on which I should like to dwell at a little longer length than the two noble Lords who have preceded me, and that is the question of church buildings. It appears to me that of all the questions raised in this Measure, that is the one which more and more will come into the arena between Church and State for general decision by all the various forces in society.
A very large number of churches are already for practical purposes redundant. My definition of "redundant" in this context is that, given the manpower of the Church of England, the expense of keeping up the churches and the size of the congregations which they serve, no ordinary organisation would dream of continuing their upkeep for any length of time. There has not been a great amount of research into how many redundant churches there are, but there is considerable evidence that there are over 300 in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincolnshire alone. Particularly in those counties, they are often churches of architectural merit and very considerable beauty. It is fairly safe to say that the number of redundant churches all over the country will increase. Schemes of reunion among the Churches, which show every sign of fulfilment, will mean that a considerable duplication of the Churches' plant will in future be avoided; and it would be unwarrantable optimism for us to look for any evidence that the present decline in the institutional church is likely to be halted.
Faced with this situation, the Church must decide on her prime purposes. In a world coming more and more under the threat of hunger and poverty, it is very difficult to see the justification for spending up to 90 per cent, of one's income on keeping the Church going for its internal purposes. To put it crudely, the purposes of the Church are to preach the Gospel, to worship God and to serve the world. I am not putting those in any order of precedence, since there would be considerable dispute if I did. Neither the first nor the last—that is, preaching the Gospel or serving the world—are helped by the tremendous weight of plant which the Church has to support,

15
and it could be argued that the second is not helped very much either. In fact, if we look at the real reasons for the Church to-day, I think we must come to the conclusion of that great Bishop, Charles Gore, who said that the Church of England is an ingeniously devised instrumentality for defeating the objects which it is supposed to promote.
It is sometimes said that we must continue to support these buildings because of the money that was given in the past for their building and their upkeep. I myself reject that argument as being fallacious. It seems to me a principle of equity that people who have given money to an institution have given it to further the basic aim of that institution; and in this case the aim is service to Christ. It may be that at the time the money was given service to Christ demanded the building of churches. It may even be that service to Christ today involves knocking them down, or at least some relief of the burden of the Church.
So what do we do about these churches? I am convinced that the Church will have to say more and more that, as an institution, it cannot necessarily take the responsibility. It will then become the responsibility of individuals, of local authorities and of the State. Here, of course, I am not denying that individual Christians and Christian churches must take their responsibility as part of society as a whole. The present arrangements which the right reverend Prelate has outlined for the redundant churches fund are an admirable stop-gap measure, but we shall see in the course of the next five years whether they are sufficient.
For instance, if you start closing churches of architectural value in small towns, in small villages, in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, are you just going to leave them there subject to vandalism and anything else, or are you going to equip them with caretakers and have regular upkeep as well as architectural upkeep? If you are going to do the latter, then £500,000 will not go very far. Those are problems which are confronting the Church at the moment, and which will confront society as well.
Meanwhile, we have this Measure. In my view, it is a slightly disappointing
16
Measure, in that it does not really face the great problems. But, if I may say so, the fault is not by any means to be laid at the door of the Church and its leaders, as a great many interests have been involved in this matter. The procedures under the Measure are extremely lengthy, and in many cases there is duplication of what are quite adequate safeguards. For instance, a diocese concerned, even when it has produced a scheme of pastoral reorganisation which is accepted by everyone as a good one, still will not know for several years whether it will be in a position to dispose of the redundant buildings and thus plan the financial future to support the pastoral reoganisation. The Measure also suffers from over-centralisation. It retains and indeed increases the control of the Church Commissioners over reorganisation and redevelopment of sites. There is centralisation as opposed to devolution, which I think the proposers of the Measure and certain of the Church Assembly would have liked to see. It will undoubtedly tend to stultify initiative at local level when it comes to questions of reorganisation.
This Measure has been 10 or 14 years in the pipe-line and is a result of extremely hard work on the part of a large number of people, to whom I also should like to pay tribute. It is now in a state which really produces a solution for the Church in terms of twenty years ago. In my view, it does not begin to measure up to what the Church needs today. Nevertheless, a crumb is better than no bread, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will give it an affirmative Resolution.
3.20 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I do not intend to speak on the general provisions of this excellent and, I think, very carefully drafted Measure, but there are two practical results which are likely to ensue from it to which I should like to invite the attention of the right reverend Prelate who has introduced it. Clauses 51 and 65 give a new power to the Church authorities to sell a churchyard and to allow it to be developed. This is an important transfer of power from Parliament to the authorities of the Church. Until now, under the Pastoral Measure of 1944, the only purpose for which a disused burial ground could be used was as a public open space.

17
The Commons and Open Spaces Preservation Society, of which I am treasurer, looks at each one of the Private Bills which is brought before Parliament in order to try to make sure that adequate provision is made, especially in thickly built-up areas, for the preservation of adequate open space. For example, there is a Bill before your Lordships at the present time, the Saint Mary, Hornsey Bill, where we have been in consultation with the diocese of London and where I hope it may be possible for some drafting Amendments to be agreed between us. Only four years ago there was the case of the Saint George, Hanover Square Bill, which aroused some controversy in another place, where the local Member of Parliament moved an Instruction, which was carried, that the views of the local inhabitants should be carefully considered before that open space was disposed of.
My Lords, there is a natural temptation—and even the Church can be sorely tempted—to use these disused burial grounds for building development instead of as gardens or playgrounds, such as has been done so successfully in the case of St. Giles's in the Field and St. Luke's, Chelsea. It is the Government's policy, as we know from a recent White Paper, to encourage residents in twilight areas to improve their properties, and all must be done in order to try to improve their environment and ensure that they have a sufficiency of open spaces. Conversion of disused churchyards has already done a good deal to provide additional open space and playgrounds in the centre of London, and I should be very sorry if this Measure were likely to mean that in the future less will be done in that way than has been done in the past.
It is of course true that before making a Pastoral Scheme having this effect the Church authorities must, under Clause 3, consult the local planning authority; but the position is not, however, safeguarded by that. It would seem that if the Church went ahead with a scheme to convert a churchyard to secular use under Clause 65 and the local planning authority refused planning consent for this purpose, the Church could require the local authority to buy the land for the value that it would have if it were developed; and manifestly, in the vast majority of cases no local authority would
18
be able to pay the building price of land in order to preserve it as an open space. Schemes have indeed to be approved by Her Majesty in Council, but I doubt whether this would prove to be much of a safeguard. I should far prefer an assurance now that the Church authorities will give adequate consideration to the preservation of at least a part of the burial ground in all suitable cases, and especially in congested areas, even if it is at some financial sacrifice.
My Lords, while looking into this Measure and its effect upon open spaces I suddenly became aware of the extraordinary, costly and antiquated provisions contained in these Private Bills, and now incorporated for the future in this Measure, for the removal and ^interment of all human remains before that part of the burial ground may be built upon. There is no limitation in time. In some of these cases burials haev been stopped by Order in Council since the middle of the nineteenth century, and the cost is really quite excessive The cost of reinterring human remains from St. Mary's, Ealing, was £7,000; in the case of a small burial ground in the City 12 years ago it was £45,000; from St. James's, Hampstead Hill, the cost was £20,000. Some of the remains reinterred under these Bills have been there since the thirteenth century. Excavations have gone down 17 feet; and in the case of a site just behind the Old Bailey the excavations were stopped only when they reached the level of Roman sarcophagi.
Legally, it all results from the provisions of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884, which prohibits building, otherwise than of a place of worship, on a burial ground. That means that in each such case, until the passing of this Measure, it is and has been necessary for a Private Act of Parliament to be passed. This particular requirement came from the Home Office, which would have resorted adversely, presumably, on any Bill which did not contain it. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to ask for £n explanation of this, and he wrote:
"So far as we are able to ascertain in the absence of the papers upon which policy was made, this requirement stemmed from the Home Office and was based upon grounds, firstly, of public health and, secondly, of public sentiment. It is difficult now to be exact about the date of its inception, but it can be traced back with certainty to 1898."

19
There can be no valid objection on grounds of public health to building over the remains of persons who have been dead for a century; and I doubt the existence of public sentiment in the case of persons whose children and grandchildren are dead and when, as in the case of St. George's, Hanover Square, the tombstones were removed before 1914 and the burial ground was subsequently used for allotments.
I much regret that this Home Office doctrine, the validity of which (if it ever had any) has surely disappeared, is being given a new lease of life in this Measure. I cannot believe that it is based on any sound grounds at all, or on any grounds of religion, sentiment or public health. I believe Parliament would welcome a new Measure which would save all this expenditure to the Church when disposing of redundant burial grounds, and I am sure we should be willing to give approval to a Measure of that kind.
3.29 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his very lucid exposition of this Measure. He described it as "long and very involved", and so perhaps it is, by Church Assembly standards, but it is nothing like as bad as, say, the Transport Bill, and I am sure it will be a good deal more beneficial. I suppose that owing to this long period of 14 years' gestation it is only natural that some of it should already appear to be a little dated. We have team ministries and group ministries with us now, and we have had them for some time. Although this Measure will assist in the formation of further such ministries, we ought now to be thinking more about the situation which already exists on the ground; that is to say, in which these team ministries and group ministries are not teams and groups of Anglican clergymen but teams and groups of Anglican clergy, Free Churchmen and Roman Catholics.
What we shall need—and need already—is a Measure which will facilitate the working of this kind of co-operation. It seems clear, from what the right reverend Prelate has already told us about Part III, that the provisions in the Measure for dealing with redundant churches will assist considerably when the
20
Church of England wants to share, lease or even sell a church building for the use of other denominations. Perhaps before we leave this the right reverend Prelate could just confirm that after the passing of this Measure it will not be necessary, although it will be possible, for Private Bills such as the Saint James, Plumstead, Bill which we shall see at the end of this week, to be proceeded with in future.
I suppose we are some way from the stage where funds from the Church Commissioners can be used to pay the salaries of Roman Catholic or Free Church ministers; but it would be interesting to know whether the right reverend Prelate feels that the bodies set up under this Measure—for instance the diocesan pastoral committees—can have Free Churchmen and Roman Catholics serving on their sub-committees. This should be useful when it comes to consulting about appointments in New Town areas. There is a further point. Are we not going to hear from the Government at this stage about the legislation which is mentioned on page 12 of the Appendix to the Comments and Explanations of the Legislative Committee? Are they going to say anything about when this legislation is coming forward? I think it would be helpful to know that.
I do not think I have anything else to say to delay the progress of this Measure, a Measure with such a good pedigree as this—no fewer than two of your Lordships were on the Commissions from which it originated. It had a very thorough going-over by the Church Assembly; there was no division at the end, and only one dissenting voice and the mildest possible warning from the Ecclesiastical Committee as to some of the things which might follow as the result of its passing.
3.33 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I should like to say a few words. I will not make a speech, but perhaps it would be appropriate if, as a Free Churchman, I were to offer, as I most cordially do, good wishes to this particular Measure. Your Lordships may not expect me as a Free Churchman, to profess an excess of enthusiasm for the reference, or submission, of a Pastoral Measure to a secular body, even one as august as your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, as this

21
is being done now, it comes to my mind that many of the things now being thought over and already practised in this Measure belong to the welfare of the whole Church; and some of them have already been put into some kind of operation in other branches of the Christian Church. I was interested in the question of the redundancy of churches and the various plans which this Measure now provides for dealing with this hoary problem. As one who has battled with this problem, not too successfully, in the Methodist Church, I would wish the best of British—or perhaps the best of ecclesiastical—luck to them; I think they will need it.
I am well aware of the need for and the modified success of group and team ministries; but I believe that we have a great deal more to think about and to understand before we can make these team ministries as effective on the ground as many of them appear to be on paper. But perhaps I have a more personal reason to wish this Measure success; for, if the Methodist and Anglican Churches come together in the not-too-remote future, then we shall hope to benefit from this Measure and perhaps to improve it. I feel that I can in this respect speak for the Free Churches and I should like to wish this Measure well and commend it to your Lordships, believing, as I do, that that which will be good for the Church of England may in due course be good for the Church in England.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked for a word from the Government. I think it is not my place to comment on this Measure now. I simply confirm that a Redundant Churches Bill will be introduced by the Government shortly—I must observe the usual form of words about this; I cannot say in which Session of Parliament, but the Bill is well advanced. It will make provision on the State side for the Exchequer grant to match the Church monies which the right reverend Prelate mentioned and to enable the relevant Minister, to acquire, by agreement, certain other outstanding redundant churches as well as those which go to the redundant Churches Fund.
22
The relevant Minister is, at the moment, the Minister of Public Building and Works, but the Redundant Churches Bill will transfer this function to the Minister of Housing and Local Government following the recent transfer of the Historic Buildings Council—that is, the normal grant-giving organisation— from the Minister of Works to the Minister of Housing. The monies in question, the £200,000 Treasury grant over five years, will be over and above the £ 550,000 annually which the Minister of Housing administers for the repair of historical buildings on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council.
3.37 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords,, may I thank those who have spoken so sympathetically and so constructively about this Measure? I specially thank my noble friend Lord Soper for the particularly gracious way in which he has expressed the good will of the Free Churches for this Measure. It was good to know that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, approves of the Measure. He is largely its progenitor and it is good to know that he approves of his offspring. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has raised the problem of the upkeep of churches which are still needed for public worship and which will therefore be outside the provisions of the Redundant Churches Fund. His anxiety is shared by a very large number of church people who having, they hope, disposed of the problem of redundant churches, are now turing to the problem of keeping in good repair those buildings which are of great historic and aesthetic value and which yet lay such a heavy burden on church people. There is sitting at the present time a Places of Worship Commission which is thinking precisely about these things.
The noble Lord has voiced the opinion that this Measure is not radical enough. I hope that he will have noticed that there was a note of sympathy in my speech with what he said. Undoubtedly further reforms will be coming before your Lordships' House. Whether he or I shall agree on the nature or the extent of those reforms remains to be seen; but he need have no fear that reform will again be before this House in the near future.

23
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, made some points of interest about the disposal of churchyards. May I first deal with the point which he made (and which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, also raised) about the transfer of this procedure from method of Private Bills to a scheme. I understand that, constitutionally, it will still be possible to proceed by way of Private Bills; but there will now be a simpler and cheaper method of procedure, and no doubt that will be a disincentive to the use of Private Bills. I am also told by those who are more learned in these matters that what is represented in this Measure is really a continuing process in the law, whereby matters which at one time had to be dealt with by Private Bills have now been incorporated into some statutory procedure. That was true, I am told, for instance, of divorce proceedings, which at one time could be proceeded with only by Private Bills but which now are dealt with in an overall measure.
I do not think it can fairly be said that there is anything very serious in dealing with the question of disposal of churchyards under a scheme, especially in view of the safeguards which are built into this Measure. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, reminded us that planning authority has to be consulted. I would remind him that interested parties would be able to challenge a pastoral scheme right up to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, if there were good grounds for doing so. I am reminded that under Clause 65 only the Home Secretary can allow a churchyard to be developed without the removal or reinterment of human remains. The Church itself cannot do this; the permission of the Home Secretary must be obtained.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, also brought into the discussion the very interesting point about the proper way to dispose of human remains. Under this Measure, if a churchyard is to be used for some purpose which will not disturb human remains, they may be left there. It may be used as a garden, and I am sure that many of us would agree with the noble Lord that it is desirable wherever possible that open spaces should be provided. If it is to be used for a garden or for a car park the human remains need not be disturbed or removed. But if there is development on
24
the site which requires the disturbance of human remains, I think that public opinion would require that such human remains should be dealt with in a reverent and decent manner.
The noble Lord brought to light the very interesting fact that the stringent requirements of the Home Office are apparently only regulations. They are certainly very stringent and very costly. Therefore I am sure that I speak on behalf of the Church in saying that if some way can be found whereby human remains which are to be disturbed by development can be dealt with in a less expensive and less complicated way than at present exists, we should all be very pleased indeed. Equally, we should require, as I think everybody would require, that human remains, if they are disturbed, should be disposed of in a reverent and decent manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised the question of œcumenical co-operation. Undoubtedly this Measure will make that more easy. For instance, the Diocesan Redundant Church Uses Committee has to find a proper use for a redundant church, and it may well be that one proper use would be by another Christian communion. There is another way in which co-operation will be made more easy. Under the Measure it will no longer be necessary that in order to establish a parish there must be a consecrated church, because once a church is consecrated there are certain legal restrictions upon its use. Under this Measure a church which is only dedicated, or a place that is suitable for worship, can be provided and at the same time a new parish can be created. In my own diocese in a populous new area I have a dedicated church which is shared equally between ourselves and the Methodist Church. That is another direction in which this Measure will make œcumenical co-operation easier.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised the question of incorporating on pastoral committees those who are not members of the Church of England. So far as my reading of the Measure goes, that would not be possible on the diocesan pastoral committees, but it seems that it would be possible on the breakdown of the committees throughout the diocese, if that were desirable. Finally, I would remind him that any action which involves another Church cannot of course

25
be dealt with by a Church Assembly Measure; it would need a Parliamentary Bill, and there is in mind already the Sharing of Churches Bill which would make it easier for co-operation between Christian communions at that level. I hope, therefore, that I have satisfied your Lordships on the points which have been raised and that you will give this Measure your affirmative Resolution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLEAN AIR BILL HEARING AID COUNCIL BILL THEATRES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL
3.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDNER): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Appointment of justices, oaths of office, etc.
1.—(1) No person shall be justice of the peace for any area unless either—
(a) he is appointed by name (and not by office) to be a justice for the area by a commission of the peace for the area; or
VISCOUNT DILHORNEmoved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert, "Subject to subsection (1A) below,". The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 4. It had to be put down to get the drafting right, but the effect of putting it down is that it has taken precedent over Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. It would probably be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed Lord Goodman's Amendments and my Amend-
26
ment No. 4 together. But I do not want to take precedence over Lord Goodman's Amendment because of this paving Amendment, so I would formally beg to move my Amendment now and then, if he explains his Amendment, perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain the purpose of my Amendment thereafter so that all the Amendments can be considered together. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert (Subject to subsection (1A) below,").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that that will be a very convenient course to take. No doubt we may be advised by the noble Earl in the Chair, but there are, first of all, Amendments Nos. 1 and 4, in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, which obviously go together; and so do all those Amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Boothby. Subject to the view of the Committee, I agree that it would probably be convenient that we should discuss them all together. That may sound a lot, but there are really three alternatives.
One is that proposed by the Bill which, in substance, is that the City aldermen, like all the other ex officio justices, should cease to be justices ex officio and that there should be an advisory committee to nominate people for appointment as justices on their merits. The second is that indicated in the Amendments standing in the names of Lord Goodman and Lord Boothby; namely, that everything should go on as it does now, so far as the City is concerned. The third alternative is a compromise, and is contained in the Amendments in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. If—but of course only if— Lord Goodman and Lord Boothby agree, I agree on my part, if the Committee think it right, that all these Amendments should be discussed together so that we can then choose which of the three alternatives we want. Apart from anything else, Amendment No. 4 proposes to add something at the end of line 28. The Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, also does this, and so I think there would be some difficulty in deciding on those before discussing the others.
LORD GOODMAN: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has stated the position with characteristic clarity. I think that it would be best if we discussed together the Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Boothby and myself, and those of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. All touch the same subject. If that is agreed, perhaps it will be convenient if I now make my speech.
As the noble and learned Lord has said my Amendments would achieve the result of restoring the status quo, by putting the City Court back to where it was before it was toppled off the wall by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I hope that we can discuss this matter on the basis that there is an agreement on all sides that there is room for two points of view on this matter. I did not detect, in the speeches on Second Reading (which I unfortunately missed, through absence abroad) much recognition on the part of the Government spokesmen of the point of view which I am seeking to adduce, but I will, with generosity, say that I certainly recognise there is room for their point of view, though I disagree with it.
I think that the arguments I shall seek to advance to the House, which have already been presented in lucid and cogent terms by distinguished lawyers, would convince reasonable people that they have an overwhelming force. The argument adduced in favour of changing the present position is the simple one of total uniformity. If we subject any human institution, particularly institutions in this country, to microscopic examination on the basis of total reason and uniformity, there are very few institutions that will not fall short of perfection on that score; but fortunately it happens to be a test that we rarely apply.
The test we apply in this country is the more valuable and valid test—whether an institution works. And by the test of whether it works, the City of London Court has an enormously strong position. No-one has argued—no-one can argue— that this has not been a most successful court. The statistics about the cases that have been before the court were given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on Second Reading.
28
I will refresh your Lordships' memories and repeat these figures, for the sake of noble Lords who did not happen to be here on Second Reading, because they are so impressive.
In the last year for which records are available, 19,000 cases came before this court. Leaving aside a few cases that were referred, on case stated, to the Divisional Court or other higher Court, the cases that were heard on appeal were 20 in number, of which six were successful. So this court has a record of having tried 19,000 cases, of which the decisions in only six were reversed by an appellate tribunal. It is difficult to believe that any court anywhere in this country could achieve a better result than that. If we were to judge the matter by normal criteria we should really be down on our bended knees begging the City aldermen to continue in office. We should not be advancing highly theoretical reasons why their court should be abolished.
Two things were said in the course of the Second Reading debate on which I ought to comment. One was that the City has done a good deal of lobbying in this matter; and that was said with some sense of reproach, as if it was wrong for them to do so. I think that they would have been open to reproach if they had not done so. If the City believe so strongly as they do in the value of their court, then they are quite right to lobby and to seek every legitimate means they can to preserve an institution by which they set special value.
The second thing said, which does them much less than justice, was that the whole of this matter resolved itself into the question of whether the City aldermen are prepared to demean themselves by sitting on the bench with ordinary human beings. If I may say so, I think that is an unworthy representation of the whole position. Nobody who knows the City aldermen will believe that that is the matter which concerns them. What concerns them is that they want to preserve a traditional court as part of the whole fabric of the City by which they set great store. What we shall be doing, if we abolish this court, is to tug at one string of a whole tapestry of tradition, and if we do that we shall be impairing and endangering the whole tapestry. I

29
think that that is the real danger of the proposal.
Should we do this? Here is a court that is held in high repute by every branch of the legal profession. The Bar regard it highly. The Judiciary have already come to your Lordships' House to testify how highly they esteem this court, and no doubt they will speak again this afternoon. I think that no member of the Judiciary, except the most lofty member of it, has expressed an opinion adverse or contrary to the standing of this court. The solicitors' profession, through the Law Society, has also expressed its approval of the court. The Magistrates' Association has said that, whatever views may be held about ex officio justices of the peace generally, they do not apply to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City.
On every side where informed opinion exists there is the view that this court ought to survive. There is even implicitly and by inference, the approval of the defendants before the court. I have never seen a letter in any newspaper—nor heard of any complaint by anyone tried before this court—that he had an unfair trial because he became before one alderman and there were not three justices sitting there to try him. I cannot believe that if such a feeling had been widespread over the years it would not have been expressed by the people who have actually been tried in this court. I think that one is entitled to say, therefore, that there is total satisfaction on all sides by all concerned with the administration of justice in this court, including the accused.
On one side, we have a court that is regarded as entirely satisfactory, free from any possible complaint; and, on the other, we have the contention that it is an anomaly. And what are the reasons why it is regarded as an anomaly? I think that they are best found in some of the speeches made in another place. I do not discount those reasons or speeches, but in my view they add up to nothing like sufficient to redress the balance against the weight of overwhelming opinion in favour of the court's survival.
First, it is said that no women sit on the court. There seems to be some view that there is a woman somewhere within the aldermanic structure slowly forcing
30
her way to the top. I do not know whether the lady has arrived at this moment, or when she is likely to become an alderman. I have no wish to make the slightest use of this sort of argument. I would say squarely that there are no women. But I make the point to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there are many legal courts where women do not feature predominantly. He will go down in history as the first Lord Chancellor to appoint a woman as a High Court Judge. This stands to his credit; but, so far as I know, only one such woman has been appointed, and any High Court Judge who is looking for a female companionship will have to look far and wide before he encounters it in the Divorce Division.
If we look for something to reform in relation to the absence of woman, then the Chancery Division is eminently the place to look, for there we find infancy cases, wardship cases, cases where it is eminently necessary—indeed, imperative—that the opinion of women are sought. Yet they never are sought. So far is judicial opinion is concerned, there is no woman in the Chancery Court. Let us hasten to reform that and put some women in the Chancery Division before we start knocking about the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London. I venture to think that this is not a very convincing argument.
The cases that do require women—cases of juvenile delinquency and matrimonial cases—are few in number, because the City is not a dormitory area. The City is a place where people conduct business, and matrimonial disputes rarely arise in the course of stockbroking activities. The City contrives not to have these matters to deal with. There is a trifling number in the course of a year and they could conveniently be passed to an adjoining court that has the requisite personnel to deal with them. The same is true of juvenile delinquency. The City does not produce an atmosphere which encourages juvenile delinquency. Juvenile delinquents go off elsewhere for their unhappy activities.
So far as the City Court is concerned, there is this to be said: that, having no women, it contrives to produce a better record of successes than the courts which have women. It may be a sad fact for

31
feminists to reflect on (I am almost terrified to say this with some of the company present here this afternoon), but it is the fact that if you look at the records of courts throughout the country where there are women on the bench, you find that they do not add up to the record that I have just given your Lordships—that is, of only six successful appeals out of 19,000 cases. Therefore we have no logical reason to suppose that if we were to change this court to have women, we should achieve any better results. The logic and statistics, indeed, establish that we should achieve even worse results.
The other argument advanced is that this court consists of a single magistrate sitting on his own; and it is said that this is a bad thing. But, of course, all the stipendiary magistrates sit on their own; they are single magistrates. Judges sit on their own. Where is this sort of argument to stop? No-one has ever suggested that a stipendiary magistrate should be reinforced by two lay justices because he is sitting by himself. We shall be told, of course, that he is a trained lawyer. I, as a lawyer, can say that I believe that lawyers are no more immune from prejudices than anyone else. I have at times encountered some who are more prone to prejudices than others. I certainly should not regard it as a valid argument that a man may sit alone because he is a lawyer. I hope we shall not hear that suggested; but if it is, I hope that it will not be accepted.
The third argument that is put forward is a startling argument—what I call the levelling argument: that there are no working-class people sitting on the City bench. I do not know what is meant by "working-class". I think it has a very elastic meaning. Do we mean a person who started in poor and humble circumstances and has remained there? Do we mean a person who started in poor and humble circumstances and improved himself, and perhaps has become an alderman of the City? If we mean the latter, there are certainly such people on the bench. If we mean the former, certainly not; and I do not know that the bench is any the worse for not having them. All I would say is that it would be a
32
startling thing to introduce these theoretical considerations in order to destroy such a validly established institution.
I think the City Court exists as an anomaly. But it is a most valuable anomaly, and it has justified its existence thousands of times over. Why do the City want to preserve it? I am not going to make a long speech, because I believe everything that has to be said on this subject has already been said, but I think it is important to say a few words on the subject of the City's tradition. At this moment, if I may say so, we should all be very concerned about the preservation of traditions. When we see the things that are happening all over the world, and indeed in some parts of this country, because of the absence of tradition; when we see the uncertainties that are introduced into the masses of young people who have no traditions to guide them, no historic principles by which they are led, I wonder whether we are so wise to demolish traditions with such carefree abandon as we are minded to do in this case.
The City is not seeking for privilege as an inherited right. The City is not saying: "We want the privilege of administering justice because we were born to it." The City is seeking for the privilege to discharge duties; it is seeking for the privilege of retaining rights to which people come over a long graduation of hard work, civil distinction and sacrifice, with an enormous amount of time and effort. I do not think this is a right of which they should be deprived. I think people should be encouraged to retain this sort of privilege. This is the best sort of privilege. It is not open to a shred of objection.
In using the word "City", we are, I think, minded to confuse the great throbbing commercial centre, where people are exchanging share prices, floating companies, selling sterling short, long or whatever they are doing with it, with a community of people in the City who are dedicated to public work—the people of whom we are talking today. The aldermen of the City are appointed by a democratic process. They are voted for by the ratepayers. Having been elected by the ratepayers, they are confirmed by their own body, which means,

33
as I think the Lord Chief Justice said, that every City magistrate is confirmed by a panel of 26 or so other magistrates. It seems to me to be an entirely democratic system of appointment. I can see that theoretical objections can be raised to it, but it has a democratic basis; it is a democratic way of appointing them.
What is the doctrinaire system for which we are to change this? If there were some splendid system that we had devised that was preferable; if we were going to knock down this court because the system to be adopted throughout the country was so excellent in itself that no-one could raise the faintest objection to it, there might be an argument even against the powerful arguments which I think we have already heard on this. But what is the system? The reason why we are told that this is an anomaly, and that democracy demands that we destroy this court, is a system whereby every magistrate is nominated by a political officer. This is the system that we are asked to adopt. It is no use concealing the fact that it is a system that has worked over the years. But the whole system of judicial patronage, the whole system of judicial appointment in this country, works because we have people of exceptional personal quality. It does not work because it is a system that is good on its own. No-one can say that it is a good system to have one man nominating everybody.
Some while back I ventured to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor how he came to appoint the judges—what method was employed. He, of course, nominates all the justices of the peace. With quiet modesty, if I may say so, he admitted that he also appointed all the judges, and he seemed rather puzzled that anyone should raise any suggestion that this was not the best way of doing things. But I think that we do need to look at these things very closely. We are not opposing to the system in the City a system that speaks for itself and is self-evidently to be preferred. We are opposing to it a system that has worked, over the years, simply because we have had the good fortune to have Lord Chancellors of exceptional quality, and because the whole of the Bar, as we all know, is an institution of total integrity. But it does not work because it has theoretical advantages. The anomaly, if I may say so, is the method
34
that we are adopting elsewhere, not the method that we are seeking to adopt in the City.
It is for this reason—it is not a political matter—that I venture to ask your Lordships to think very hard whether we should destroy this ancient institution; whether we should destroy the opportunity of rendering the services that the aldermen of the City and the Lord Mayor have asked for, in face of the alleged theoretical advantage which, when it is examined, is seen not to be there at all.
I think the City were entirely right to lobby as hard as they could to preserve their court. When this matter was raised in another place one Member said, I think, that having studied the City he could not discover any aldermen of Labour or Liberal persuasion. This I know to be totally wrong. There is one Member of your Lordships' House who is of Labour persuasion, and is an alderman, I do not know what are the political opinions of the present Lord Mayor, but I should have to go a long way to find a more liberally-minded man. It does not seem to me that the question is: What are the politics of the aldermen? The question is: If I were an accused person, should I be safe in their hands? And my feeling is that I should feel entirely safe in the hands of the aldermen whom I have met in the City. If justice responds to that test, then I think it is good justice; and I think that we should be treading on very dangerous ground indeed, and should be showing great temerity, if we were to destroy a great institution which achieves results of this kind simply because it is thought there are theoretical benefits to be gained on account of some theory of uniformity. I do ask your Lordships, when my Amendment comes to be moved, to support it, on the simple ground that there is here something that works well, and that the reasons advanced for destroying it are totally specious.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has introduced his Amendment in a powerful and persuasive speech. He has made out the case convincingly and, I should have thought, conclusively for leaving the present position in the City of London as it is now, I agree with him. I do not

35
think that any case has been made out for any change. The case against change was also clearly and convincingly made on Second Reading. On that occasion there were notable speeches from my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard, my noble and learned friend Lord Parker of Waddington, and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. I did not speak on that occasion because there was nothing more to be said after they had spoken. But I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, unlike on some recent occasions when legal opinion has been considerably divided in your Lordships' House, to some Peers' amusement and entertainment perhaps, on this occasion legal opinion was united, apart from the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, in favour of preserving the City as it now is. I do not intend to repeat any of the arguments advanced on Second Reading or by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in that powerful speech to which we have just listened, but I think it is right to emphasise that not a single word of criticism has been made of the way in which the Lord Mayor and aldermen administer justice in the City.
I should like to say a word or two about the arguments on the other side advanced on Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. The Lord Chancellor said—and I read from column 931 of Hansard of April 29:
"So what are we really arguing about? The only thing we are arguing about is this: do we leave the aldermen as they are—sole, well-to-do males? Or can they not so far demean themselves as to have sitting with them two ordinary citizens? That is all it is about, though one must face the fact that one of them might be a woman."
I would say, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that that really is not what it is all about. The real issue is this. If the administration of justice by the Lord Mayor and aldermen cannot be criticised—and it has not been criticised—has a case been made out for any change? Has it been convincingly argued that the administration of justice will be improved by the changes proposed? That surely is the test, and no one so far has
36
had the temerity to argue that the administration of justice will in fact be improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, thought that a court of three was better than a court of one. That, I suggest, is a very doubtful proposition. The Lord Chancellor said that two heads were beter than one. Sometimes they are, but sometimes they are not. Your Lordships will remember that from time to time pressures are exerted to enlarge the number of stipendiaries who sit alone at the expense of benches, for a considerable body of public opinion thinks that one stipendiary is better than a bench. I myself do not share that view. I think that a good bench and a good stipendiary are equally good. But if it is the real argument here that you should not have any magistrate sitting by himself, why do we not find in this Bill a provision that stipendiary magistrates must sit with lay justices? But that is not there. And what is the distinguishing factor between a stipendiary magistrate and a Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London? First of all, of course, the stipendiary magistrates are in receipt of a salary. Secondly, they are trained lawyers. But they have learnt to be justices from their experience sitting as magistrates, and I would say myself that the experience and capacity and capability of the Lord Mayor and aldermen who sit so long and so continuously is comparable with that of the best stipendiary.
I submit to your Lordships that there is no case for change. I shall wait to hear what the Lord Chancellor has to say. I hope very much that he has reconsidered the matter and changed his mind. He and I have known each other for many a long year, and in many circumstances we have met and in many circumstances we have fought. If I may say so, I know him to be very determined and to hold strongly to his opinion. But I also know that he is a big enough man to change his opinion and not hesitate to do so when the weight of argument is against him. So I hope to-day that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, having reflected on all that was said on Second Reading, and having heard the powerful and persuasive speech made by Lord Goodman, will say that he thinks on

37
reflection it would be better to leave things are they are.
I hope he will say that, but if he should adhere to his opinion, then I have put down the Amendment which is in my name, Amendment No. 4, in an endeavour to secure a compromise—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recognised that it was a compromise solution. I should like to make it perfectly clear that I do not think it would be as good a solution as the acceptance of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I know from my experience in that office how important it is for all Lord Chancellors to have the best of relations with the City; they have to work so closely together. I think it is terribly unfortunate if there should be a row or dissension between them. It is in the hope that, even at this late hour, that can be avoided that I have put down these Amendments which are a compromise solution.
I can tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this. If he is prepared to accept this compromise it would also be accepted by the City. There is this compromise, and I think if it is accepted the City will have given way to a very great extent. Under this compromise they will sit with lay justices, and that would meet the main objection advanced by the Lord Chancellor. That is the objection stated at column 931. That is a tremendous concession for them to be prepared to give. If, on the other hand, the Lord Chancellor is prepared to make some concession, the first concession I ask him to make is this: that the Lord Mayor and aldermen should continue to be made justices by virtue of their ancient Charter of 1741. On Second Reading the Lord Chancellor said this:
"I cannot conceive of a state of affairs in which any advisory committee for the City of London would not include among its recommendations for appointment all the aldermen of the City of London. So what are we really arguing about?"—[col. 931.]
The Lord Chancellor did not say, and of course he could not, that if such recommendations were made by an advisory committee he would make the aldermen justices. But I cannot myself think it likely that an advisory committee recommending aldermen would have their recommendations turned down by a Lord Chancellor, of whatever political colour he might be. Therefore, so far as that is
38
concerned, if it be—and it would seem to be from the Lord Chancellor's speech —that he recognised that all aldermen should be made justices, the only issue is whether they should be made justices by the exercise of the Lord Chancellor's patronage, or whether they should become justices by virtue of the ancient Charter of the City. Is that really worth having a row about with the City? I cannot believe it is. It is asking the Lord Chancellor to make a concession; I think it is a small one. And if at the end of the day he recognises, as I think that passage I have read shows, that the aldermen will all be justices, would it not be simpler, would it not be better, just to leave that part of the position as it is to-day?
What about the second part? Your Lordships will see that my Amendment provides:
"Notwithstanding anything in any enactment the Lord Mayor shall be the Chairman and the Aldermen of the City of London the Deputy Chairmen of the justices of the peace for the City of London."
I should like to explain that. If the Lord Mayor of London is sitting as a justice in the City, it seems to me unsuitable that any lay magistrate should be in the chair and should preside over him. If you are going to say that the Lord Mayor shall be a justice but not provide for his taking the chair, you might just as well say that he should not be a justice at all, because in my belief it would be quite out of keeping with his position and with the traditions of the City for the Lord Mayor of London to sit in his own court under any other chairman. I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will recognise that. Great tributes have been paid to the quality of the men who sit. It docs not seem to me to be asking much to have it recognised that when they sit with lay justices they should preside.
The Amendment then goes on to provide that the Aldermen should be the deputy chairmen. That would mean that when the Lord Mayor was not sitting the senior alderman who was sitting would preside. Surely that is right, having regard to the position of the City, and also to the training and experience which these aldermen have, and which they will continue to have. Of course, if this compromise is accepted it will still be the case that aldermen will

39
not sit unless they have had a proper training.
That is the compromise I am putting forward. On the one hand, the Lord Mayor and aldermen, justices by virtue of their Charter, chairmen and deputy chairmen, presiding when they sit; on the other hand, the concession from them, which I think is really a much bigger concession, that they will sit with laymen, and recognising that they are willing to sit with—if I may mention the fact—a woman, if required.
I hope we shall hear soon from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor what his views are on both these Amendments, and I stress to him that I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I believe it is better to leave things as they are, but if the noble and learned Lord is adamant in his refusal to accept those Amendments, I beg of him to give serious consideration to the acceptance of this compromise.
LORD BOOTHBY: It is unnecessary, after the powerful arguments which have been adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, to add more than two or three sentences. However, I should like to say this. Here is an element in our judicial system which, by common consent, has worked extremely well—some might say almost miraculously well—in the past, and continues to do so in the present, and I echo the words of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that it would be much better not to tamper with it at all.
The point I want to make to your Lordships is that we cannot ignore the weighty advice which was given by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the ex-Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard. No-one who heard those speakers, as I did, could fail to be convinced. I think probably there has never been an occasion when the weight of high legal opinion has leaned so much to one side, and to be quite frank I do not think your Lordships can afford to ignore the advice that was given to you by those great experts who know what they are talking about. I am not greatly enamoured of the compromise proposal put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I think the
40
best and quickest way of dealing with this is to accept the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and to leave things as they are.
4.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I say something now on the Government's case, it is not with a view to stopping any other member of the Committee from speaking. On the contrary, I shall very much welcome views, particularly from the many Members of your Lordships' House who are themselves justices of the peace. I observe that there are now present a great many noble Lords who were not here on the Second Reading of the Bill. Therefore, perhaps I may begin by recapitulating shortly what I then said.
This Bill is not in any way aimed at the City of London. I am a great enthusiast, and do not pretend to be otherwise, about the justices of the peace. This is an absolutely unique system. There is no other country in the world in which ordinary citizens play so large a part in the administration of justice. There are 16,500 proper justices of the peace, sitting in a thousand courts every day, all over the country, dealing with 98 per cent, of all the criminal cases in the country and seeing the rest on their way up to higher courts. They deal with a total of 1½ million cases a year and, in relation to that sort of volume, there is an absolute minimum of complaints. They are extremely conscientious, and I think we have every reason to be grateful to them—particularly, of course, the taxpayers.
Naturally, everything is capable of improvement and review, and as your Lordships know there was a review in 1911, when there was a Royal Commission, and there was another review in 1946–48, when there was a second Royal Commission. Twenty years have now gone by and it is thought that certain improvements can be made. The justices of the peace are, as your Lordships know, appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of local advisory committees. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that it is absolutely untrue to say that they are nominated by a Political Party. I am afraid that that was the case in the past, but it is certainly not so to-day.
LORD GOODMAN: I never suggested that for one moment. What I said was that they were appointed by a political officer. They are apparently appointed on the recommendation of committees, which, so far as I know, sit in private. Nobody knows what the committees do or how they work. Nobody knows what they may raise against a person proposed, nor has the person any opportunity of replying to them. My point is that this cannot be the ideal method of doing it, but it may work.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that what he has said simply is not so. It is not that the whole thing is a mystery. On the contrary, I have here, absolutely free—and I will let the noble Lord have one—a document entitled Justices of the Peace: How they are appointed; what they do. There should be no mystery about them at all. I had in my room recently the whole of the Inner London Advisory Committee, members of the Press, the B.B.C., and I.T.V., so that everybody could see who the members of the Committee were, and when we broke up I invited any member of the Press to "nobble" any member of the Advisory Committee and to ask them any question they liked about anything they do. They are not now appointed unless they under take to undergo a course of training and to sit regularly. I would add that I am extremely grateful to the members of my advisory committees, who themselves take a great deal of trouble—
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I do not wish to intervene, and I am speaking from a rather ancient recollection, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows, for it is now 15 years since I left that honourable office. But surely he is not right in saying that the names of the advisory committee are made public. It is an absolute secret.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I leave this entirely to the advisory committees. I make no rule whatever that they cannot tell everybody who they are. However, the majority of advisory committees prefer not to do so, because they say that in a small provincial town they would be lobbied to death and their friends would all feel hurt if they were not recommended, although the secretary of the advisory committee is always known.
42
In the counties he is usually the clerk of the peace and in the boroughs the clerk to the justices, and most people know that in the counties the chairman of the advisory committee is generally— although not always—the Lord Lieutenant of the County. But I make no rule about this, and when in London the thing had become somewhat Party political I appointed an entirely new Inner London Committee of ladies and gentlemen of such distinction that I do not think anybody would be likely to lobby them. The Chairman is the Master of the Rolls. They said they had no objection to their names being known, and one of the advantages of their names being known is that they could interview those recommended for the office. I make no rule. Some do and some do not. Some committees now advertise in the papers when they are going to fill vacancies so that any local organisation, any individual even, can recommend anybody they like.
This part of the Bill arises because alongside the 16,500 justices, all of whom have been appointed because an advisory committee thought and I thought that they would make good justices of the pease, there are some 2,000 ex officio justices, including some 350 Privy Counsellors, all the chairmen of county councils, all the mayors, chairmen of urban and rural district councils. High Court Judges, the Lord Chancellor, the Chairman of the Council of the Isles of Scilly, the aldermen of the City of London, the Solicitor General, the Lord Privy Seal, and a number of other people. They are ex officio because they hold some other office—a very distinguished office like that of the Chancellor of Cambridge University, or, rather unfairly the Committee may think, the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University. It is proposed that they should no longer be ex officio justices, and, as I said on Second Reading, I do not think anybody has opposed that general principle.
But quite a number have said that although they agree with it as a general principle, they think there ought to be one exception, namely, themselves That, I suppose, is human nature. The mayors, for example, say, it is absurd to make the chairmen of small urban and rural and district councils ex officio justices, of the

43
peace, but a mayor, which is an historical office, is the number one citizen and always has been; he is the contact between the local authority and the magistrates: it is important that the mayor should remain ex officio a justice of the peace. The chairmen of the rural district councils say that of course they quite agree about the mayor; it is absurd that he is an ex officio justice because the mayor's job to-day is a whole-time job. He comes along and sits once and then he goes away, and what is the point of that? Whereas they have part-time jobs as chairmen of urban and rural district councils.
So far as the City is concerned, the first thing I would say is that I think they are to some extent in a special position. I would also say that I have had the most amicable relations with the City about this matter, and indeed during the whole of the time I have occupied this office. I am, if I may say so, a great admirer of the former Lord Mayor and a great admirer of this Lord Mayor. I have seen two deputations from them about this question, and the Prime Minister has received a deputation from them about it. It has been going on for a long time; therefore, as your Lordships will see, it has had the longest and most careful discussion and consideration. All our discussions have been on a courteous and amicable basis.
The point mainly behind the Bill in abolishing ex officio justices is that one seeks from this unique system to have men and women of different ages and different occupations who come from different walks of life, all putting their heads together. As my noble friend Lord Leatherland said, two heads are better than one, and I think that most courts find that. What is desirable is that anybody who appears before a magistrates' court should know that the probability is that there will be somebody there who is familiar with his habits of speech and thought and his economic and living conditions. This, which is the main object of the justice of the peace court, cannot obtain if justices are appointed ex officio and consist only of well-to-do males, however eminent they may be.
I should like, if I may, to get rid of one or two misconceptions. May I say how delighted I am to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, here.
44
He reminded us on Second Reading that there had been one or two indictable cases in the City courts which had taken a long time. He said there was one in the City in 1960 which took 14 days, one in 1963 which took 26 days, one in 1964 which took 13 days and one in 1965 which took 15 days. Of course, all courts of summary jurisdiction have experience of some long indictable cases, but that matter, I suggest, has no relevance to what we are considering, for the simple reason that it was before the Criminal Justice Act. The Criminal Justice Act, as all the justices on this Committee know, revolutionised the taking of depositions. Usually now they are in writing and the old business of witness after witness going into the witness box and having everything he said written down in long-hand no longer applies. This is, in any case, one of the occasions on which a court of summary jurisdiction can be constituted by one lay justice.
Then it was suggested that the City deal with a very specialised business; that they have fraud cases and financial matters on which the knowledge and experience of aldermen of the City of London must be much greater than that of ordinary justices. May I just remove this misconception? I take what happens to be the next entry to the City of London, in the Criminal Statistics, which relates to Newport. The turnovers for 1966, if I may put it in that way, the last year for which figures are available, were these: malicious wounding, the City 30 cases, Newport 37; indecent assault on females, the City 9 cases, Newport 11; unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16, the City 1, Newport 5; shopbreaking, the City 366, Newport 347; possession of housebreaking implements, the City 11, Newport 2; embezzlement, the City 14, Newport 15; falsifying accounts, the City 9, Newport 22; obtaining by false pretences, the City 170, Newport 72; fraud by agent, the City 8, Newport 8; larceny from shops, the City 117, Newport 264; larceny from vehicles, the City 306, Newport 345; minor larcenies, the City 832, Newport 867; larceny by servant, the City 159, Newport 72; motoring offences, the City 6,207, Newport 4,196. It is most extraordinary how these are almost exactly similar in the incidence of different types of crime in the two cases. There is

45
nothing in the contention that the City business is highly specialised.
One of the difficulties in the City—but I do not want to exaggerate this because there are not a great many cases anyhow—is that they have no woman, and all their domestic court cases and all their juvenile court cases have to be shifted off on to the County of London justices. Then, of course, the City aldermen are all members of local authorities. My noble friend, Lord Leatherland, said he did not think this was a good idea, and it is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. I do not think, and my predecessors have not thought, that it is a good idea to have too many justices who are members of the local authority. Advisory committees used to be asked to see to it that not more than one-third of the justices were members of local authorities; they are now asked to see to it that not more than one-quarter are members of local authorities. It seems odd, in a way, to have an area in which all the justices consist of the leading aldermen of the local authority.
As to the value of sitting together, all I can say is that distinguished and experienced chairmen of quarter sessions, most of whom have been, and some still are, recorders, and therefore have experience of sitting with or without justices, have not in a single instance said that they prefer to sit without justices. I remember that my noble friend Lord Leatherland said he had often arrived at one view when the bench retired and had been in the end led to an entirely different opinion because of views expressed by other people. It is the fact that it is a good thing to talk things over. You find that other justices have thought of something that you yourself have not thought of.
In relation to Lord Goodman's remarks, I should add that I made it plain on Second Reading that there is no complaint about the way in which the City aldermen do their work. Of course, whether people coming before them feel like that one does not know. One does not know how far a woman, perhaps in a case of indecent assault, or in such a case in which she is a witness, would prefer that a woman justice should be present. The noble Lord says that, after all, the aldermen are appointed by the best democratic method: that of
46
election. That is no doubt a matter of opinion. We all know that in America a number of judges are elected, not appointed. I should not have thought that that was a good basis for appointment. I have yet to meet any American judge or lawyer who likes that method. The trouble is that they cannot get rid of it because the only people who can get rid of it are the politicians, and the politicians like having this amount of patronage. It is a great difficulty in the field of American law to-day, that most people would like to get rid of their elected judges, but they cannot.
So far as election is concerned, in a sense it is a self-perpetuating body, in so far as nobody can be appointed an alderman unless the Court of Aldermen elects him. If one takes two good City men, each with just as much connection with the City as the other, one may like the life of a City Livery Company, with functions and dinners and the Common Council, and the other may not, or he may not have time to do both that and to sit as a justice. The latter cannot be made a justice under the noble Lord's proposals. He can never be a justice unless he is prepared to start off by canvassing people and standing for election to the Common Council. Then he has to be promoted from the Common Council to the bench of aldermer. I suggest that, on the face of it, that is not a sound method.
With regard to the noble and learned Viscount's suggested compromise, may I say that I have most carefully considered this. It goes a good deal of the way to meet what was my main point: that we ought to try to make up our minds what is the best system of justice for most criminal cases. While we have stipendiaries in large towns where it would not be practicable to find enough justices, if our general system of having a mixture of men and women of different experiences and occupations is right, then it is difficult, on the face of it, to justify that in one place only—it will be the only place in England, of course—we should have an entirely different system whereby one layman on his own can sit as a court of summary jurisdiction.
I have told the City that if there is an advisory committee I should naturally ask the Lord Mayor or an ex-Lord Mayor to be the chairman of that committee,

47
because he is the leading man in the City of London; and I always consult with the chairman as to who the other members should be. As I think I said on Second Reading, I should be surprised if, appointing them on their merit, among the justices in the City there would not be all the aldermen. So the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount on its first point is quite a narrow one. It is, whether they should get there because they have been chosen by an advisory committee on their merits, or whether they should get there ex officio because they have been thought fit for some other and different office. But there is so little between these two, that if it were that alone I should be prepared to accept the Amendment. It is the second point which raises the difficulty; namely, that they should always be chairmen.
May I apologise to those members of the Committee who are justices if, finally, for just a few moments I explain to those of your Lordships who are not justices how important the work of the chairman is? Purely fortuitously, I received on Wednesday last a report of the National Advisory Council on the training of magistrates. They have prepared a training syllabus for senior magistrates and in particular those who may be likely in the near future to become chairmen. They say
"The importance of training for all justices cannot be exaggerated, but there is perhaps one aspect of this which has until now been for the most part overlooked. It has doubtless been right to concentrate first on the instruction of the new justice, but the responsibility of the justice who occupies the chair at the sitting of a magistrates court is heavy. Training in chairmanship on a methodical and organised basis has been ignored, and there is no existing text-book on the subject. This is perhaps surprising, because the chairman of a bench probably has a greater influence than any of his colleagues in formulating their decision. He also largely determines the impression made upon the defendant, the legal profession, the Press and, above all, the public, of the administration of justice at petty sessions and in the juvenile and domestic courts. The conduct of the proceedings is, to a not inconsiderable extent, in the hands of the chairman, and he should manifestly be in charge of them and obviously alert and confident. It is important, too, that he says the right things on the proper occasions and in the right way. A justice who is incompetent in the chair, especially if this is due to lack of training, can spoil the impression created by an otherwise estimable bench
48
and the lay magistracy, in the eyes of those who happen to be present in court."
They propose this syllabus of training. Under Part A, penal practice, there are the usual things: fines, supervision orders, costs, compensation, damages, restitution, assessment of amount, enforcement, custodial methods, prison, borstal, detention centres, approved schools, absolute and conditional discharge, suspended sentences, and so on and so forth. Then comes criminal law. I need not trouble your Lordships with that. Then, of course, what is extremely important, comes procedure. I appeal to all those justices present: is it not the fact that when you have sat as a justice for years you think you know the whole thing absolutely inside out; but the first day that you are called upon to take the chair you find it is very much less easy that it had seemed. You discover you have got all the time to answer the questions: "What do I say now?", and, "What do I do now?". It is that, that this course is designed to cover, explaining bail, explaining to an unrepresented defendant his right to cross-examine witnesses, explaining points to be considered after conviction, explaining the effect of a conditional discharge, explaining the effect of a probation order, explaining the effect of a suspended sentence, and so on.
Of course, if there are to be other justices, as well as the City aldermen, and it takes 25 aldermen to get through the work, if there are 50 justices sitting with them in the usual three, this means that 50 other justices will have to be appointed; and it would obviously be foolish, on any view, as I am sure any advisory committee would tell me, to create 50 entirely new justices for that purpose. What one would obviously do would be to leaven any new justices with a substantial number of experienced justices who are qualified for the City and who are serving at the moment on the Inner London and Middlesex benches. Really, as a matter of sheer common sense, if you have three justices sitting in a court in the City, and one of them is a woman who has been a justice for seven years, though she has never acted as chairman, and one of them is a man who has been a justice for 15 years and is a really experienced deputy chairman, and the

49
third is an alderman of the City of London who has just been elected and whose first day it is in a magistrates' court, it really would be "barmy", would it not, to say that he ought to take the chair. It is on that ground that I cannot advise the Commitee to accept that Amendment.
So far as Lord Goodman's Amendment is concerned, as the Committee probably know an exactly similar Amendment was most carefully considered in another place. It was considered in Committee and rejected, it was raised again on Report and Third Reading, and was again rejected. And I do not feel able, I am afraid, to advise the Committee to accept it.
4.53 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: When I was first called to the Bar I rapidly learned that one ought never to follow one's leader unless the position was so bad that it could not be made worse. To-day I treat the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, as my leader, and after his extremely powerful speech there is really nothing more to say. I should have thought the case was unarguable. Further, on the last occasion, on Second Reading, I am afraid that I wearied your Lordships by a somewhat long speech in which I sought to put forward the pros and cons in regard to this issue. I intended to say nothing on this occasion, but the noble Lord on the Woolsack has gone over, if I may say so, all the ground again—all the old arguments—and for that reason, if for no other, I feel that I ought to say a word to summarise to-day what I said on an earlier occasion.
In Charter after Charter the confidence that we now feel in the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City has been confirmed. In Statute after Statute it has been confirmed. It was confirmed by the Royal Commission in 1948. It was confirmed by a Labour Government in 1949, in the Justices of the Peace Act of that year, which, by Section 11, specifically preserved the right of the Lord Mayor and aldermen to act as Justices. Under another Government, too, if my memory is right, by the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, Section 121, there was specifically confirmed their right each to sit alone.
Quite rightly, the whole matter has been taken out of politics, and one asks oneself what on earth has happened since
50
1949 and 1952 to cause us to be thinking, even debating the idea, of doing away with an institution in which everybody has had such confidence. The ability and efficiency of the aldermen of the City of London is conceded both by the Lord Chancellor and in another place; and what else could possibly be the case? They devised and underwent a voluntary course of training long before any Lord Chancellor devisee any course of training for lay magistrates. They sit regularly. They sit for long periods; and, incidentally, the Court of Aldermen surely know far more about the candidate to become an alderman, about his life, his ability, in particular his ability to be a justice, than any Lord Chancellor's advisory committee. They know the individual backwards, and they choose him and they choose him only if he is fit to act as a justice of the peace.
Finally, there is the record of the City Court. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has given the figures for 1967. Incidentally, from 1945 to date, some 23 years, there have been, I think, only 11 appeals by way of case stated to the Divisional Court, of which only five succeeded; and in living memory there is no case that I have been able to find of any decision of the Court being quashed by an application for certiorari. That is a record which I cannot think any judge, chairman of quarter sessions, recorder, or any body of magistrates could conceivably emulate. One is tempted to say that it is almost too good to be true. But it is true.
Now, what are the arguments against the existing system? Since the debate on Second Reading the argument which has been put forward to me by a number of people is that the Court have not a woman alderman, and therefore cannot try juvenile cases or matrimonial cases. It is a point; but let us please get it into perspective. Out of 19,028 cases dealt with by the magistrates in 1967, there were 158 juvenile cases, 0·75 per cent., which had to be dealt with elsewhere; and of matrimonial cases the figures run at two to three a year. Now is this institution, this system, to be sacrificed on the altar of uniformity merely because it deprives them of dealing with 0·75 per cent, further cases which they might hear?

51
Secondly, there is the idea that an accused would feel that he was getting a fairer trial if the bench consisted of two or three justices, only one of whom, perhaps, was an alderman. As my noble friend Lord Goodman said, there is no sign that any person has suffered at the hands of the Court. Nobody who has been involved in crime of any sort before them has complained in all these years; hands of the court. Nobody who has circumstance in which it is fairer to be tried by two or three is if the one justice sitting is a person in whom no confidence is felt. If there is confidence in that one, then it is just as fair, I should have thought, putting myself in the position of an accused, to be tried by him as to be tried by three justices, only one of whom do I know anything about and have confidence in. However, I recognise that there are two views about that.
It may be that there should be no court consisting of one person, but that is not the subject matter of this Bill. This is not a Bill to decide whether stipendiaries should sit with others; whether recorders should sit with others; whether, as I think the Lord Chancellor suggested on another occasion, the time is coming when judges will sit with lay assessors, or lay judges, call them what you will. That is not the subject matter of this Bill. What we are considering here is whether, in order to improve the efficiency of the magistracy generally, there are any people sitting who ought not to sit. The answer is that, there are.
As the Lord Chancellor explained on another occasion, there are just over (I think it is) 2,000 persons who can sit by reason of their office. May I get rid of one class—Privy Counsellors. I do that for the simple reason that I do not know any Privy Counsellor who has ever sought to exercise his right. What about judges? I happened to be a justice of the peace before I ever became a judge. I cannot conceive of any judge, with the pressure of work as it is at present, coming forward and saying that he wants to sit as a justice of the peace, unless it is as a chairman or deputy chairman of a county quarter sessions. This Bill is surely aimed at the numbers of chairmen of district councils and local
52
mayors who perhaps once in their term of office, merely from the point of view of prestige and with no training or experience, choose to sit on the local bench and perhaps preside. I think that we should all welcome the exclusion of those people, because they do not add to the efficiency of the magistracy.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the Bill is not directed against the City. Of course it is not, in the sense that it is dealing with ex officio justices; but it hits the City as the one class of ex officio justices who are fully trained, fully experienced and have this magnificence record. I feel I that the case is unarguable for allowing an institution with such a record to carry on. It may be that on a later occasion we may have to discuss a Bill which provides that nobody, however qualified or skilful, shall sit alone. That is a completely different matter and is not something we are considering to-day. I earnestly hope that the Committee will support this Amendment.
5.2 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: I should like to speak against both Amendments. I see this matter in a wider context of both social and legal reform. I believe that it I would be a mistake to make an exception of the City of London. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said that he would feel quite safe in the hands of aldermen, but most defendants have not the eloquence or ability of Lord Goodman, and many judges may be quite afraid to have him in their hands. As a justice of the peace, I feel that one of the most important points to bear in mind is the difficulty involved in having an untrained magistrate sitting alone. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said that nobody had yet had the temerity to answer this argument, although I thought that my noble friend Lord I Leatherland answered it very well on Second Reading.
A point that goes even deeper than the value of two or three heads being better than one is that even judges and justices —and the aldermen sitting in the City of London—are all human beings. We all have certain biases and prejudices, and as long as we are aware of them when we sit on a bench that at least is a start. But this is all part of the human condition, and when one has more than one

53
person sitting on a bench the great value is that they are able to cancel out each other's prejudices. This not only gives the defendant a far better trial but also gives more confidence to the justices. I am sure that many of us would feel quite nervous in sitting alone and would feel a certain arrogance about judging one's fellow men, particularly when one is untrained. The trained judge or stipendiary, presumably, in his or her legal training has a certain amount of objectivity; but I was interested to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say on Second Reading that he would not be at all surprised
"if some of those in this Chamber live to see the day when High Court Judges sit with a couple of civilians."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29/4/68; col. 931.]
With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker, I think that this is all part of the trend in social and legal reform. Those of us who sit at quarter sessions, like myself, sit with a chairman as lay justices, and we also have a jury—which is not the case in an aldermanic court. The Beeching Commission, which is now sitting, has already had from various organisations a great body of evidence in support of legally qualified chairmen sitting with lay magistrates.
On the question of the participation of women, I am all in favour of men having certain male preserves if that is what they want; but I think that these should be restricted to clubs or hefty sports. I do not think that this should extend to the administration of justice. The figures for 1966 in relation to England and Wales show that there were 5,742 women justices of the peace, but not one in the City of London. A great deal has been made of the one lady on the Common Council who may eventually emerge on to the aldermanic bench. But with great respect to her: one bird does not make a judicial summer. To concentrate on women in cases involving juveniles and domestic matters seems to me to be a wrong approach. After all, the country is populated by both men and women, and there are men and women capable of being justices. I consider that in the ordinary courts undertaking magisterial duties this work should be undertaken by men and women.
54
We have heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a list of cases on which a comparison has been drawn between the City of London and Newport, and it is clear that there is not a great deal to choose in the number and variety of cases as between the two cities. As for the argument about fraud and other city matters, one could find similar arguments for the cities of Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, where the system which is operated in the City of London does not apply. When cases such as rape or unlawful sexual intercourse with a young; girl are heard, I know from my own experience that when I have been sitting with a lay chairman he has been very pleased when I have suggested that it would be a good idea if I questioned the defendant or a witness, because it is far less embarrassing than to have one man alone asking questions on these matters.
There is great importance in establishing a link in many courts with regard to family matters. I refer to matters arising between husband and wife which come up in the ordinary courts, perhaps in a case of common assault or a case involving arrears of maintenance for children who are in an institution; lack of school attendance, and so on. Very often these matters are connected with what has been going on in the juvenile courts and matrimonial courts. In my own court not very long ago we had a case involving common assault where a couple appeared in the ordinary magistrates' court, also the matrimonial court, and the children of the family were before the juvenile court.
In these days, when so much of our work is concerned with welfare is well as interpretation of the law—in other words, when we are trying to deal with the human condition—I feel that we should not isolate these matters as they are now being isolated in the City of London. We do not know whit will happen when the large population moves into the Barbican, but even if there were no need for separate courts the fact that women could sit in the City of London would mean that they would also be available to be appointed to both juvenile and domestic courts in the Inner London area. Another point which bears examination is that while the average age of magistrates and aldermen

55
is around 50, nevertheless the youngest aldermen are, I believe, appointed at around 35, whereas magistrates to-day are now being appointed in their late twenties and early thirties.
I also feel that the argument that aldermen have to come from the Common Council (although I believe there are a few who are appointed direct) is a very important one against continuing the present system, because again, having been a member of a local authority, I am quite aware—as I am sure many noble Lords are aware—that someone who makes an exceptionally good local authority councillor is not necessarily the right person to be on the bench and to administer justice.
On the Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, said that the power not to appoint an alderman had been invoked once. He gave us only one example, and that was of someone who had a close connection with the licensed trade. If an alderman was considered extremely good in his work in every other way, but was not considered suitable for the bench, it seems to me that the position would be very difficult; because, after all, if we are honest about it seniority plays a considerable part in this and I think it would be very hard to refuse his nomination.
In this imperfect world we may not be able to get equality of justice, but it seems to me that there should be equality of opportunity. This means that in all the magistrates' courts of the country, apart from the stipendiary courts, there should be more than one magistrate sitting; that there should be men and women; and that there should be men and women with a wide range of antecedents and occupations. It has been mentioned that many aldermen now sitting came from humble beginnings. I think that when people get to that situation they can look back with nostalgia to their humble beginnings, because they have moved into another area of life. I believe it is a good thing that there should be on the benches a certain number of people who are still in the midst of their humble beginnings. With the influx of population which is coming into the City of London, not only as residents but as workers— and, after all, people are brought to the court in the area where the offence was
56
committed, not where they live—it is even more important that we should have the same consistent system as we have in the rest of the country. The fact that it has worked very well in the City of London seems to me an argument for congratulating the City, but it does not seem to be an argument for saying that something else will not work better in the future if we are prepared to try it.
I do not feel that the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, which is a compromise, meets the case either, because it retains the principle of ex officios but dilutes it with appointed justices. So there again, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, we should still be left with a chairman and deputy chairman who, although they may have taken a course, are still untrained but have a life interest in the offices of chairman and deputy chairmen. It is with no reflection on the riches of the City that I say that this solution seems to me to be rather a poor man's quarter sessions, with all untrained people sitting and with no jury. I appreciate how strongly the people connected with the City feel about giving up some of its preserves. But I think there are other traditions in the City which are more worthy to hold on to, and that this one should be given up. I do not believe that to retain it fits into what we shall be looking for in a modern structure of our social and legal system.
5.15 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has asked for the views of active magistrates, and he seems to be getting them. I should like to start by saying that while I agree with a very great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said in his admirable speech, he is completely wrong about the selection of magistrates. I was a member of an advisory committee for 25 years, which is a pretty long time, and in all my experience we have never put up to the Lord Chancellor nominations from political Parties. No doubt it may occur here and there in some parts of the country, but it is far from being anything like—
LORD GOODMAN: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I should like to make it clear—because I should be loth for it to be on the record that I

57
said any such thing—that I never said that any selection committee put up political nominations. I have never said it, I have never suggested it and I do not believe it. I do not know how selection committees work, because their proceedings are in secret.
LORD CHORLEY: Your Lordships heard what the noble Lord said, and I think it was implicit in his remarks. He also said that these committees meet privately. Of course they do. How can you possibly canvass in public the qualifications of people to be magistrates? The noble Lord is a sufficiently practical man to know that that would be quite absurd. Of course they meet in private. They attempt to get the best possible bench and, so far as my experience goes, I believe that to a very large extent they succeed.
I approach this problem without any sort of bias in favour of the City of London, but I approach it with very considerable bias against the present system of a large number of ex officio magistrates. With the sort of experience which I have already mentioned, I am quite satisfied that it does not make for the best administration of justice; and, surely, the best administration of justice is what we in Parliament are concerned to get. That is our job. Everybody who has spoken with knowledge of the administration of justice in the City of London says that they get very good justice indeed in those courts. I am very much impressed with that, and any bias that I had against the system is really negatived, because I am a practical man and I am much more concerned to get really good justice than to carry out some doctrinaire policy. Surely, that is what one wants every time.
I have heard no arguments, except one, against the system in the City. It has been suggested that courts are impeccable in the City, but barrister friends who practice in those courts have told me that in their view the weakness of the court is in its sentencing. I do not know from my own knowledge, but members of the Bar of some standing who practice in that court tell me not that their sentencing is too severe, but that it is a little out of line with that of other magistrates' courts. I can quite see how it could be, because it is at the point of sentencing, in particular, that two or three
58
heads are so extraordinarily valuable. I should not like to be a High Court Judge on assizes, having to decide all by myself on the sentence in a very difficult case. It must be a gruelling business. As a chairman of quarter sessions one threshes it out with one's fellow magistrates. So far as my experience of the magistracy goes, I think that the City court would be much stronger if it were reinforced, so that, at any rate when it comes to the sentencing, it is not done just by one alderman but he his colleagues with whom to argue, in order to come to what in all the circumstances is the best decision. That is why I like the compromise proposal of the noble and learned Viscount.
I was impressed by the fact that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that he would have accepted it had it not been for the question of the chairmanship. Surely that can be overcome. Can they not be left to choose their own chairman—which is what, in effect, happens in other courts? I should have thought the noble and learned Viscount would think that a reasonable way out of this difficulty and it would, to a large extent, preserve this system. The arguments of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and of the noble Baroness seemed to be directed to trying to persuade your Lordships that this system just could not work, for many reasons. The fact of the matter is that it does work and it works very well, and that seems to be the acid test. If it really works we certainly ought not to destroy it. If we can improve it by strengthening it in the way the compromise solution proposes, then I suggest to your Lordships that you should accept that solution.
5.20 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: I wonder whether I might say just one word. I must first disclaim any City connection, other than that I work there from time to time; and I am afraid that I am only a rather inactive magistrate. But I think it would be misunderstood if nobody said anything from these Benches. I have listened with great care to the arguments this afternoon (I was not here on the Second Reading), and two things have struck me very much. Not one single noble Lord has said that the present arrangement works badly. It so happens that I was lunching with a man to-day

59
and we were talking about this Bill. He complained bitterly about the administration of justice in the City, and said that he had been fined for leaving his car without lights on in 1936, and that he thought this was unjust. But, even so, he did not seem to think it was a very serious matter. But none of your Lordships—and nobody outside that I have ever heard—has said that the present arrangement works badly. Justice seems to be done, and people seem to be satisfied; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, not even those who have been on the other end have complained about the present system. That is the first point I would make.
The second thing which has struck me is that the arguments from those of your Lordships who have supported the Government, and the Lord Chancellor in particular, seem to me to boil down to the argument of uniformity; that there should be uniformity throughout the country. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but I do not think it amounted to anything else than that. It seemed to me that they were saying that because the position which obtained everywhere else was satisfactory there, it should be made so in the City. I am afraid that I cannot agree with that. After all, this is being done in the teeth of a recommendation of a Royal Commission, which only in 1948 said precisely the opposite. Noble Lords have quoted the passage:
"The traditions and practice of the City have resulted in a high standard of administration of criminal jurisdiction, and we do not recommend any change for the adult Court."
I mean this in no offensive way, but it seemed to me that in this matter perhaps noble Lords opposite were more concerned with uniformity than with justice. It is not that they are not concerned with justice, because of course they would not seek to bring about a state of affairs in which there was less justice. But when we are all agreed that justice is done in these courts it does not seem to me that the change is wanted for any other reason than uniformity.
My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has suggested what is almost a compromise in this problem. I, for one, should be very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, into the Lobby— and. indeed, in certain circumstances I
60
might even do so—except for the fact that that particular Amendment has been twice rejected by another place. So I do not think there is any great likelihood of its being successful a third time. But, as I say, my noble friend Lord Dilhorne has suggested a compromise, and I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will look at the point again. He has accepted most of it. The only thing that he finds difficult to swallow is the question of the chairmanship; and he made out a very interesting case. I must honestly say that in my own experience I have suddenly been called upon to be chairman of quite important bodies. One, for example, was the Board of Admiralty, when everybody else had been there for three years and I did not know anything about it. But I was still required to take the chair; and I do not think that I did unduly badly. I think it would have been very odd if the First Lord of the Admiralty had not taken the chair; and I suspect that it would look just as curious if the Lord Mayor of London did not take the chair in the magistrates' court.
I hope that perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is very reasonable in these matters, will look at this again, because it seems a compromise which would satisfy those in the City, who feel very strongly about these things. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said about tradition. I do not think we should throw all these things away just for the sake of uniformity; and I do not think the noble and learned Lord would be giving up very much.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I was very much surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice say that he did not think this case could be argued. He had the opportunity, as the rest of us had, of listening to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I thought argued this case with exceptionally convincing logic. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made his case mainly by pointing out certain peculiarities of the City justices, the City courts, which they share with some other parts of our justicial system—for instance, that they have a comparatively small feminine representation. In fact, they have none. But he pointed out that

61
there were many other spheres of importance in which women play only a small part.
He instanced also the fact that there were objections raised that the aldermen sit alone, and do not have magisterial colleagues. This, of course, is also true of stipendiary magistrates; and it is true of High Court Judges. What the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, did not do was to mention the one peculiarity of the City justices which they do not share with any other part of the judicial system; namely, that they are elected persons—or, at least, they will not share this provided that the other ex officio magistrates, such as the mayors, are abolished. They are elected persons; and, what is more, they are elected by a rather small and certainly unrepresentative electorate. I think that most of us have taken the view that election is not the most suitable way of choosing our justices, and we in illustration of that frequently hear examples brought from the United States—although I do not suggest that this particular form of election is governed by quite the same influences as the election of some American judges.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that nobody had argued that this institution works badly, that we are all satisfied that it gives justice and that those who have appeared before it have not complained. I do not know what steps he has taken to ascertain whether these complaints are heard. I think it would be very surprising if those who appeared before any court failed to complain. Certainly it has not been my experience. Really, we are in no position to say whether this particular institution works well or badly; and we are not in a much better position to say whether other parts of our judicial system work well or badly, unless we make a very much more exhaustive and concrete inquiry into it.
The plain truth of this matter is that the present Court is an historical privilege, and in the contemporary climate— and, indeed, for a considerable while past —the usual practice in this country in relation to historical privilege is to keep it as ornamental and to preserve historical tradition in that way, and gradually to shear away from it inappropriate powers. That has happened to the Monarchy. If certain rumours are to be
62
believed, that is quite likely to happen to your Lordships' House before any of us is very much older—but that is not because it has been argued that your Lordships' House works badly. It is rather given to self-praise, as indeed I am sure are the justices in the City courts. The change is proposed because, admirable though hereditary Peers may be, many of them, in this day and age it is not thought fitting that persons should exercise political and legislative power merely because they are the sons of their fathers. Exactly by the same parallel, it is not fitting that persons should exercise judicial functions merely because they have been elected to this very unusual and esoteric body, the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London.
5.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Perhaps I may just say a word in answer to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, because we have got very close, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, to reaching a compromise. Under that compromise, the City gave way a great deal from the position they have adopted heretofore, and the position under Lord Goodman's Amendment. I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor realises that. The second question on which he is prepared to give way is a minor one, I agree, but it is not unimportant in relation to the traditions of the City. So what remains? There is only the question whether the Lord Mayor and aldermen shall preside when they sit—that is all.
The Lord Chancellor, with great respect to him, answered that, I thought, rather cursorily, by saying, "What about the position of a newly appointed alderman and a magistrate who has sat for fifteen years and another one who has sat for seven years?" It is not, of course, necessarily the fact that the best chairman (who must have high qualities, as I recognise, and as the Report which the Lord Chancellor read out also recognises) is the longest-serving magistrate. I ask the noble and learned Lord to recognise this: that unless the Lord Mayor is going to preside over such a bench, it really is impossible for him, I think, to sit with the dignity that he holds. And the same applies to the aldermen.

63
If that provision is not in the Bill, it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, that the magistrates can elect their own chairman. I would suspect that, without any of the reluctance that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor shows, they would in fact elect the Lord Mayor as chairman and the aldermen as deputy chairmen. But, however that may be, that is the limit of the concession the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been asked to make: that instead of leaving it to the election, it should be declared in this Bill that they would hold those positions. Your Lordships must weigh that concession and the concession about the appointment by Charter against the concession on the other side by the City, of abandoning the aldermen's long-established right to sit alone. I do not think it is asking the noble and learned Lord very much to agree to make that concession.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, proposes to do about his Amendment. As has been said by my noble friend Lord Carrington, it has been before the other place, considered by them and twice rejected. I was hoping, when I tabled these Amendments, that I should be able to persuade the Lord Chancellor to accept a compromise. I feel that it would have been much the happiest solution of a difficult situation. If he cannot do that—and I emphasise that the City has come a long way, and I hope it will go a little further —then if the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, withdraws his Amendment I shall ask the Committee to seek to carry the Amendments that I have tabled. That will give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a further opportunity of reflection, and give the other place a chance to consider whether or not it is really necessary to contest the question of whether the Lord Mayor should be chairman and the aldermen deputy chairmen of the magistrates.
I have intervened at this stage because I did not speak on Second Reading, and I cannot be accused on this occasion of having spoken for four and a half hours, or something like it. We have perhaps covered most of the ground and the feeling I have is that a great many of your
64
Lordships would rather like to proceed to a conclusion on this matter.
LORD GOODMAN: I do not know if it would be helpful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for me to say that I speak only to preserve something that the City wants. If it is the City's wish that they should not incur the risk, if I may so put it, that if my Amendment were carried here it would be rejected elsewhere, it seems to me, as a realist, that I should prefer a bird in hand to anything else in another place. Perhaps I might add one word in urging the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to accept the Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said that it is a small Amendment to accept. I wonder if the Lord Chancellor would take into consideration the fact that the City is composed of very fair-minded men; and if, by Statute, they are enabled to preserve something of their privilege, a traditional right, that will compensate them for what they are losing and give them something to work for.
The work of the City has enormous value outside the question of what we are discussing today. The charity work of the City Companies, their work for schools, deserves a small reward. And he might take into consideration the extreme likelihood that, if some member of the bench who was not an alderman showed some aptitude for the job that made him eligible as chairman, the City would show the magnanimity of inviting him, when the occasion arose, to be the chairman. It would be unlikely that a man with real aptitude would be excluded by the City simply because they had the statutory right to the posts of chairman and deputy chairmen. It would be a nice gesture if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would recognise this fact. If he is able to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, then I shall have the pleasure of withdrawing mine.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that, with the best will in the world, I cannot do that. Accepting this Amendment would do two things. I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of the City of London where I have many friends: I am concerned with the new administration of justice. I still

65
think it cannot be right that anybody should be appointed to an important judicial office, not because he had been chosen for that office but because somebody has chosen him for some different office.
I invited the House, or anyone, to tell me what was the answer to the evidence given by the County Councils Association to the Royal Commission when they said this:
"The qualities which enable a chairman of a local authority to perform his duties with success are not of necessity those requisite for the office of Justice of the Peace, added to which there is the point that in many areas the office of Chairman is a matter of rotation rather than distinctive merit. In any event if the Chairman of the local authority is suitable for appointment as a Justice of the Peace, the ordinary procedure should suffice to ensure his consideration for that office."
All the ex officio justices can of course be appointed on their merits.
I have gone out of my way to guarantee in advance, that I will ask the Lord Mayor or ex-Lord Mayor to be chairman of the City of London Advisory Committee. I always consult the Chairman as to whom the other members should be. And I said on Second Reading that it
would be unrealistic to suppose that the proper way of doing things will not result in aldermen being, in fact, justices of the peace. So long as they are ex officio you get into the state of mind displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who said, "If the City think that somebody should be the chairman"—not "if the justices"; not anybody to do with the administration of justice; but "if the local authorities" are kind enough to say that somebody else may be chairman who is not a member of a local authority. This is not, I think, the right principle to employ when dealing with the administration of justice. It cannot be right, if there are three justices, one of whom is of some service and a second of whom is an experienced chairman or deputy chairman, that the most newly appointed City alderman is to take the chair because he is the local authority man. I am afraid that I cannot think that that would be right or that it can be what the administration of justice requires.
5.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 138; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hawke, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Henley, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Conesford, L.

Hodson, L.

Airedale, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Albemarle, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Alport, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howe, E.

Amherst, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Hurcomb, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Amulree, L.

Daventry, V.

Ilford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Denham, L.

Jessel, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Denning, L.

Kilmany, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Derwent, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Auckland, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Audley, Bs.

Drumalbyn, L.

Latymer, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Barnby, L.

Eccles, V.

London, L. Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

MacAndrew, L.

Bessborough, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Mais, L.

Boothby, L.

Falkland, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Falmouth, V.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fleck, L.

Margadale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fortescue, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brock, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mills, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Glasgow, E.

Milne, L.

Burden, L.

Goodman, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Byers, L.

Goschen, V.

Molson, L.

Caccia, L.

Greenway, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Chandos, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chorley, L.

Guest, L.

Newton, L.

Cohen, L.

Hacking, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L

Nunburnholme, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Oakshott, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Swaythling, L.

Ogmore, L.

Sackville, L.

Teviot, L.

Parker of Waddington, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Teynham, L.

Pearce, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Pearson, L.

St. Helens, L.

Thurlow, L.

Perth, E.

Sandford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Poltimore, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Shannon, E.

Upjohn, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Sherfield, L.

Vivian, L.

Reading, M.

Simon, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Redmayne, L.

Simonds, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Stamp, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Granville-West, L.

Popplewell, L.

Birk, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

Rhodes, L.

Bowles, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brockway, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Rowley, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kennet, L.

Royle, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Latham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shackleton, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Fiske, L.

McLeavy, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mitchison, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Moyle, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
("(1A) (a) The Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London shall by virtue of the Charter granted by His late Majesty King George II dated the 25th August 1741 continue to be justices of the peace for the City of London.
(b) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment the Lord Mayor shall be the Chairman and the Aldermen of the City of London the Deputy Chairmen of the justices of the peace for the City of London.").—(Viscount Dil-horne.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
5.50 p.m.
LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Advisory Committees
".—(1) There shall be in each county and in each borough having a separate Commission of the Peace an advisory committee for the purpose of advising the Lord Chancellor upon the appointment of Justices of such county or borough.
(2) The Chairman of the advisory committee for a county shall be the custos rotuiorum of the county and the clerk thereof shall be the clerk of the peace of the county.
(3) The Chairman of advisory committee of a borough having a separate commission of the peace shall be such person as the Lord Chancellor may appoint and the clerk thereof shall be the clerk of the Justices of the borough.
(4) An advisory committee shall be elected by the Justices of the county or borough, having a separate Commission of the Peace, in Annual meeting assembled.
(5) The Lord Chancellor may, by rules, made by him give general directions as to the manner in which advisory committees shall carry out their duties."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, to insert the new clause on the Marshalled List. This Amendment has a relation to what we have been discussing so far this afternoon but covers a much wider field, because it deals with magistrates throughout the country rather than in one small part of the country. As briefly as I can put it in one sentence, the aim of the Amendment is to make advisory committees statutory bodies. I believe that it is a grave omission in the Bill that this has not been done. I cannot find any Act of Parliament that makes reference to advisory committees, though everybody knows they exist. In 1949, when

69
we were discussing the Justices of the Peace Bill in another place, I had the temerity to move an Amendment which, roughly speaking, was the same as this Amendment, and it was rejected by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, and the then Attorney General, now the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross.
In the 19 years which have intervened I believe that more consideration might have been given to this question of advisory committees, and I regard this as a new opportunity for stating a case for some change. Any noble Lord who is a justice of the peace or holds any other magisterial position is regularly asked how magistrates are appointed, and he usually answers by saying that they are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. How does the Lord Chancellor know everybody he is appointing? The answer is that he does not; he is advised by advisory committees in every county and county borough as to who are suitable people to become magistrates.
Then comes the question: who appoints the advisory committees? Again, the answer is: the Lord Chancellor. From that again comes the question: who advises the Lord Chancellor about appointments to the advisory committees? And the answer is: the advisory committees. I regard this as a completely undemocratic procedure. Nobody knows what goes on in the advisory committees. Perhaps that is right. But as I see it, members appointed by the Lord Chancellor to serve for five years can be recommended, when their period on the committee expires, to serve a further term. They are recommended by the advisory committee—by their own colleagues. I know that this is subject to the Lord Chancellor overriding any decision of the advisory committees, but except for that overriding they become in fact self-appointing and self-perpetuating. I do not believe that in the second half of the twentieth century this practice is in accord with our democratic thinking.
I know, and noble Lords will know, that there is a widespread sense of suspicion in the public mind—I put it as high as that—that there is a certain amount of hole and corner activity going on. They believe that there is a secrecy about the appointment of people to responsible office that almost amounts
70
to a Star Chamber. I know that in these matters my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor acts as dominus and that if he were not to have any advice and make all decisions himself, he would be deus.
I would never recommend that the alternative method of appointing magistrates was by some sort of public election. Magistrates are in a different category altogether from members of local councils and even from Members of Parliament. It is quite impossible to have a public election. But the public is worried about these advisory committees who, subject to my noble and learned friend, are the people who select magistrates. The public is concerned in making these committees statutory. I feel sure that if this were done it would remove a great deal of the concern which exists in the public mind.
So far as the subsections of my Amendment are concerned, I think they are perfectly clear, but I should like to make one comment on subsection (4) which says:
"An advisory committee shall be elected by the Justices of the county or borough, having a separate Commission of the Place, in Annual meeting assembled."
It might be suggested that this is a form of election. But it is not the election of the magistrates; it is the election of the committee which will advise the Lord Chancellor. At every annual meeting of magistrates in every part of the country certain committees are elected. The magistrates' court committee is elected by the magistrates themselves; the licensing committee, the compensation committee, the probation committee and so on are all appointed by the justices themselves. I cannot for the life of me see why the justices, in their wisdom, should not choose their colleagues who would be the committee of selection, the advisory committee to the Lord Chancellor.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Before the noble Lord leaves subsection (4), could he clarify one small point? Does he intend that the candidates for the election referred to in subsection (4) should be confined to magistrates, or that people who are not magistrates should be eligible?
LORD ROYLE: My view would be that the advisory committee should consist purely and simply of magistrates. I

71
believe that they are the people who know best the suitability of candidates in the light of their own experience of what is needed of a magistrate.
I do not think it is necessary to go through any of the other parts of my Amendment, but I wanted to make clear that I feel strongly on subsection (4) and regard it as an alternative way in which we can bring about a feeling in the minds of the general public that there is nothing hole and corner about the question. It would be made much more straightforward. Obviously, I am not well up in these matters, but I wonder in how many cases the names of those on public advisory committees are not available for scrutiny of one kind or another. At the moment, I cannot think of any. I think of the Board of Trade, for example, and those names are available if people want them. So far as I can see, this is the only case where an advisory committee in public life is in no shape or form open to public scrutiny.
I do not want to speak for a long time—we have had a long debate on the other subject—but I believe that what I am suggesting is a democratic move forward to abolish some of the suspicion which exists in the minds of the public, and I beg your Lordships to see to it that for the first time advisory committees are made statutory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.— (Lord Royle.)
6.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This question was given a good deal of consideration by both of the Royal Commissions. The Royal Commission of 1911 recommended:
"The Lord Lieutenant of the County should retain the practice of recommending to the Lord Chancellor for his approval persons to be appointed justices of the peace subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Lord Chancellor should nominate within each county one or more small representative committees to inform and advise the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant; (2) the persons to be selected as members of the committees, the practice and procedure of the committees, should be left to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor,"
and in boroughs the Lord Chancellor should have power to appoint similar committees.
72
The Second Royal Commission, 1946–48, considered it all over again. They said in paragraph 43 of their Report:
"The Lord Chancellor as head of the Judiciary, and at the same time as a Minister of the Crown, is eminently qualified to be entitled to power of appointment of justices. It is essential that the Lord Chancellor should have local advice, and there has been unanimity among the witnesses that a local committee is preferable to any other method. We agree with this view. We have however heard criticism of the existing system of advisory committees. It has been suggested in evidence that the Committee should be constituted of persons nominated by local bodies."
That is what my noble friend suggests.
"This would make the committee a publicly known body; and a no less serious objection is that the committee would then cease to be the Lord Chancellor's committee. Further, it might in many cases be selected by a vote on Party lines. In approving the appointment of justices, the Lord Chancellor is dealing with judicial appointments; he is responsible for the appointment and we are clearly of opinion that he should continue to have that responsibility unimpaired. If the local committee were to be a public body, the result would be either to weaken the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor or public dispute if the Lord Chancellor refused to appoint persons so recommended. We recommend that the Lord Chancellor should continue to appoint the members of advisory committees, and that their membership and proceedings should continue to be confidential."
I do not want to use any other words of my own. My noble friend Lord Royle is nothing if not consistent, because he put down the Amendment, word for word, in another place in 1949.
LORD ROYLE: Perhaps my noble and learned friend would allow me to say that subsection (4) was not in that Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry; I thought it was actually word for word. But the substance was the same. It was not carried to a Division in the other place, but was taken up by Lord Templewood here, and all I want to do now is to read what my noble predecessor, Lord Jowitt, said. He said:
"… I think we should be making a great mistake if we accepted it. Let me tell your Lordships what my experience of the whole position is, extending as it does over four and a half years. I believe that ultimately the success of the whole scheme depends on the Lord Chancellor. I believe that it should be made perfectly plain that he is completely dominus of the situation. He shares his responsibility with no one at all, and he is the person who is solely responsible for the appointment of magistrates. I believe that

73
we cannot emphasise that too often or too clearly, because I think it is often misunderstood.
"Though the Lord Chancellor is solely responsible he relies on, and is fortunate in getting, the assistance of an excellent staff who, as your Lordships know, are available on all occasions to the many of your Lordships who are Lords Lieutenant. And, secondly, he has the assistance of the Lords Lieutenant themselves."
He then refers to the good relations between himself and the Lords Lieutenant, and the committees. In the next column he says:
"Sometimes I see the representatives of these advisory committees, and sometimes I see that they have a complete misapprehension of their duties. Sometimes they think they are delegates, as it were, of a Party or section, and that their particular job is to try to get people appointed belonging to that Party or section. When I see them I say to them: Do you realise what you are? You are not creatures of Statute at all; you are simply there for one purpose, and one purpose only —namely, to advise the Lord Chancellor. You are my committees, and what you have to do is to advise me.' I believe it is very important that that should be plainly understood.
"Quite frankly, I am against this Amendment in principle—I will discuss the detail of it in a moment or two. I am against it because I regard it as the thin edge of the wedge. If it is proposed to make these advisory committees—which so long as I have anything to do with the matter will certainly continue to function—statutory bodies, then the next step will be to make the Lord Chancellor accept their recommendations; at any rate, it will be said that the Lord Chancellor ought not lightly to disregard their recommendations. I believe that that sins against the principle upon which we ought to insist— namely, that the Lord Chancellor is entirely and solely responsible for this work. I think I may claim (I am not speaking for myself, but for my predecessors; I have merely carried on their work in this matter as best I can) that on the whole the system to-day is worked well. But, as I say, these committees are there merely for the purpose of advising the Lord Chancellor, who may or may not take the advice which they give, and who may, if he is so minded, appoint a magistrate without asking them at all.
"He does not do that often, though sometimes—and I think other Lord Chancellors have found the same—when I seek to appoint a distinguished lawyer who ought obviously to be serving in this capacity, and as a matter of courtesy I generally ask the advisory Committee, I find that they are rather stubborn: and I had to appoint him notwithstanding the advisory committee. We must make it plain that the committees are the Lord Chancellor's committees, set up by him, for the purpose merely of advising him.
"I believe that if you make the Bill tidier by inserting this Amendment in the Bill—
74
and I can give your Lordships an assurance, so far as I am concerned, that I will carry out the principles of this new clause—you will weaken the position of the Lord Chancellor and prevent him from being what he is today—namely, complete dominus of the situation. Therefore, I am opposed to this Amendment. I believe that we shall do much better to rest where we are to-day. Let us have these advisory committees all over the country, but let them not be creatures of Statute; let them be appointed, as they are to-day, by the Lord Chancellor, to advise the Lord Chancellor, under the control of the Lord Chancellor".— [OFFICIAL REPORT; 20/10/49, cols, 1017–19.]
At the end of the discussion I see that the Committee divided, Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 43.
All my advisory committees; are not composed of justices of the peace, and I should not have thought it would be at all a good thing that the local justices should elect them. In some cases I have no doubt at all that this would be done on a political basis. I have members of advisory committees who are, for example, doctors, who are not politicians. A doctor has not time to be a magistrate, but he knows a great many different people, both men and women, in different walks of life. He sees them under conditions of adversity, and he may make a very useful member of an advisory committee, although he has not time to be a justice of the peace himself. Therefore, I can only oppose this Amendment on exactly the same grounds as my noble predecessor opposed it in 1949.
6.13 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My approach to this matter is pragmatic rather than theoretical. My approach to the other subject which we were discussing earlier was just the same. When something is working well I am not in favour of altering it on theoretical lines. It appeared to me that we had now won the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to our philosophic side. Frankly, I have some knowledge of advisory committees in the past, and although the whole of their history has not been universally satisfactory, nevertheless I believe it is a system that works better now; that it is working better now than any alternative system based on election by existing justices would. For that reason, on this occasion I find myself in accord with the Lord Chancellor and I could not support this new clause.
But the noble and learned Lord quoted from the Royal Commission's Report,

75
and one of the reasons given by the Royal Commission for opposing a change of this kind in the appointment of advisory committees was that it was desirable that their membership as well as their proceedings should be confidential. I am wondering whether, before the end of our proceedings on this Bill, although perhaps not to-day, the noble and learned Lord could give us an authoritative statement about this matter of confidentiality. In an earlier stage of the proceedings of the Committee this afternoon the noble and learned Lord described what he had said to the Inner London Advisory Committee. I am paraphrasing it, but broadly speaking he said that so far as he was concerned he did not mind whether they disclosed their identity or not. In the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place on January 23, at column 281 of Hansard (Commons), the learned Attorney General said, with reference to these advisory committees:
"… the danger is that if their names were disclosed, there would be a lamentable attempt at lobbying them and an attempt to bring presssure upon them to appoint this or that magistrate. It is to avoid the risk of that sort of attempted influence that this secrecy is maintained … I hope that, on reflection, and having had some experience themselves of attempted lobbying, my hon. Friends may think that the discreet arrangements whereby the identity of chairmen and members of advisory committees is kept secret is advantageous in this difficult task of selecting the best men for the magisterial bench."
May I say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I have no desire to cause trouble between him and the Attorney General, and I am not seeking to make any Party point by indicating that there appears to have been a discrepancy between the views expressed, on the proceedings of the same Bill, by two very learned authorities. That is why I suggest that perhaps if not now, at some stage before our discussions of the Bill are completed, the noble and learned Lord might see fit to make an authoritative pronouncement which would catch all this up and remove any apparent contradiction, and enable everybody who reads Parliamentary proceedings to know exactly what the position is as regards the confidentiality of membership of these advisory committees.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If convenient, may I do that at once? I have
76
no rule; I leave it to my advisory committees. Most of them are insistent that they must remain anonymous because they say that otherwise they would simply be lobbied to death. I understand that, and if they say that, then I accept it. On the other hand, the Inner London Committee, perhaps the most important committee in the country, do not insist on that, and in fact everybody knows who they are. They make no attempt to conceal their names. It has this great advantage—and there are one or two other places in the country where people do not object to their names being known—that then a sub-committee can interview those who have been recommended to them. This is now always done, for example, in London, and there are one or two other advisory committees that do this.
I feel that I must leave this matter to each of my advisory committees. If they say, "No, we could not serve if our names were known, and this would be impossible where we are", then I feel I must accept that. But I do not try to persuade them to be anonymous at all. If anything, I point out the advantages of not being. On one occasion in order to try to dispel the idea that there is some frightful mystery about how justices are appointed, I referred this matter to the Inner London Advisory Committee. Their Chairman is Lord Denning, and it includes the Chief Magistrate, with the Chairman of Sessions and Lord Rea, and Lord Amulree—men whom nobody would think of lobbying; I should like to see someone lobbying Lord Denning. They did not mind. I said to all the Pressmen, "If any of you want to get hold of a member of the advisory committee and ask exactly what they do, and how it is all done, you can". So I do not want any secrecy, and I would welcome it if more advisory committees said, "We are not nervous of our names being known". But I feel that if most of them say, "This would make things too difficult for us", I must accept it.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making mat authoritative pronouncement. I do not seek in any way to quarrel with it. He will, of course, bear in mind that if the confidentiality is no longer imposed from above as it used to be, there is the danger in certain cases

77
of some members of the advisory committee disclosing their personal identity, when the majority of the members of the advisory committee in that place think it undesirable that the names should be published. I can foresee local difficulties arising out of this change. But I do not want to pursue that matter now. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will bear it in mind. So far as this new clause is concerned, I do not think it would be an improvement to the Bill.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Before we leave that point I am far from disagreeing with anything the noble and learned Lord has said on the matter, but I cannot remember ever having seen a letter addressed to an advisory committee telling them they had discretion whether or not to disclose their names. I feel that if such a letter has not been sent—and I apologise if it has, and I did not know —something on those lines should be written fairly soon regarding the decisions of the noble and learned Lord opposite, so that we may know where we are. Then, if we are going to have this discretion whether or not to disclose, we can set about using it.
LORD ROYLE: I have found it rather difficult, sitting on the second Bench immediately behind the noble and learned Lord, to hear all his arguments, and particularly many of the quotations he read to the Committee. I think I heard most of it. He was kind enough to say in the course of his speech that I was pretty consistent in so far as I had moved almost the same Amendment nineteen years ago. It seems to me there is a sense of consistency not only in individuals but in succeeding Lord Chancellors, as the days go by, and if my noble and learned friend is not claiming consistency for himself at the moment he is certainly claiming consistency for Lord Chancellors as a whole in the years that have gone by.
On this little passage which has gone on almost above my head but on my Amendment, I would say only this: why on earth should not the names of members of the advisory committee be known? Surely it is a good idea. Suggestions might be made to members of the advisory committees by the general public which would bring to the attention of the committee suitable names
78
which would never be known to them in any other way. There seems to be no objection at all to the names of advisory committee members being made known in a much more general sense.
In reply to some of the points made by my noble and learned friend I would say that nothing at all in my new clause would take away from the Lord Chancellor the overriding and final authority over the committees. He would be the person to make the check, and if he felt there was an undue influence on the part of one political Party or another, or of one section of the community or another, he would have the overriding authority. My Amendment in no way alters the help and the advice which the Lord Chancellor would receive from the local committees set up in the way I have proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and my noble and learned friend talked about a system that works well, and said we should not alter it. My concern is that systems should be improved, and, with great respect to my noble and learned friend, during the previous debate this afternoon he has been resisting the suggestion as far as the City of London is concerned that because it works well it should continue in its present form. There seems to me to be an inconsistency there. I am becoming an old man, but I hope I have not got past the stage where I am able to see that improvements can be made. It is no guarantee that because one system has been going on, it may be for a hundred years (as in this case), it is necessarily the right system to be continued in the years to come. This question of a system working well makes me rather impatient. It seems to me to be much better that we should be looking for improvement all the time.
Well, I moved this Amendment 19 years ago. I know when I am not getting any support in your Lordships' Committee and I do not believe in kicking brick walls, or anything of the kind. All I can say is that in another 19 years I will try again, and if I am not succeeding now and if I did not succeed in 1949, it may well be that in 1987 I shall succeed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Age for transfer of justice to supplemental list, or for retirement of stipendiary magistrate]:
6.25 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLINGmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "subsection (3)" and insert: "subsections (3) and (4)". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is only, so to speak, a consequential part of Amendment No. 13. Therefore, by leave of the Committee, I will speak to the latter Amendment now.
In Clause 2(2) your Lordships will see it is suggested that stipendiary magistrates should vacate their office at the end of the completed year of service in the course of which they attain the age limit. My suggestion is that the same principle should apply to the chairman of a bench of magistrates.
I considered for a moment asking the Committee to make a change of this nature for all magistrates attaining the age limit, but then I saw there was some disadvantage in possibly a number of magistrates on the same bench having to retire on the same day, and I think it right that they should retire, as at present, on their birthdays, on different dates throughout the year.
The same does not apply to the chairman, and it would be easier for all purposes if he finished his year of office. When a chairman has to leave in the middle of a year the bench has to meet specially in order to appoint another chairman, and there are other complications. It appeared to me that no bench would elect one of their number to be chairman unless they were convinced that he could carry out the duties properly until the end of the year.
I know that it is customary in your Lordships' House to declare an interest but I have not done this because in my case it might be called, in the modern jargon, a 'mini-interest". I have the honour to be chairman of my bench at the moment, and if I am still chairman when the retiring age catches up with me it will be only a fortnight or so before my year of office would be over. As I have said, my Amendment would put the chairman of the bench in the same position as the stipendiary magistrate, which would be for the convenience and efficient working of petty sessional divisions, so I hope that Her Majesty's
80
Government will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (4)")—(Lord Swaythling.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I sometimes think it is a great pity that we cannot vote by a show of hands, because I should like to leave this Amendment entirely to the members of the Committee, although I hope that we shall not have to take a vote in order to find out. Those of your Lordships who are justices have an advantage over me in this regard. The point is that normally the bench has an election in October, with the chairmanship starting on January 1. The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, asks whether it would not be much better if, instead of chairmen who reach the retiring age (whether it is 70 or 75 does not matter) being put on the supplemental list on the day they become 70 or 75, they went on until January 1 because otherwise there would have to be an election in the middle of the year.
I should be glad to know what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, thinks of this suggestion. Administratively there is something to be said for it, because it means that the chairman is appointed in October and then, instead of his having to go on the supplemental list on the day he reaches retiring age, he will go at the end of the year, and the new chairman who was elected in October will start on January 1. There are only two difficulties in this regard. In the first place it means that, in practice, 70 will become 70½. On average, it will mean that a person will go on for another six months. In some cases it will be 11 months, and in others, only one month, so that this Amendment would make the practical retiring age six months later.
The second point is that I am told that in practice it is rare to have an election during the course of the year. What usually happens is that at the election in October Mr. Snooks says "I shall be 75 in March, so if I am appointed I cannot complete my year, and therefore I will not stand". Those who have experience of such matters can tell me whether or not that is so. Therefore, although at first sight the noble Lord's Amendment has the effect of preventing a number of

81
elections in the middle of the year, I am told that in fact, for the reason I have given, they do not occur at the moment. Although, administratively, there seemed to me at first sight a lot to be said for the Amendment, having regard to the fact that it really increases any age limit by six months I do not feel prepared to accept it, unless the Committee as a whole make it clear they think it preferable, in which case I will.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am not a magistrate, so I am not sure whether I have any title to speak with authority on this matter. The only thing I would say with fair assurance is that in my view the skies will not fall whichever way the Committee decide. I am attracted by the suggestion the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, has put forward, despite the disadvantages which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has suggested. If a person is chairman of the bench and if, as the Lord Chancellor hopes, the additional training arrangements for chairmanship are fulfilled, it seems to me that we can look forward with fair assurance to the chairman of the bench being somebody who is thoroughly well qualified to be chairman, even if that does not always happen now. In my view it does generally happen, but I can imagine exceptions.
It still seems to me that if there were a chairman who was ageing it is unlikely that he would press his claim for re-election supposing that his birthday occurred in January or February. I think it likely that he would prefer not to be re-elected. At the same time, there seems to me to be considerable administrative advantage in removing the possible necessity for a special election when a chairman's age limit is going to run out before the end of the year. I would, finally, submit this thought. I do not think there is absolute sanctity about any of these birthdays, the 70th, 71st, 72nd, or whatever it is. We all know that the effect of age varies greatly with different people. I should have thought that if the Government were willing it would be a good thing to allow the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, to have his way and to amend the Bill in this sense.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like very shortly to support this proposal. It seems to me commonsense, and certainly ad-
82
ministratively there is a great deal to be said for it.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD:If the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, desires the views of the Committee, I would simply say that I would support the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In view of what has been said, I am happy to accept the Amendment.
6.34 p.m.
LORD ILFORDmoved, in subsection (l)(a) to leave out "seventy" and insert "seventy-five". The noble Lord said: This Amendment also deals with the age limit for magistrates. The age at which a magistrate is entered on the supplemental list and his service as a magistrate virtually comes to an end is at present 75. The Bill proposes to reduce the age limit from 75 to 70, and the purpose of my Amendment is to retain the age at 75. This Bill really invites your Lordships to accept the proposition that a man's faculties will have so far decayed at the age of 70 that he is no longer able to discharge the Junctions of a magistrate with full efficiency. I feel sure that, when I put it in that way, the experience of most of your Lordships would not bear out that proposition. Looking around this Chamber, I see -many noble Lords here who have passed the age of 70 and who are fully capable of carrying out not only the duties of this House but the duties of a magistrate as well, if they were invited to do so.
I do not think that anybody would disagree with the view that an age limit should be fixed for the retirement of magistrates. It is a good many years since I went much into the magistrates' courts, but I still retain some very painful recollections of endeavouring to present a case to magistrates whose faculties, particularly their faculties of hearing and of seeing, had begun to decay. It was a very difficult and unrewarding task. That decay does not set in at the age of 70. At one time I had a good deal of experience of old people, and their capacities and incapacities. I am quite sure that the real chang in a man's faculties comes not at the age of 70 but at the age of 75. That is my experience. I always felt, when I was

83
responsible for these matters, that we ought perhaps to treat the over-75's rather more generously than we treat the under-75's.
There is another reason why we should retain the present age limit at 75. To adopt an age limit of 70 seems to me to restrict unduly the services which certain classes of persons are able to give as magistrates. I have in mind in particular the sort of men who are engaged in building up a business or professional practice. The difficulties of these men, or the obstacles which they encounter in accepting appointments as magistrates, are not met by the payment of travelling allowances or subsistence allowances, or indeed loss allowances. Their difficulty is that they cannot quantify in terms of currency what their loss really amounts to. It is not a financial loss which deters them: it is the disturbance to their office routine, the additional work which their absence from the office would throw upon their partners. It is considerations of that sort which deter men engaged in this way from accepting appointments as magistrates.
By the time a man reaches 60 these considerations are no longer of the same importance. He can give the necessary time to the work of a magistrate and is prepared to accept appointment to the bench. But under the provisions of the Bill when he reaches the age of 70 his service as a magistrate comes to an end. That, I think, is imposing an unnecessary, an undue restriction on the particular type of man who I think all our experience shows makes a good magistrate when he comes on the bench. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, told us in the Second Reading debate that he does not ordinarily appoint a justice over the age of 60. As this class of person of whom I am speaking is more likely to be able to give the necessary time from his business or profession when he is over 60, his opportunity for serving as a magistrate is still further restricted.
I said a moment ago that these are the persons who normally make good magistrates, and it seems to me to be wrong to restrict their opportunity of serving as magistrates both at the upper age limit and the lower age limit. It
84
means, in effect, that a man engaged in this sort of occupation can hope to be made a magistrate only for a relatively short period between the ages of 60 and 70. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, told me during the Second Reading debate that there was no difficulty in getting magistrates— indeed, I think he said there were more recommendations from the advisory committees than he was likely to be able to appoint. I think that the noble and learned Lord rather missed the point that I was then endeavouring to make.
I was endeavouring to make the point that I have been making to-day: that the restriction on the age limit imposes an undue restriction upon this class of individual. I do not imagine that the noble and learned Lord has on his advisory committees an excessive number of persons in this class. The point I was endeavouring to make on Second Reading was that this restriction prevented this class of person from taking the part which he otherwise would take as a magistrate. I am not sure that the answer that the noble and learned Lord gave me on Second Reading really reached that point. The difficulty that I feel about this particular class of person is, I think, a real difficulty. I think that more would be lost than would be gained by reducing the age limit to 70. For that reason I hope that the Committee will see fit to amend this Bill and retain the age limit at 75. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("seventy") and insert ("seventy-five").—(Lord Ilford.)
6.42 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like strongly to support this Amendment. I suppose I ought to start by declaring an interest as one of the magistrates who, in due course, will feel the axe if the present proposal in the Bill is carried through; but my withers are not wrung on that. I think we start with the findings of the Royal Commission. I have noticed that the noble and learned Lord was prepared to quote the Royal Commission on more than one occasion when it suited his case. Here we have a most important and quite categorical finding by the Royal Commission, which in all the circumstances recommended the age of 75. They evidently gave a great deal of thought to

85
it. I remember that at the time doubts about it were expressed in various quarters, and, as I understood it, the Home Office, which at that time was much more in the picture than it is now, felt that this was wrong and that 70 would be a more appropriate age. But when it came to Parliament, so far as I know no effort was made, either in another place or here, to substitute 70, and 75 was in fact fixed. In my view, 75 has worked very well indeed.
This is another case of interfering with something which, in all my long experience of this particular matter, has worked, and is working, well. I do not think there is any real case made out, except again this rather doctrinaire one that some people are rather old after they pass 70 and that therefore all the people who are over 70 but who are still very much compos mentis should, not so much to their own loss as to the loss to the community, be removed from the bench. This is a serious matter.
As shortly as possible because it is getting late, I should like to make a number of points which seem to me to be most relevant to this discussion. In my experience—and I have been chairman of quarter sessions now for 25 years—magistrates are at their best between about the ages of 67 or 68 and 75. Experience is of immense value in judicial work. I do not think that one can stress that too much. I remember when I was a young barrister its being said that a judge was only really good after he had been on the bench for ten years, and that between his tenth and his fifteenth year he was at his best. There is a great deal to be said in support of that. Judicial work is quite different from executive and administrative work, which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord when he pointed out that civil servants have to retire in their sixties. The work that the civil servant does and the work which the executive in business does is quite different from bringing one's mind to bear, in association with colleagues, other magistrates, upon whether a charge is made out and, if it is, what punishment should be imposed.
I have found that the experienced magistrate of 10, 12 or even 15 years' service is of the greatest value in the discussions which take place in the magistrates' room, particularly at the time
86
when it comes to deciding what is to be done with the convicted person. If I were deprived of them I say, quite frankly, that I should lose those on whom I particularly rely. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has referred—and I agree with every word he said about this—to the difficulty of recruiting good men from the business world at much below the age of 60. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is no doubt perfectly right when he says that there is no difficulty about finding people who are ready to become magistrates. Of course there is not. There are a number of people who are always working as hard as they can to become magistrates, many of them reasonably well qualified. But they are not as well qualified as many of the others whose names are discussed in the advisory committees and who are then approached. Time after time we have been told, "So-and-so says he cannot do it because he is too busy with his business. In a few years he will be able to accept the suggestion". That is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Ilford was saying.
It is most interesting to look at the Report of the Royal Commission, where they discuss how far magistrates attend to their duties. At page 9, paragraph 31, they point out that those in business on their own account and the lesser employers represent a low proportion of those who do not attend at all, but their average of attendance is low. They just cannot do it if they are to attend to their business. Now that the requirements of the Lord Chancellor are quite properly more stringent than they were in the 'forties, the man says, "I could not give the time which is now required of me. I shall get into trouble if I do not turn up, and I just cannot afford to ruin my business."
These types of people are valuable, and I am sure that Lord Ilford is absolutely right when he says that we shall to a large extent lose them if we put the retiring age to 70. In effect, we shall deprive ourselves of these people, because in the short time allowed they will not have the opportunity of getting the experience which is most essential to the making of a good justice. You just cannot do it effectively if you are not appointed until you are about 60, and then you have to retire at 70. Of course,

87
there are certain types of people in the community whom you can get very easily; and they are very good people, people who teach in schools and people who are engaged on that sort of work. They can get away, and they make good justices, but it would destroy the balance if you were to compose the benches entirely of people of that kind. The schoolmaster or schoolmistress can bring a certain quality of mind to the work, which is of great value, but the real value of our benches of lay magistrates is that they bring a balance of experience and knowledge to the work. If you rely too much on school teachers, and people of that kind, then you get an unbalanced bench, and you deprive yourself of the sort of people you really need if you want to do this work effectively.
Unfortunately, I was not able to be present at the Second Reading. I had to preside at my own quarter sessions on the day that was taken, but I have read what was said by the noble and learned Lord with very great care. The two main points that he made were based on infirmity and on waning powers. They are not quite the same thing. Definite infirmities like deafness or ageing lead, as he said, to momentary failure of attention which may lead to a wrong decision. With regard to the main infirmity—and, of course, deafness is the main infirmity from which magistrates suffer—retirement at 70 is really no safeguard. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in his speech on the Second Reading. The deaf really must be eliminated, or the deaf who are so deaf that they cannot really hear what is going on, and it is quite absurd to try to do this by means of establishing the retiring age at 70. In actual practice, of course, if somebody does become as deaf as that, then steps are taken, and as a rule it does not take more than a few weeks to persuade the person in question to leave the bench. That has happened to my knowledge on more than one occasion. However, it would really be very much better to have some proper method of dealing with this problem rather than just establishing the age of 70, and it may be that the suggestion of the noble Baroness is right.
My own suggestion would be that the advisory committee ought to have a
88
meeting every year in order to go over the list of magistrates and decide whether so-and-so has, in fact, become so deaf that he or she ought to be asked to retire. When I am told that this is invidious, I really cannot see why that should be so. After all, the committee have the job of choosing the people and advising the noble and learned Lord as to their appointment. Is there any earthly reason why they should not also have the job of looking through the list and deciding whether these people are really fit to go on?
LORD MITCHISON: Would my noble friend tell me whether there is an age limit for members of the advisory committee?
LORD CHORLEY: The age limit of the advisory committee is the age limit for magistrates, but it is within the hands of the noble and learned Lord, and he can see to it that they are so constituted that they are properly qualified to carry out this task. The power of concentration and momentary inattention is, of course, a different matter. The great safeguard here, I suggest, is that magistrates sit in groups, and if one of them loses attention for a time, then when they consult together in the magistrates' room those who have kept their attention and remained awake know what happened, and there is no particular difficulty about it. It is quite different from the case of a single stipendiary or, indeed, for that matter, a single judge. Stipendiaries are to retire at 70, but Judges of the High Court go on until they are 75, sitting by themselves. The type of work with which judges deal is infinitely more difficult and exacting than that which is dealt with by groups of magistrates who, as a rule, do not sit so long and so continuously as the judges. Yet this group of magistrates—who can put one of its members right when there is some momentary lack of attention of this kind—is to be deprived of the services of their more elderly members. It seems to me that this is quite wrong, and that the argument in favour of it really does not hold water.
There is a better case for getting the chairmen to retire at 70 than the others. It may well be sensible that the chairmen should not go on beyond the age of 70 or thereabouts, and certainly in regard to a chairman of quarter sessions—which

89
the noble and learned Lord has now taken a line about, and in which again I have an interest—I feel that he is quite right, because the position of the chairman at quarter sessions is altogether a more exacting one. It is much more like that of the Judge at a Court of Assize. He has the very difficult task of summing up the case to the jury. He has to deal with questions of whether evidence is admissible or not, and he has to be very much on the qui vive right from the sitting of the court early in the morning, often until pretty late at night—a good deal later at night than most Judges of the High Court are prepared to sit. The strain on recorders and chairmen is a very heavy one, and there is a much stronger case there, I think, for requiring that they should retire at the age of 70. But with groups of magistrates who are sitting, so to speak, in colleges, I think that the case is not made out at all, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, will insist on this Amendment.
6.58 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: I hope that my noble and learned friend will resist this Amendment. I take the exactly opposite line from the one my noble friend Lord Chorley has taken. I remember being told a story by the then Mr. Chuter Ede of when, after the recommendation came from the Royal Commission that there should be a retiring age for the first time, and they suggested it might be 75, a conversation took place between the then Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, as to what age should be put into the Bill. Mr. Chuter Ede said: "I know this House of Commons; they will insist on 65, the retiring age from industry, the retirement pensionable age, and so on. I think that is a bit low. We will put 75 in the Bill. They will move an Amendment to make it 65, and we will graciously accept 70". Nobody moved an Amendment, and that is how 75 came into the 1949 Act. From that day forward I have always felt that the age of 75 was too high.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that there are very many Members of your Lordships' House over the age of 75 who are quite capable of doing their work in this House. Their contributions towards the debates and discussions of the House are first-class. But
90
it is a very different matter making a reasonable contribution to a discussion and debate in your Lordships' House from sitting on the bench and judging one's fellows. This is a very responsible task indeed, and when you remember what lay magistrates are able to do in these days in the way of imposing penalties and sentencing people to imprisonment, I suggest to your Lordships that we must be terribly careful. There are many able people over 75 who are competent to sit on a bench of magistrates, but this is something on which one has to generalise. No man or woman is able to judge himself or herself.
LORD ILFORD: I was dealing with persons who were under 75, these between 70 and 75. I was not dealing with those above 75.
LORD ROYLE: I am talking of the suggestion in the Bill that the present age limit of 75 shall be reduced in easy stages to 70. I would at once put it down to 70. As my noble and learned friend knows, when I attained the age of 70 I voluntarily went on to the supplemental list because, in the light of what I had seen of other people, I felt that I might not be able to judge my own capacity to carry on in a job of that description. Experience is important, but in this matter capacity is even more important.
My noble friend Lord Chorley talked about businessmen. We are not asking them to leave their businesses for hours upon end. A petty sessional court in a borough often sits only once a week, for a few hours. In the counties many courts are not called upon to sit more than fortnightly, or even monthly. This is not a great sacrifice for businessmen under the age of 70. There is no doubt that people actively engaged in business and in industry can spare that kind of lime.
Drawing from my own experience (and this is relevant to the Amendment by my noble friend Lady Summerskill about deafness), I remember sitting with an elderly magistrate who was very deaf and who was in the chair. It was during war time, and the court had before it a conscientious objector. When he had given evidence on his own behalf, the chairman cupped his hands round his ear and said, "Have you any witnesses to

91
call?" The man replied, "God is my witness". "Then," said the chairman, "put him in the box". That chairman at that time was not 75, but he was very deaf; and he thought that he could hear and was not too old. Who is going to judge? As I have said, generalisation is called for in this matter. We must be sure that people who are judging their fellows are capable of judging them and of imposing penalties. I hope that the Committee will have nothing to do with this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am not sure that I would put down the same Amendment as my noble friend Lord Ilford, but I am sure that, as I am over 70, little notice will be taken of anything I have to say. But I should like to make one or two points. In the 16 years during which I have been chairman of an advisory committee in Shropshire— and each year we have taken notice of any reports we hear or any knowledge about the state of magistrates' health—I have never had any occasion to think that justice had not been done simply because anybody on the bench was 75. That is my own experience. I am simply putting forward that experience against possible theories elsewhere. I have always felt that 70 was far too low as a rigid age limit. That led me to wonder whether the Royal Commission which reported last had ever read the Companies Act. I was reminded of that because I saw the noble Lord, Lord Cohen, in the Chamber. The noble and learned Lord opposite will not need me to tell him that the rule in the Companies Act about directors is that if you want to get rid of a director under 70, you show cause why he should go; but if you want to keep him on over 70, you show cause why he should stay. Is it impossible for some sort of arrangement to be made for magistrates between 70 and 75, whereby healthy or valuable magistrates should be recommended to the Lord Chancellor and to advisory committees, say, from year to year? I throw out this idea as a possible halfway house as something which is worth consideration.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I became a magistrate as a young man in my early 30s, and I found that some older ones, although they tried very hard, were completely out of touch with the
92
outlook of my generation which made up the bulk of the criminals with whom we had to deal. I do not think any of us would say that there are not men over 70, even occasionally over 75, who are not fully capable of carrying on, but as we get older we all realise that we are not so closely in touch with the younger generation as we were. I made up my mind then that, come what may, I would retire at 70; although I must confess that now I am so fascinated by the arithmetic of the clause which says when we are to retire that I cannot make out whether it is to be 71 or 72. Therefore, I am inclined to wait until the noble and learned Lord opposite solves the problem for me by telling me to go. I am quite certain, after well over 30 years on the bench, that it is not so much that people on the bench are getting too old and are incapable of carrying on, but that there are just as good fish in the sea as come out of it. It is those "fish" we want to get on the bench, rather than to keep the old fish—who, I must confess, from listening to the debate to-night, remind me of a song of the First World War, which those of us who are near 70 can probably remember. The song ran:
"Send out me brother,
Me sister or me mother;
But for Gawd's sake don't send me."
That seems to me to be the outlook of one or two of the more elderly Peers here to-night, and I hope that this will not go out as the outlook of this House as a whole. I believe that 70 is the age at which the limit should be set, since we should like to see the young men coming along and taking our places.
LORD PARKER OF WADDLNGTON: This subject is one for considerable emotion, according to one's age. Therefore I would declare my interest as nearing "zero" under the Bill. Despite being a magistrate—not ex officio—I would certainly leave the Bill as it is and vote against the Amendment. Many people, whether one is considering magistrates or judges, are good, and extremely good, at 75, at 80, and even over 80; but there are some who are not. We are all agreed that it is far simpler to have one definite age. It was suggested that something in the nature of an extension might be granted by the advisory committee. I always find any extension of retiring age an invidious

93
matter and something difficult to do. To choose one person and say that he shall sit on for two years or five years and not another person is, in effect, only asking for trouble. Therefore, there must be one date.
What should it be? Most of us if we are honest with ourselves would say that 65 is perhaps the optimum age. After that, perhaps what one loses in physique and in keeping in touch with the modern generation is made up, one hopes, by expertise. But a time does come when, as it were, expertise has to give way to not keeping up with the modern world, and I myself think that, while there are plenty of people over 70 who are fully capable of doing the job, 70 is about the right age, and we ought to stick to that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, will not press this Amendment. I did not, I think, say that I received more recommendations than I could appoint, because advisory committees do not ordinarily recommend more than there are vacancies for. I meant that the advisory committees get more people recommended to them than there are vacancies for.
I think there is general agreement that one must have a retiring age; and, indeed, we have one already. I respectfully agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, said about making the retiring age extensible. I have some powers in the case of the lower judiciary, but in practice I never do it, and I do not think my noble and learned predecessor did, either. It is very difficult to say, "Yes, the senior Queen's Bench Master can have another couple of years, but the senior Chancery Master cannot." You offend so many people trying to do that, that in practice I am afraid it is impossible. So it is really only a question of what the age should be.
It is true that the Royal Commission recommended 75, but up to that point there had been no retiring age, and experience shows that when a retiring age is laid down for the first time it is usually made high. I remember that in the case of the High Court Judges, the Young Barristers' Committee of the Bar Council said, "There ought to be a retiring age for High Court Judges. We think it ought to be 65." We older ones on the Council
94
thought that 65 was very young, particularly for a start; so we recommended 70. Then the Government, I suppose to be on the safe side, made it 75. The reason given by the Royal Commission was that the change had to be spread over five years, even if 75 was introduced; so, obviously, if you tried to impose a retiring age of 70 at that time the magistrates would have been decimated.
One realises what a very delicate subject this is in your Lordships' House. What is the right age is entirely a matter of opinion. I am told that a few years ago the Magistrates' Association passed a resolution expressing the hope that all justices would go on the supplemental list at 70. I think I spoke last time of the accumulation of experience of the Lord Chancellor's Office, which relates in the main to judicial appointments rather than to life in general. If one has to choose an age at which, on the whole, people are not quite so good after it as they were before, I would put it at 65. But, with respect, I think that 70 is right for justices of the peace.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think it was very right that my noble friend Lord Ilford should move this Amendment and bring the matter before the Committee. I also venture to say that this is a field in which it is impossible to do perfect justice. At the beginning of this debate I was not at all sure on which side I should come down, but, having listened to it, I am much impressed by what was said by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. He and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor are at one in thinking that the Bill should remain unamended. We shall be losing thereby a number of people who could continue to give very definite service on the bench. We have to weigh that against the alternative: that some people may be staying on when they arc really past it, and it is extremely invidious for any Lord Chancellor at that stage to get rid of them. I do not know whether the new clause in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, will open up fresh possibilities, because deafness is surely a still greater disqualification than being over 70.
In the circumstances, I fear that I cannot urge my noble friend to do other than withdraw his Amendment, having ventilated the subject, because it seems

95
to me that there is a case for reducing the age and seeing what happens. If, in fact, we lose a great number of admirable justices and it is hard to replace them, then Parliament will have to think again. We have heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that there are, as it were, long waiting lists in the files of the advisory committees, and I should think that justices are replaceable. It is sad to lose anybody who is so capable of doing good service, but this is a case where one has to weigh one consideration against another and, on the whole, I am on the side of the Bill.
LORD ILFORD: I have no wish to press the Government about this. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SWAYTHLING: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, at end insert—
("(4) A person who holds office as chairman of a petty sessional division of justices on the date when his name falls to be entered in the supplemental list in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section shall have his name so entered on the 31st December next after that date.")—(Lord Swaythling.)
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
7.16 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Medical Tests
".—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by statutory instrument make rules, which may be annulled by a resolution of either House of Parliament, prescribing medical tests to be taken by justices of the peace at such times as he thinks fit, and in particular requiring that justices of the peace shall have their hearing tested by such means as may be prescribed.
(2) Rules made under the last preceding subsection shall prescribe standards of fitness, and the name of any justice of the peace who is shown by such a medical test as aforesaid not to be of the prescribed standard of fitness shall be entered in the supplemental list."
The noble Baroness said: It seems to me that the discussion Which we have just had has been an excellent curtain-raiser to my Amendment. I hope that
96
the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has kindly sat throughout this long debate, will keep an open mind on this question, because it is quite clear that opinion is moving on these subjects. He quite rightly said that this is a delicate subject, the delicacy being that an individual does not like to admit that when he has reached a certain age he should retire; and, indeed, an individual finds it extremely difficult to be objective on this subject. My Amendment is of such a character that I am hoping the Lord Chancellor will realise that all delicacy can be removed by making it compulsory for medical examinations to take place at certain stated intervals.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that it was invidious to suggest, for instance, that a justice of the peace could not hear; in fact, that his powers were waning. I shall never forget the joke of the noble Lord, Lord Royle, about the justice of the peace who could not hear. When somebody mentioned God he said, "Well, put God in the box". This is something which we must approach in a logical manner, and I want to develop a logical argument.
I think we all agree that our modern legislation seeks to afford protection to the individual who is at risk. The latest piece of legislation of this kind is about the breathalyser. Of course, there are people who object; there are the publicans who object and the motorists who object. Again, it has been said, I think only comparatively recently in this century, that because bus drivers, train drivers and pilots put people at risk they must have a periodical medical examination to ensure that they can perform their duties adequately in the interest of the public. Let us put first not the delicate feelings of a justice of the peace but the interests of the public, the interests of the person who is being charged.
It is not surprising that methods have been introduced, some of them by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and some by his predecessor, for protecting the individual whose reputation is at risk and whose whole future can be jeopardised if our legal system is not the best which we can design; and in consequence free legal aid was introduced. More attention is now being directed to the quality of the justice of

97
the peace who is dispensing justice, and the Lord Chancellor, particularly during his term of office, has been exercising great discretion in his choice, because, as he has told us on other occasions, 98 per cent, of crime in this country is reviewed by justices of the peace. His predecessor, Lord Dilhorne, introduced a course of training, again because he felt that the justice of the peace should be the best that we could provide. This Bill to-day reduces the age of retirement to 70; and my Amendment seeks to improve the quality of the justice of the peace further by ensuring that he is not suffering from some disability which will impair his efficiency.
Nobody likes to admit to waning powers. Everybody else's powers wane, but never one's own. It is extremely difficult to be objective in this matter. We were discussing ages just now. Frankly, I would rather be tried by a justice of the peace of 75 with perfect hearing than by one of 65 whose hearing was unreliable. Surely a cardinal feature of our law is that a man is acquitted or convicted according to the evidence, and in the main this will be oral evidence. If justice is to be done, this evidence must be heard perfectly. Human nature being what it is—or, let us say, human vanity being what it is—if an individual cannot hear, or can only partly hear, he may conceal the fact, or pretend to hear. In my opinion, if this is done in the case of a justice of the peace then justice is not served. In my Amendment—and your Lordships will see it is very widely drawn—I am simply asking the Committee to ensure that justice is served by allowing the Lord Chancellor to arrange for medical examinations at certain times, and particularly to ensure that the hearing of a justice of the peace is not defective. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause. —(Baroness Summerskill.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think we should all have a good deal of sympathy with the purpose underlying this new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, but its method strikes me as somewhat rigid. It would be helpful, I think, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could describe to the Committee what his policy and the policy
98
of previous Lord Chancellors has been in seeking to ensure that no one sits as a justice who has reached a stage of infirmity, particularly a stage of deafness, which disqualifies him from dispensing justice and may indeed impair the reputation of the local bench. One is well aware that, in the main, those who are no longer fit to sit drop out. I am afraid one is also aware that there are exceptions, and from time to time there are well-authenticated complaints that so-and-so is continuing to sit on a particular bench when frankly he is no longer up to the job. My criticism of this new clause is its rigidity rather than its purpose. I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to satisfy the Committee that the arrangements already are such, or alternatively that he is tightening up the arrangements so that they will be such, as to ensure that no-one whose powers are waning, and in particular no-one whose hearing is deteriorating, shall continue to be free to sit on the bench and dispense justice.
7.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment, but it raises, I think, an extraordinary number of difficulties. If it is right in principle, then it must be equally right that judges, recorders, chairmen of quarter sessions, county court judges and county court registrars should also have an annual test, because it is just as important that they should be able to hear as it is that justices of the peace should be able to hear But, then, why should this be confined to the legal profession? I do not know whether it is true or not—my noble friend will know better than I do—but I read in the paper this morning that there are believed to be between 10,000 and 20,000 epileptic motorists. If anybody ought to have an annual medical examination, ought it not to be motorists? It says on the form, "Do you suffer from any disease which…?" Has anybody answered that, "Yes"?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That will be the next step.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But it would be a difficult thing. What about Members of Parliament, and what about the 20,000 people sitting on tribunals, if we are to have a test, annual or whatever

99
it is? Then the Amendment does not make it plain whether it is to be merely of hearing. It speaks of "standards of fitness". But is not sight just as important as hearing, and perhaps even not having a bad liver? And if it is hearing, one doctor will say "Yes", and another will say "No" unless we lay down the number of decibels, I suppose, that they are required to hear. Further, is this with a hearing aid or without a hearing aid? Because in the case of driving a car the form says, "Using glasses if you use glasses".
Frankly, I am afraid that the policing of all this would really be too much. There are 16,500 justices. My unfortunate staff are working flat out. They are taking work home every night; and there is a freeze on the number of civil servants—no more may be employed. It is quite impossible for me to take on an operation of this kind. What we rely on is the advisory committee. All my advisory committees know that when they make their annual report at the end of the year it is part of their business to satisfy themselves that no justice on their bench suffers from an infirmity which makes him unfit to go on. I hope the noble Baroness may be reassured if I tell her that I shall certainly undertake to remind all my advisory committees that that is what they must do; because if there are any deaf people who ought to be removed from a bench and put on a supplemental list, this is really a reflection on the advisory committee concerned. These committees, as far as I know, are discharging this difficult task as efficiently as they do any other, and perhaps those with experience of this subject may care to let the Committee know. For those reasons, while I have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment, I am afraid I cannot advise the Committee to accept it, and I hope that my noble friend will think it right to withdraw it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Of course, I have no intention of pressing this Amendment. I am grateful to have the sympathy of my noble friend. I thought at the beginning of the debate I had not got even that. I should be grateful if he would do as he suggests and tell his advisory committees to keep their eyes open. As the noble Lord,
100
Lord Chorley, said, it is an invidious thing; it is very difficult for people to tell somebody else that their powers are waning. As to the other points my noble friend has mentioned, I do not think there is any comparison between an epileptic driving a car and a justice of the peace, with the functions he performs. But I am not going to pursue that matter because the hour is late. I want only to thank my noble friend for his promise. I feel that we have at least gone a little way towards what might be the final goal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Justices' clerks]:
THE LORD CHANCELLORhad given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (3), to leave out "questions of law" and insert "law on questions". The noble and learned Lord said: I do not propose to move either Amendment No. 15 or No. 16. The reasons why I will explain on the Motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to put a few questions on this clause. I find it difficult to understand what Clause 5(3) as it stands is directed to, or the need for it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not say much about it on Second Reading. First, what are the "sessions" referred to in line 12? Are they the petty sessions? Presumably they are, because we are dealing here with justices' clerks. Why is it necessary to have a special statutory provision for the giving of advice by a justice's clerk in connection with the discharge by justices of their functions as justices out of sessions? What is the need for any statutory provision of that sort? I should have thought it was the sort of thing that goes on now if some question arises about the discharge by the justices of their functions when they are not sitting as justices in a magistrates' court. I should have thought the person to whom they would turn immediately for advice would be the justices' clerk, and that he would give it. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand at first sight the reason for the inclusion of this subsection.

101
Secondly, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to explain what are the particular functions of the justices out of sessions. Perhaps he will give me some indication of those functions to which this particular subsection is intended to apply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 5(3) is a declaratory provision to the effect that the functions of the justices' clerk include the giving, at the request of the justices, or at the request of an individual justice who is exercising his functions out of court—for example, issuing a warrant of arrest or search— of advice on matters of law. The subsection also covers the possibility that the justices' clerk may not actually be present in court when the point of law arises and provides that in those circumstances the justices may request advice. The subsection refers only to questions arising out of sessions; that is to say, out of quarter sessions, since it would not be practicable or appropriate for county justices sitting at quarter sessions to seek the advice of the clerk to the bench of justices of which they are members. The concluding words of the subsection make it clear that the clerk may take the initiative by drawing the attention of the justices to a point of law of which they might otherwise have been unaware.
The subsection is based on the Practice Direction given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, as Lord Chief Justice, in 1953. During the Second Reading debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, questioned whether the wording was right, and the two Amendments which I put down were intended to meet the points he had raised. But I gather that the matter has been discussed to-day, and the reason why I have not moved the Amendments is that I understand that he would rather that the Amendments were not moved to-day but that we consider the matter between this stage of the Bill and the next.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for considering the point that I raised on Second Reading. I am gravely concerned with subsection (3), because I think that in many ways (though I hesitate to say
102
this) it is the most important provision in the whole Bill. We know that magistrates deal with some 97 or 98 per cent, of all the crime in the country. What is sometimes forgotten is that over 80 per cent, of indictable offences are dealt with by those magistrates. I venture to think that they simply could not function without the help of the justices' clerks. The justices' clerk is in many ways the most important person in the whole set-up of the administration of justice. Why I am worried about Clause 5(3) is that it is stated to be a declaration of the functions of the justices' clerk. True, it is said to be inclusive. It is said to include advice on law. I should have thought that one thing was certain in our administration of justice—no one has doubted it: that the justices' clerk can advise on law. The question really is how much further can he go in his advice.
We are functioning at the moment under a Direction given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, my predecessor, which was given on November 16, 1953. He then stated:
"It is clear that they "—
that is, the justices—
"may seek his advice on questions of law or mixed law and fact and also on questions regarding the practice and procedure of the court. The latter are indeed questions of law."
I always hesitate to differ from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, but I venture to think that practice is not law. However, it is accepted that justices' clerks can advise on practice and procedure. Then Lord Goddard went on:
"They may, for instance, ask him for information of the sentences which have been imposed by their bench or by neighbouring benches in respect of similar offences to that which they are trying. It is indeed most desirable that penalties for such matters as obstruction by vehicles, lack of lights and other what may be called public order offences should have some degree of uniformity."
Everything that Lord Goddard said in 1953 is abundantly true to-day, and it is, I venture to think, accepted law as a result of that Practice Direction that the justices' clerk can advise on law, on mixed law and fact, on practice, on procedure and on sentencing—not the sentence that should be given in the particular case under consideration, but the level of sentences throughout the

103
country, in neighbouring benches and what the bench itself has been doing. If Parliament declares—true, it is inclusive —that the functions of the justices' clerk include the giving of advice on law, it will, I think, inevitably be said by everybody that that has driven a coach-and-four through the Practice Direction; because the one thing that was settled was that the justices' clerk could advise on law. Yet Parliament has here thought fit to make a declaratory statement that that is so.
What of practice and procedure? What of mixed law and fact? What of sentencing? Honestly, I am terrified; because my whole object has been to get uniformity of sentencing, so far as it is possible. Why should not the justices' clerk be able to advise on what neighbouring benches are doing? He knows; the justices do not. Is there ever a question of law alone? Is it not always mixed law and fact, and so on?
Therefore I venture to say that this subsection is terrifying in its present form. I have considered very seriously whether to table an Amendment; but it would inevitably be very complicated. It would provide for mixed law and fact, practice, procedure and sentencing. And at the end I should have left out something. I wonder whether it is really necessary to have subsection (3) at all. Is it not better to leave it to the Direction of the Divisional Court?—certainly, as it stands at the moment: the Direction given by Lord Goddard? I am told that this was introduced at the request of the justices' clerks, to try to clear up any possible ambiguity. I think that if those concerned were to consult with the Justices' Clerks Society, and with the justices' clerks again, they would learn that they now realise that this subsection, so far from being in their favour, will be used as an argument against them, to limit their powers in the future merely to questions of law. Therefore, I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether before the Report stage he would consider again—if necessary with the justices' clerks—whether subsection (3) is needed at all.
7.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to say a word in support—I will make it
104
as short as I can—of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has said. When we reach the Report stage, the question will be whether this subsection should remain in the Bill. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have discussions before then, because in the light of what my noble and learned friend has said I feel very disposed to put down an Amendment to leave out this subsection entirely. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, it is purely declaratory, and unfortunately it is only partially declaratory of the present position. I do not believe that it serves any useful purpose to include the subsection in the Bill. In fact, I think that it could be very harmful.
Although I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, I am still puzzled as to what precisely the subsection is meant to do. The declaration is limited to
"advice on questions of law arising in connection with the discharge out of sessions of their or his functions as justices…"
That must mean, I should have thought, outside the sessions at which the justices sit. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to quarter sessions, but it seems to me that this can be directed not to quarter sessions but to petty sessions. Then you get the slightly confusing element:
"including questions arising when the clerk is not personally attending on the justices or justice…"
That again must mean questions arising out of court. Why is it necessary to have that? The clerk will be personally attending on them when they are sitting in the magistrates' court. If it is quarter sessions, surely it will be the clerk of the peace and not the justices' clerk. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to look at this again, and I hope that before the next stage of the Bill, unless the arguments for its inclusion are more cogent than has so far appeared, he may consider then that it is better to leave it to the Practice Direction which I do not believe causes any difficulty or doubt at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly consider this point. I have no personal views about this clause at all. As I understood it, there was lack of

105
uniformity in the country, and the justices' clerks wanted to get something clear about what was the position so that they would know where they were?—and I dare say the justices did, too. No point was, I think, raised on Second Reading, except that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Wadding-ton, took some point on the wording. The Amendments were put down with a view to meeting that point. But I will certainly consider how far the clause is really necessary, or, if it is to remain, what form it should take.
I do not wish to be thought to be saying something on which I am giving a considered view, because the point had not occurred to me before, but after what the noble and learned Lord has said, I am not sure where we get to if a clerk is to be entitled to say in a particular case, "Every other bench would give this man twice what you are suggesting that you should give him." If that is not interfering on sentence—at any rate, it is quite a different thing for him to say to the bench as a whole, or to the chairman, "You know, I think that in this or that class of case we are getting a bit out of line with other benches". But if you are once going to have a clerk called in by the bench, in effect, to say, "This is what we are thinking of doing on sentence; now please, teacher, do you agree?", I do not think that would be a very good thing.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: If the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene, may I say that the Practice Direction to which I referred was issued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor of the day, and I am sure it was never thought that the magistrates' clerk should be entitled to say, "In this case you must give so-and-so because other benches are doing that". That is a very different thing from asking advice, and from saying, "What are the magistrates of the county in general doing?", on whatever it may be—parking offences, obstruction, and so on. That was all it was intended to cover, and I
106
should have thought that it could be left to the good sense of the Divisional Court to give a Direction as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, did, to control magistrates' clerks, and yet allow justices to get the advantage of their advice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. If it is possible for a Divisional Court to put that into words, rightly, ought not it to be possible for Parliament to put it into words, rightly?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If I may say so, it certainly should. But if the words are not adequate when uttered by the Divisional Court, they are more easily amended than the words in an Act of Parliament. May I also put this to the noble and learned Lord in relatian to the example which he gave? It is, of course, one thing for the clerk to volunteer, "The sentence you propose to give is half what the other courts would give for that offence"; or to volunteer, "The sentence you propose to give is double what the other courts would give". But, surely, if the administration of justice is going to be right, it ought to be open to the chairman to ask, "What is the scale of punishment for this class of offence imposed by adjoining benches?" I think that is all that is wanted. I know that in some counties a scale has been drawn up. I believe that unless there is to be a real advantage from enacting this, it would be much better to leave it to the Practice Direction. I do not want to put down an Amendment to leave out this subsection at the next stage. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor feels that it should be left out, I would much rather that he did it. Perhaps he could give some indication before that time comes; and, of course, one would be only too willing to discuss this with him if that would help.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

CONSERVATION OF SEALS BILL [H.L.]
7.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, it has been suggested to me that it would be to the advantage of your Lordships if I were not to move the Second Reading of this Bill now. But I must confess that I feel bound to express a feeling of regret that the business of the House has been so arranged that this course is necessary. This matter has been the first item on the list for some little time now. It was suggested to me last week that it might come after the Committee stage of the Justices of the Peace Bill which we have just concluded. It is clear now, in view of the long stint we are going to have on the Countryside Bill, that it would be a most inappropriate time to move it, but I confess that in not moving it I do this with the greatest regret.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, I wonder whether I could add my voice in protest at the very late stage when this decision was taken to alter the published business of your Lordships' House. In doing so, I readily accept the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who was good enough to tell me that this Bill would have to be postponed until Friday week, and I am much obliged to him for that. But what was not so good was that I was bound to confess—and surely there is no crime in having engagements —that I should be engaged in Scotland, the country I come from, on that day and it would be highly inconvenient. I have not seen any other Scottish names on the list of speakers and Scotland's point of view certainly requires to be put. I am bound to say that I feel a little aggrieved that I am just left with the fact that it will have to be Friday week, whether or not I, as a Scottish Member, shall be able to come.
I am too new a Member of your Lordships' House to dare talk about bad Parliamentary practice, but surely it cannot be good Parliamentary practice for Order Papers to be circulated to us all, so that we know what business is to be on a certain day, and then, without any shadow of warning and without giving a reason for the alteration of timetable, for it to be sprung upon us at the last minute,
108
first, that the Seals Bill was to come below the Committee stage of the Justices of the Peace Bill, a Committee stage which noble and learned Lords might have foreseen was likely to take quite a long time, and then, not content with that being after a lengthy Committee stage, for the Seals Bill to be put forward to a day which, of all days, is inconvenient to those who live a long way from London, in the West, in the North of England and in Scotland. If I were to dare to say, "bad Parliamentary practice," I feel that surely this is an occasion for saying so. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whose courtesy again I acknowledge, to avoid such inconvenience to the House in future.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I feel a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and with other noble Lords who came to-day hoping to speak on the Seals Bill. I think it is generous of my noble friend in the circumstances not to move the Second Reading. It would be awkward for many of us if he were to do so, because I am well aware that a pledge was given from this Bench on Thursday last that we should finish the Countryside Bill to-night and I am prepared to cooperate in that. But I hope that any inconvenience will be imposed as seldom as possible on noble Lords who come from a distance, and in this case I would express the hope that there may be conversations to try to find a new date for the Second Reading of the Bill which will be generally acceptable to those who are interested in it.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, perhaps if the noble Lord the Leader of the House would kindly allow me to intervene, he would have something else to reply to. I complained last week about the way in which the Countryside Bill has been handled. We now have down two Amendments which I think, without completely committing myself, are entirely satisfactory. They carry out, so far as I can see, the promises which were made many weeks ago in another place. But that we should come back on Monday morning and find Amendments which were promised in another place, and be obliged, as I have been to-day, to ring up the London representatives of county councils to ask whether they really

109
meet the points they have made, is not an entirely satisfactory state of affairs. There have been complaints from Scottish Members, from English Members, from Members concerned with the Seals Bill and Members concerned with the Countryside Bill, and I would ask that the business of this House and the drafting of Amendments by the Government should be organised in such a way that we do not have to come back to London and find Amendments, long since promised, on which we have to come to a decision within a few hours.
7.56 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I feel that it is rather inappropriate, in discussing the business at the moment, to deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because I confess I am not familiar with them. I know that there has been argument on the Countryside Bill. My noble friend Lord Kennet is much more familiar with that issue than I, and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is probably more aware than I am of the reasons why we are taking it at this time.
As a normally good-tempered and peaceable Member of your Lordships' House, I slightly resent the remarks in relation to the Seals Bill. I have no power to tell the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, what can and cannot be done in this House. As a former Deputy Speaker in another place he is more aware of the authoritarian approach to the conduct of business. All I did was to go to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and suggest that in the circumstances this Bill was more likely to get a better run if we took it at another time. I said that it was entirely up to him. I spoke personally to every single Member of your Lordships' House who had his name down and got his agreement, and every noble Lord, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, was delighted that it should be taken off the Paper.
I appreciate the noble Lord's problem. When we looked at business last week there were three speakers down for this Bill and one for the Pastoral Measure. It is not possible within the conditions in which we run business in your Lordships' House, without restriction on what individual Peers do, to programme in this sort of way. All we can do is to cope with it in the best way
110
we can. I am personally satisfied that this is much better for the Seals Bill. The noble Earl knows that I have a certain sympathy with what he is trying to do.
I do not feel encouraged in taking the sort of initiative I personally did if it is to be the subject of protest in. regard to circumstances which cannot be in the control of any Leader of the House or of any Government Front Bench. We have a great deal of business to do. There may be arguments in regard to the legislation which we have to face. I am very grateful, and I have already written to the noble Earl to say how grateful I am, for his co-operation, but it was only advice that I gave. I must make it clear that I am not able to direct your Lordships as to the business your Lordships may take at a particular moment, once it is on the Order Paper. On this occasion I had hoped that I had the willing agreement of the noble Lords concerned. I appreciate that the noble Earl may have lost a pleasant day's fishing as a result of this change, and this strikes genuinely to my heart, but we have done our best for seals on this occasion.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord does not think that I fully appreciate all the advice he has given and in particular the trouble he took, at my request, to see noble Lords who had put their names down to speak and tell them, that I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if I did not move this Second Reading to-day. He has been exceedingly helpful throughout, and if he feds that I suggested otherwise I apologise for having given him that impression. None the less, I think it is worrying that the business of the House can get to such a pitch that we can now be at 8 o'clock when we had anticipated that the previous business would have been completed at about half past four, a though this is probably the fault of noble Lords and not in any way the fault of the Leader of the House. But I am talking rather longer than I should and also keeping your Lordships from the Countryside Bill.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, there is just one point as to whether Friday is a suitable day to discuss a measure which particularly affects Scotland.

COUNTRYSIDE BILL
8.1 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.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CHAMPION in the Chair.]
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after Clause 26, to insert the following new clause:
Riding of pedal bicycles on footpaths and bridleways
".—(1) Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, not being a motor vehicle, on any footpath or bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.
(2) Subsection (1) above has effect subject to any orders made by a highway authority, and to any byelaws.
(3) The rights conferred by this section shall not affect the obligations of the highway authority, or of any other person, as respects the maintenance of the footpath or bridleway, and this section shall not create any obligation to do anything to facilitate the use of the footpath or bridleway by cyclists.
(4) Subsection (1) above shall not affect any definition of "footpath" or "bridleway" in this or any other Act.
(5) In this section "motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1960.
(6) It is hereby declared that sections 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the said Act of 1960 (offences connected with riding of bicycles) apply to footpaths and bridleways as being highways which are "roads" within the meaning of that Act.
(7) Section 12 of the said Act (regulation of cycle racing on highways) shall have effect as if the expression "public highway" included a footpath or bridleway, and subsection (4) of that section (which defines a public highway as not including a footpath or bridleway) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment which I promised to the House on Second Reading about pedal cyclists on footpaths and bridleways. This matter attracted a great deal of attention in the other place, and a good deal of interest among the public and in the Press. We have found it extremely difficult to get it right. The Government feel that the new proposals are the right
112
ones, and I think it will be best if, rather than go over all the arguments again, I tell the Committee what the effect of the Amendment would be.
The main provision in the Amendment is that the public would acquire a right to ride a bicycle on any footpath or bridleway. The provisions would also protect the rights of walkers and horse riders by requiring cyclists to give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback. This seems to be a more sensible phrase than the one which the other place did not favour, about actually dismounting, and being liable to pay a fine of £20 if you did not. You can give way in several ways, and this requires cyclists to do the sensible and courteous thing to the already established users by right of bridleways and footpaths. The Amendment also excludes motor vehicles. It clearly applies only to cyclists.
Subsection (2) of the clause preserves the effect of traffic orders. Subsection (3) prevents possible increased standards of maintenance being required because of use by cyclists; in other words, footpaths and bridleways carry on on exactly the same provisions and standards as before, although cyclists are using them. Subsection (4) maintains the present definition of footpaths and bridleways, so that we are talking about the same types of path.
I think the only other provision that I should point out to your Lordships is subsection (7), which amends the Road Traffic Act 1960 in order to include the footpaths and bridleways we are talking about in the definition of a "highway" so that racing can be controlled on it by the requirement that it must be authorised. With that brief explanation, I commend the new clause to the Committee, and hope that it will meet the bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The history of this matter is that on Report stage in another place the Government produced a new clause which after debate was found to be so entirely friendless that the Parliamentary Secretary, who was in charge, decided to withdraw it for further consideration. I am sure that his action was right. I must say that it

113
would have been helpful if the consideration could have been given by the Government quickly enough for this substitute clause to be tabled immediately after the Second Reading in your Lordships' House, because we should then have had rather more time to examine something which we knew was coming to us as a result of the inadequacy of Government drafting, and indeed inadequacy of Government policy in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will appreciate that this new clause has not been on the Marshalled List for many days, and therefore I must ask a number of questions about it. I will not, however, go so far as to follow the example of honourable Members of both sides in another place who urged that the Government clause should be withdrawn.
If I understand this clause rightly, it is an attempt to provide by Statute for pedal cyclists on footpaths and bridleways rights of way which have hitherto been rights of way only for pedestrians and persons on horseback. It does this by laying claim under this Bill to a right for cyclists to pass over every right of way which hitherto has been open to pedestrians or those on horseback, unless a by-law is made under subsection (2), which may restrict the right of the cyclists. This is establishing an extensive new claim for pedal cyclists against the owners of the land, and if this claim is to be granted I think we need to examine for a minute or two what safeguards there are. Let me hasten to say that I want cyclists, as well as pedestrians and those on horseback, to enjoy the countryside. But, as I say, this appears to me to be a substantial change in the law, and we need to examine it.
Is this likely to lead, for example, to the enlarging of footpaths? One may have a footpath across a cornfield which has hitherto been used only by pedestrians. Cyclists are now to have a statutory right to ride through the corn. They can hardly mount or dismount, as they may well be required to do by subsection (1), without getting either their cycle or their feet into the corn and beating it down. This is bound to be a matter of concern to farmers, and I am anxious to discover whether the Government have thought out all that is involved in this. Secondly, subsection (2) enables the high
114
way authority to make orders, and it empowers somebody unknown to make by-laws. It is not clear to me, on the face of the clause, under what powers these by-laws are to be made, of what right of representation there will be to those who may either object to the making of a by-law or think that a by-law should be made and wish to prod those concerned into action. It appears to me that the clause is incomplete in this respect.
Then we come to subsection (3), which says:
"The rights conferred by this section shall not affect the obligations of the highway authority, or of any other person, as respects the maintenance of the footpath or bridleway…"
But it does not indicate what is to be the position of the landowner who under Clause 25 has been subjected to certain statutory obligations to keep stiles and gates on footpaths and bridleways in order. If there is to be constant carrying of cycles over stiles, or through or around gates, this is liable to cause additional expense on maintenance. It appears to me that the position of the highway authority is specifically protected under subsection (3), but the position of the landowner who has these responsibilities for the maintenance of the stiles and gates under Clause 25 does not receive attention here.
I ask those questions, not because I want to see this clause out of the Bill, but because it is most important that if we are having a new clause we shall get it right and make sure that it makes proper provision in all respects. The Government will grant that they have not been wholly successful in efforts to solve this problem, and, as I say, none of us has had many days to examine this matter, which is a substantial new departure in the law. It therefore seems to me right that the Committee should ask questions of the Government about it.
8.12 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: Those of us who get our living from the land view this new clause with very great alarm. On the one hand, we feel very much that the bicyclists have a raw deal in the modern world. They cannot bicycle with comfort on the roads, and there is nowhere for them to go. I have felt this about my own children. When I was a child I

115
bicycled everywhere. Now, I dare not let my children go on to the road until they are virtually grown up, for fear of their being killed. So one feels sympathy for bicyclists. But here the Government are acting at the expense of those who earn a living off the land in enlarging rights against us, which I feel could lead to very great financial loss.
I know that at the moment bicycling, unlike most other forms of sport, is diminishing, but I do not think that this trend will necessarily continue. There are all sorts of bicycling sports, such as "scrambling", in the countryside which are going to increase. It is a very attractive sport to pursue, and in fact I hope that it may increase. But if the Government are going to enlarge these rights against one section of the community they must do something else about it. I was very struck when the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was speaking half an hour ago on the Justices of the Peace Bill and used certain words. I was so struck by them that I wrote them down. She said, "Modern legislation seeks to afford protection to individuals who are at risk". We in the country are at risk by this enlargement of the roads against us; we really are.
I do not want to go over all the arguments that were put forward, almost ad nauseam, in another place on this particular clause. All of us know that stiles must inevitably be worn out and damaged as a result of the way the pedestrian uses them. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, says, fields of corn must inevitably be damaged. There is only one way for cyclists to "give way", and that means that people walk through the corn. Fields which are pleasant for the ordinary person are going to be "chewed up" by bicycle wheels. This kind of thing will happen. It is not only the interests of the owner of land and the occupier which are at stake. Also at stake are the interests of the people who go into the countryside to enjoy the countryside quietly.
The by-laws clause will not really help at all. Who is going to persuade a local authority to go to the trouble of making a by-law to do what is required by this clause? It just is not "on". It will not happen. The noble Lord looks quizzi-
116
cally at me when I say that it will not happen. Nevertheless, I am certain it will not happen, except in certain cases where it would be scandalous if it did not. More than this will have to be done if it is going to help us at all. I feel that unless something is done with regard to compensation here the good will of a section of the community will be lost, and this is what we want to avoid so far as this new Bill is concerned. I hope that the Government will think about this problem. They are not really aware of it at all. I made this point on Second Reading because I felt that it had not been made sufficiently on Second Reading in another place. The point is that by this clause the Government are enlarging the rights of one set of citizens against another, yet are doing nothing to compensate for the loss that will be caused.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to point out that on bridleways cyclists should give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback—but will they? I very much doubt whether the average cyclist will read this Bill, or reads the law, and I can foresee quite a number of rather nasty accidents if cyclists come round a corner on a narrow path and confront somebody on a high-spirited horse. Probably the cyclist will be badly kicked, and there might be a nasty accident. This Amendment will create all sorts of complications. On the whole, I am all for allowing cyclists as much free range as possible, but I should like to point out that difficulty.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think I must go a little further than noble Lords who have spoken from this side, because it seems to me that we are now reaching a new principle with regard to access to the countryside. In the past, there have been carriageways, bridleways and footpaths, and it is very important that the traffic on these different routes should be kept distinct. We know that we may get motor cars for scrambling, or something of that kind, on carriageways. We know there will be pedestrians or horse traffic on a pathway. A man riding a horse and a pedestrian are much more on terms with each other than a man riding a bicycle and a pedestrian, or a cyclist and a man riding a horse. If

117
horses are allowed on a pathway, it will soon be in a condition which will make it rather difficult for foot passengers. That is why I think horses are not allowed on footpaths and must go on bridle paths.
If we allow bicyclists on footpaths we will encounter exactly this sort of trouble. They will churn up the ground so that it will be uncomfortable for the pedestrian to walk upon it. Also, if we have horses on bridle paths, they are not going to make a surface on which one can ride a bike. What will happen is that either the horse or the bike, or both, will diverge very widely from the path they are using, and this enlargement of the path may be quite dangerous.
I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, because it seems to me a very important one. In everything we do in this Countryside Bill we must try not to set town against country. I should have thought that if you are going to have horses, bikes and pedestrians all trying to use the same track, this is just the kind of situation that will get rid of all the good will; this is what is going to cause the rows. If people are asked to lift a bicycle over a stile (I know that this point has been argued in another place, but it is nevertheless still true) they will not do it more than once or twice. They will make a gap in the hedge next door. What will happen is that we shall have to put up opening gates, and we know what happens when we do that—they are opened and left open. Footpaths are used by persons who can climb over a stile, but you really cannot get people to lift bicycles over stiles. Therefore, we shall not have stiles; we shall ultimately have gates, and in this way we shall have made another principle.
I think that this is a much more serious new clause than it is thought to be. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is optimistic if he thinks we are going to take this quite so easily as he envisaged.
LORD BARNBY: In the first place I must admit that, anticipating a rather late sitting, I took some refreshment and therefore missed hearing the Parliamentary Secretary introduce this Amendment. I apologise to him and, of course, I am at some disadvantage. However, I was
118
able to listen to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who drew attention to the many considerations facing us in regard to this Bill and the caveats which have to be entered. I sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary for it is extremely difficult. If the principle is to endeavour to give some further consideration to cyclists—and I am not violently against that—it is extremely difficult to do it by means of legislation, and I associate myself with the remarks made by my noble friend with regard to the difficulty of surmounting obstacles. Also there is the question of the gate that swings to automatically, and if somebody is cycling along die path and another person comes in the opposite direction on a horse there may be a mix-up. Who would be liable for any injuries caused or for damages in the event of an accident of that kind? Much of the difficulty of interpretation appears to be in regard to what is to go on the particular type of passage. I will not enlarge on that now, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to find some way of elucidating that difficulty, and I look forward to hearing his answers; to the questions put by my noble friend Lord Brooke.
I would draw attention to a point in subsection (1). In line 3 "any footpath or bridleway" presumably means any kind of passage, whether it is on normal land, common land, or anything else; but that is not defined. Then, again, the words "shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback "seem to suggest that the people on horseback may go on both. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary, so I will presume to suggest that there should be inserted after the word "and" in line 4, the words "on bridlepaths to persons on horseback". Further down, in subsections (4) and (6), there is again the difficulty about the definitions of "footpath" and "bridleway". They are clearly defined, but of course we have to look at the Road Traffic Act.
LORD KENNET: I perceive that the clause raises various doubts in the minds of noble Lords, but I have been thinking as hard as I could while your Lordships have been speaking and I hope to be able to allay these doubts. It seems to me that this is the best way to do it.

119
I readily admit that the way suggested in another place was inferior to this way, and it seems to me that the chances of finding a better way are very low. Before I give my reasons I would apologise to the Committee for the short time which has elapsed between the tabling of this Amendment and this Committee stage. I expect I shall have to repeat that apology later in regard to other Amendments, and I can only say that it is a well-known fact of Parliamentary life that towards this time of the year things get hectic. I hope your Lordships will bear in mind the seasons in Parliamentary life. It has always been so and I think it will be so for many years to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked whether this provision will lead to the widening of footpaths. Of course it will not legally lead to their widening. It is certainly true that a cyclist may go over the edge of the footpath; so may a pedestrian, especially if three or four are walking abreast, and so may a person on horseback on a bridlepath. It seems to me there is no reason why this provision should lead to any greater de facto widening of footpaths than already exists. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked who is to make the by-laws and what representations may be made to that body. They will be made by local authorities under the Local Government Act 1933. On towpaths they will be made by the British Waterways Board. In both these cases the draft by-laws are to be advertised and may be objected to, after which they will be confirmed or otherwise by the Home Secretary. I hope the fact that these are like most other by-laws in adjacent fields of law will convince the Committee that there is nothing wrong with that part of the provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised the bogy of the constant carrying of bicycles over stiles and asked whether it would not impose a further burden on the landowner in maintaining the stiles. I think one should use common sense in this matter. If there are a number of stiles on a footpath, cyclists will not want to use it. If they have to dismount every 100 yards or so that is not the path they will use. The more stiles there are on a footpath the fewer cyclists there will be on it and therefore there will not be a great increase of maintenance to be car-
120
ried out on that footpath. Nevertheless, I think we might return to this topic at the end of the day, when we come to the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was not able to move the other day and as a result we postponed it. It is an Amendment to Clause 25, which refers to the criteria governing the I judgment of the local authority in making demands of landowners for the maintenance of stiles, gates, and so on. I hope to be able to meet the noble Lord's point on that Amendment, and if things go as I hope—and as I know he hopes— I submit that that might have a relevance to the clause we are now considering.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked whether the local authorities will make by-laws and who will persuade them to do so. In common political judgment I would say it will be the land owning members of local authorities who will persuade them. That is what usually happens and I expect it will happen in this case. In those parts of the country where there is a strong, legitimate farming interest in the countryside the farmers will be well placed to see that the bylaws are made, and in other parts of the countryside it will not matter so much if the by-laws are not made.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, asked whether the cyclists will give way. We might say that they should give way, but will they do so? I have no doubt that most will, but some will not. However I would point out that exactly the same situation prevails at the moment, when cyclists are not allowed on bridleways and footpaths. That law is not well-known. I have never had the least compunction about cycling on footpaths and bridleways, and in point of fact I do not think I actually knew that I was not allowed to until I began to look into this matter. I think the observation of the law is likely to remain at about the same level as at the moment, and therefore there should not be a deterioration from the point of view of the landowner if this provision is adopted.
We should not forget that in this case there are two provisions for regulating what goes on and what the cyclist may or may not do on the bridleway and foot-path. First of all, the local authority may make by-laws about it and they will

121
be subject to confirmation by the Home Secretary. Secondly, the highway authority can also make traffic orders about it, and these will be subject to confirmation by the Minister of Transport. Here is a belt and braces, and I do not regret it because I agree that it is a most important matter. I can give the House a pledge that the Minister of Transport will not approve traffic orders permitting cycle racing on footpaths and bridleways. I think that ought to remove one legitimate fear which may be exercising the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that he did not want this provision out of the Bill; he did not want the Government to withdraw it. Other speakers would rather the Government withdrew it altogether and maintained the present law whereby cyclists are not allowed on these paths at all. I think to withdraw it altogether and leave things unchanged would be to lean excessively against the interests of new classes of users and enjoyers of the countryside. Of course it increases the problems for the farmer and landowner, but I think the net addition to the problems they face will be so very small that the farmer and landowner should agree to accept them, bearing in mind that they can be represented on the bodies making the by-laws. Suppose the Committee were to take another view and say that although it will be desirable to permit cyclists on bridleways and footpaths this is not the way to do it and some other system ought to be adopted. I should be the last to say that one could not think of anything better, but no noble Lord has proposed an alternative system which would be better.
The first alternative system of doing it would be the creation of an entirely new category of paths; you might call them cycle paths and say that on these cycle paths the cyclist shall be allowed to go and on other footpaths and bridleways he shall not be allowed to go. We should then require the highway authority to redesignate a lot of existing bridleways and footpaths as cycle paths. We should then have to face the question with regard to the newly designated class of paths, the fourth class: shall pedestrians and persons on horse back be allowed to go on them or not, and, if so, who gives way to whom? This
122
would be excessively rigid. I think this is the right way, because this is precisely the effect that will be achieved by the provision now before the Committee.
If we were to make a new class of cycle path the highway authority would have to choose which were the cycle paths. This is what they will be doing. They will be making traffic orders and the local authorities will be making by-laws to determine which particular path in what circumstances shall be used in which way by whom. I think to go further into it would be wrong for Parliament and the central Government. It is right for the local authorities to go further into it, and this is the effect of the clause, to leave it to them in making the by-laws and traffic orders which will affect the situation in detail en the ground according to local needs. I hope that what I have said will convince the Committee that this is the best v/ay of doing it, and once again I commend the Amendment to your Lordships.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Before my noble friend Lord Brooke decides what to do, may I say this? The thing that worries me is that bridleways and foot paths are put together in all this. I should have thought there was a distinction between them. It is not a question of making a new category and calling it a cycle track. I do not think this is a matter only for landowners and farmers; I should have thought that pedestrian associations would be worried by this Amendment. The noble Lord said that if there were many stiles the cyclist would not use a path. I am not quite sure that I wholly agree. I think the cyclist might say, "We have a right to use this path, and there should not be so many stiles". How far they will get, I do not know. I should have thought a compromise would be to allow the cyclist on the bridleways. These already have horses on their; you will not get cars, but you can have bicycles and horses. These are nearly always broader paths, and if they are used much by horses I suspect that there are not many stiles on them, because not everybody who uses a horse is able to jump over stiles and would rather have a gate. If cyclists are allowed on to the footpaths there is no reason why horses should not be allowed. I should have thought it is a pedestrian interest which is going to be breached here.
8.37 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think the whole Committee appreciates the care with which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, obviously listened to the debate, and the thoroughness with which he has sought to answer the points. I doubt, however, whether he has wholly satisfied any of us. For my part, I would not urge my noble friends to vote against this new clause. I think there is a problem here, but I would rather we all put our heads together to find a satisfactory answer to the question raised. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was good enough to apologise to your Lordships for the short period of notice we received before we had to consider this Amendment. My concern is that we are now to have only a short period between Committee Stage and Report, because I have heard rumours that the Report stage may be put down for this day week. I think there is a good deal of work to be done on some of the provisions of this Bill, and as we are all approaching it in a constructive spirit it would be a pity if we did not have a rather larger gap between Committee and Report in which we could think out how the blemishes in the Bill can be removed.
The noble Lord has helped me over a number of points that I have raised. It may be that he misunderstood what I was saying about lifting bicycles over stiles—perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. What I had in mind was exactly what my noble friend Lord Waldegrave has expressed. We are by this clause turning footpaths into footpaths plus cycleways. The rambler raises objections when he finds a footpath blocked by barbed wire. I think that in future the cyclist will raise objection if he finds what he considers by law to be a right of way for him blocked by a gate or stile. He will ask the reason for it and, offended if he cannot ride straight through, he will sooner or later make a hole in the hedge. I am not suggesting that everybody will do this, but one day a cyclist will come along and will barge through the hedge with his cycle; then there will be a gap, and that will be enlarged. It seems to me that we ought to consider whether we can give the landowners and farmers more protection against this.
Moreover, while the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has helped me by making ref-
124
erence to the Local Government Act under which these by-laws would normally be made, he will recognise that there will be an initial period when there will be no by-laws or restrictions under subsection (2) because they will not have been made by the time this clause comes into operation. Quite a lot of ill-will and quite a lot of damage can be caused during this initial period before any bylaw or order is made restricting cyclists from using paths which they quite clearly ought not to be allowed to use because they are not suitable for cyclists. That is another aspect of the matter to which I think we must give attention, and we need some time to think these things out.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was good enough on Thursday, when I was not able to attend your Lordships' House (and I should like to express my sincere apologies for that fact), to make an offer to discuss with my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and myself an earlier new clause in my name which was moved by my noble friend. Perhaps that opportunity could be taken to discuss this clause further. It may indeed be that other noble Lords who have spoken would like to join in this discussion. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will see, my approach is a constructive and not a destructive one, and I do not think that this clause as it stands is satisfactory.
LORD MOLSON: I should be prepared, broadly speaking, to accept the clause as it has been moved by the Government. I think they have made a genuine effort to meet the different interests concerned. I do not take any particular line about it. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England includes pedestrians and cavaliers and cyclists. I should like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he might look at this clause again. The Government have shown broad-mindedness in looking at it when it was criticised in another place. I wonder whether it would not be wise to include only bridleways, towpaths, long-distance routes and other paths specifically so designated by local authorities. I think there is a real danger that footpaths, which ought to be confined to pedestrians, may be included under the wording of this clause. But I think that the Government have made a real effort, and I am trying to make

125
a constructive suggestion which might meet some of the criticisms that have been made by my noble friends.
LORD KENNET: Perhaps I can shorten the debate by speaking again. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked, "What about the period after this Bill comes into effect, and before the by-laws are made?" As a matter of fact, there are already a good many by-laws affecting this matter, because even without this provision cyclists have been using footpaths in various parts of the country. That is a point which constitutes a problem. Lord Molson made an alternative suggestion as to the definition of the type of path over which cyclists should have a right of way under this Bill. These are two concrete suggestions, both of which I recognise are made in a constructive spirit. That being so, I should like to take a day or two to think about this again, in the hope of being able on the Report Stage to put down something after consultation with both noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD BARNBY: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I point out that much has been said in the earlier stages of this Committee about the need for an equitable balance between different considerations. It seems that in this case there is some doubt as to the rights of different users, and before we leave this Amendment—and we all appreciate the attitude and the readiness of the Parliamentary Secretary to give it consideration—I should like to reinforce the remarks of my noble friend Lord Waldegrave regarding the position on these footpaths. He emphasised the rights of people on foot. In this case I am going to urge consideration for horsemen. Perhaps when he makes further explanation on this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to say what is the position with regard to horsemen riding on footpaths. All of us who have ridden to hounds know that people ride on footpaths. That is an offence in many ways. It is that sort of confusion which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will think about.
LORD KENNET: Perhaps I should say that the rights of horsemen are not in any way affected by the Amendment before the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Traffic regulation orders for special areas in the countryside
28.—
(2) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 shall have effect as respects such roads as if the list of purposes for which a traffic regulation order may be made under section 1 of that Act as set out in the paragraphs of subsection (1) of that section, included the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the area, or of affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the amenities of the area, or recreation or the study of nature in the area.
8.46 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved to add to sub-section (2):
"or of preventing interference with the quiet enjoyment of the area by the public."
The noble Lord said: Clause 28 is a clause of really great importance. It extends the wide powers of traffic regulation outside Greater London contained in the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967 to include amenities. My friends in the Amenity Movement feel that the clause goes a long way, and I am moving to insert at the end of line 42 the words:
"or of preventing interference with the quiet enjoyment of the area by the public."
I do not apologise for having put down I this Amendment again for debate, despite the answers that were given in the Committee stage by the noble Lord's colleague, Mr. Skeffington, the Parliametary Secretary in another place, when this I Amendment was discussed. Through the mouth of Mr. Skeffington, the Government said:
"In view of the concern expresssd, of which we always take careful note, we shall certainly look at this again."
Then, on Report stage, it was put down again, this time by a member of the Opposition—I think on the first occasion it had been put down, or at any rate supported by, Mr. Jackson, the Member for the High Peak—and Mr. Skeffington said:
"We have had another look at this and have consulted the Minister of Transport, who has had a great experience of these; regulations in different conditions."
He made it quite plain that, in the view of the Government, this clause enables regulations to be made so that in National Parks it will be possible to ensure that

127
traffic is strictly regulated in order that it may not be destructive of the beauty and quietness and amenity of the countryside.
In view of the pressure which has been brought to bear upon the Government that they should not impose restrictions which will preserve the peace and quiet of the countryside, I thought it as well to raise this matter again, in order that the Parliamentary Secretary can make it quite plain here that it is the intention that in National Parks, whither people go to enjoy bird-watching and the study of nature and all the charm of rural seclusion, these traffic regulation powers, which are so wide in their extent, will in fact be used for the purpose of preserving the enjoyment of those people who go to the countryside to enjoy the quiet. This is really a probing Amendment, but I think it is of sufficient importance for me to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD KENNET: I can give that assurance in terms. Let me explain why: first of all, because this Bill itself, in the same clause, says that a traffic regulation order can be made, among other reasons, for the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the area— which does not touch on what we are concerned with now—or of affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the amenities of the area. It seems to me that if you suppress unwelcome noise it is beyond doubt that you provide better opportunities for the public to enjoy the amenities of the area.
But that is not all. In the Transport Bill which will be coming shortly before your Lordships, there is at present a provision, and I hope it will still be there when it comes here and still be there when it leaves this House, which again provides a new reason for making a traffic regulation order. The wording is slightly different; it is "shall preserve or improve the amenities of the area through which the road runs". So in this Bill we have "better opportunities for the public to enjoy", which introduces the concept of improvement, and in the other Bill we have the preserving or improving of the amenities of the area,
128
which once again includes the concept of improvement and which not only keeps things as good as they are but aims at getting them better. Each of these provides a major departure, a major addition to the existing reasons with which traffic regulations have hitherto been concerned—traffic movement and road safety. So my advice to the House is that this Amendment—and the noble Lord said he would not press it—need not be carried into the Bill in order to achieve the effect that the whole Committee desires, because it is already achieved first by this Bill, and it will be reinforced by the Transport Bill shortly.
LORD MOLSON: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, which is entirely satisfactory, and I have much pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.54 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"() No traffic regulation order shall be made for the purposes described in subsection (2) of this section if it would interfere with the reasonable requirements of members of the public as users of traffic of the description proposed to be restricted whether as residents in or visitors to the area affected by the order. The authority having power to make any such order, before proposing to do so, shall consult with organisations representative of the users of the vehicles which would be affected by the restrictions."
The noble Earl said: I also should like to apologise, as my noble friend, Lord Barnby, did, for being absent when the Parliamentary Secretary made his speech, but I was also taking refreshment—not enough, in the short time available, but it was something. If the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary has already given certain assurances that I am going to ask for now I apologise to the Committee, but the object of this Amendment is to make sure that the proposed powers to make traffic regulation orders for special areas in the countryside will not be exercised in a manner which will interfere unreasonably with the rights of vehicle users, whether residents in the areas or visitors to them (including, in I some instances, participants in motor I sporting events) and also to ensure that organisations representing affected vehicle users will be consulted before proposals are made for such Orders. I know that

129
certain assurances have been given by Government spokesmen in another place.
I should like some assurance that exercise of these powers within the limits described will be suitably controlled by the Government to prevent unnecessary or unreasonable restrictions being imposed upon motor vehicles users. For instance, if a landowner is willing to permit his land to be used for motor sporting purposes, it would be unfair, to my mind, to prevent this by restricting vehicular access on roads leading to the property. Would the landowner's invitees be covered by any exceptions from any restrictions affecting traffic generally? Would this extend to participants in and spectators at a motor sporting event?
Moreover, some of the speakers during the debates so far seem to have given the impression that the need for realistic policies relating to the provision of facilities for vehicles in such areas is not appreciated in all quarters. This Amendment stresses the importance of adequate control by the Government to ensure that satisfactory constructive policies will be adopted rather than restrictive measures which will seriously limit access to such areas, especially prejudicing the interests of those unable to walk long distances, such as the elderly and families with young children, and often adversely affecting the economic prosperity or such areas which may be largely dependent on tourism.
Again, I hope that adequate assurances will be given that officials of the Department of Housing and Local Government concerned with the Bill would consider it helpful to discuss the matter with the Royal Automobile Club and the Auto-cycle Union representatives appointed by the Ministry of Transport to operate these regulations, and possibly the Sports Council, before proposals are made to make traffic regulations or to make regulation orders within these powers, not only in regard to the general effect on the interests of motorists and motor cyclists but also with special reference to the effects on motor sport of which the Royal Automobile Club and the Autocycle Union are the controlling bodies.
I think it should be recognised that policies relating to the preservation of the countryside and the provision of recreational facilities must make adequate pro-
130
vision in accordance with public opinion for the requirements of those using motor vehicles. It is known that the Sports Council recognises the importance of motor sporting activities, and I hope that its liaison with the Countryside Commission will help to secure satisfactory developments in this respect. This Amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Chesham is really a probing Amendment. I have the backing of the Royal Automobile Club, of which I am a member of its Competition and General Committees, and I am hoping that I may get some assurances. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 42, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MOLSON: Whether the Amendment which my noble friend is moving is a reasonable one or not depends upon the interpretation that he puts upon the word "reasonable" in his Amendment, about the "reasonable requirements of members of the public". I need not labour what I said on the previous occasion, that it is quite definitely the purpose of those who are supporting the Government in this measure that there should be traffic regulations in order to prevent motor-cycle scrambles in the middle of National Parks, and to prohibit the use of Land Rovers for going, shall we say, in the Lake District from one valley to the next in order to test whether or not a new mechanical contrivance can get over from one valley to another.
I think it is just as well, when an Amendment of this kind is moved, to make it quite plain that it would be quite unacceptable to some supporters of this Bill if the Government gave an assurance which was as wide as to meet many of the suggestions that have been hinted at by my noble friend. One of the great virtues of this Bill is the powers that it gives for the provision of country parks, where people who enjoy gregarious and noisy outdoor sport will be able to go to enjoy it without being a nuisance to other people whose country tastes are of a more quiet and peaceful kind. I think there should be room for both. I think this is a well drafted Bill and that it will, I hope, be administered in such a way that the motor-cycle scramblers and other people interested in these

131
motoring sports will have scope in appropriate parts of the country; but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not in any way go back upon the assurances that he has given on the last Amendment in order to meet the claims of my noble friend.
The Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association are members of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and they have shown themselves to be most reasonable and broadminded in these matters. I wholly accept that there are places where motor sports, and even motor-cycle scrambles, should be authorised and should be enjoyed, but it is very important to make it quite plain that this Amendment, if it were accepted, is not intended to provide for noisy recreation in places where it is hoped that there will be peace and quiet.
LORD KENNET: It is not my intention in any way to go back on the assurances that I gave in connection with the last Amendment. I think there may be some confusion in the mind of the Committee here. The Amendment to Clause 28 which we are now considering deals only with traffic regulation orders on roads, and so it does not touch on the equally important or more important question of what goes on off the roads.
One is anxious to reconcile the needs of those who want peace and quiet in the countryside with the needs of those who want to get home, or wish to visit friends, or to do some reasonable thing which would not annoy anyone else. I give the Committee the fullest assurance that no orders will be approved by the Minister of Transport which deny the right to anyone to get to his own house, or to his friend's house, or to keep on using the road in a way for which the road was provided. The Minister of Transport will make regulations about this new traffic control order-making power under the Transport Bill when that is through, and will issue a circular. These regulations will be the place for laying down the law as to what is to be done about this, and that circular will be the place for giving detailed advice to highway authorities on what to do in this or that circumstance. There is no danger that residents will be denied access to their own property through
132
the imposition of a traffic regulation order on the grounds of amenity, and local authorities will have a statutory duty to maintain access to premises by virtue of Clause 145 of the Transport Bill. I know that it is not much use mentioning a clause of a Bill before it has reached this House, but that is where it is to be found unless it is changed in the House of Commons beforehand.
It is already standard practice for local authorities about to make one of these orders to consult the chief officer of police and any other bodies or organisations they may think fit before making the order. Among those bodies the A.A. and R.A.C. are invariably consulted, and they will continue to be consulted in the case of orders made for the purpose of enhancing amenities, just as they have been so far with orders made for the purposes of improving the safety of the roads. So the rights of consultation and the rights of objection to draft orders will be in no way diminished by the Countryside Bill.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord for giving me certain assurances. I had thought that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was an opponent on this Amendment, but I am very happy to feel that he has gone along with me to a certain extent. I also am a member of the C.P.R.E.; I am chairman of a county branch so that I have similar feelings to the noble Lord's. I assure the noble Lord that motorists and motor cyclists have no intention of spoiling other people's enjoyment of beautiful parks. I am pleased to hear that the R.A.C. and the A.C.TJ. will be consulted. In fact the A.A. are not the controlling body of motor sport in this country; it is controlled by the R.A.C. and A.C.U. and is nothing to do with the A.A. at all. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.4 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) Subject to the following provisions of this section, section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, as applied for the purposes set out in subsection (2) above, shall have effect so as to authorise the making of traffic regulation orders as respects Crown roads, and orders (hereafter also referred to as 'traffic regulation orders') may be made under subsection (3) above as respects Crown roads.

133
(6) The consent of the appropriate Crown authority must be given before a traffic regulation order is made as respects a Crown road.
(7) A traffic regulation order made as respects a Crown road, notwithstanding section 97 of the said Act of 1967, shall not apply to vehicles or persons in the public service of the Crown except so far as is expressly provided in the order, and the inclusion of any such express provision in an order not made by a Minister shall require the approval of the appropriate Minister.
(8) If a traffic regulation order is or is to be made as respects a Crown road, the local authority concerned may, after consultation with the appropriate Crown authority, place and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, such traffic signs of any type prescribed, or authorised, under section 54 of the said Act of 1967 as the local authority may consider necessary in connection with the order.
The powers conferred by this subsection shall be exercisable subject to and in conformity with any general directions given under section 55(1) of the said Act of 1967, and any other power conferred by the said section 55 to give directions to a highway authority shall include power to give the like directions to the local authority concerned as respects the Crown road, but after consultation with the appropriate Crown authority."
The noble Lord said: At this point I should like to repeat the apology I made earlier about the short time available to noble Lords to consider this Amendment. This is the long-promised and long-awaited Amendment to bring Crown roads under the traffic control order-making provisions of the Countryside Bill. At present considerable areas of National Parks, and particularly that of Dartmoor, are owned by the Crown and used by the public. Tourist traffic using roads on Crown land has posed exactly the same problems as on roads in National Parks which are not Crown land. So after reflection and consultation the Crown Departments concerned and the National Parks Commission are agreed and are in favour of having these roads brought within the ambit of traffic regulation. This should simplify problems of traffic control and, in effect, achieve the same situation there as we shall achieve in other National Parks.
The Amendment which I propose to the Committee achieves this. It provides that traffic regulation orders can be made applying to Crown roads in the specially designated areas of countryside under the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 or by the Minister under the Countryside Bill which is now before the Committee. It
134
provides that before a traffic order for a Crown road is made, the appropriate Crown authority must give its consent. It provides that these orders shall apply only to Crown vehicles and servants to the extent provided in the order This is analogous to the right of the person who happens to live in a country park to get home along a road, even if there is a traffic control order on it. It provides for the erection of traffic signs to indicate a traffic regulation order by applying provisions already existing in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. The rest is definition. I will not weary your Lordships with it. I think this achieves the effect desired by all sides of the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 20, at end insert the sail words.—(Lord Kennel.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Speaking on behalf of one of the Crown Duchies, the Duchy of Cornwall, I may say that we welcome this new clause and feel that it will be effective. This Amendment is a rather good example of the difficulties under which some of us are working in regard to this Bill. I first heard that there was to be a new clause coming up on Report stage. I have a draft clause which I know in detail is satisfactory to the Duchy which I represent, but I had not seen this Amendment until this morning, and I hope that it is all right. It is very difficult to have to take action on a new clause when one has not been able to consider the matter or when one's advisers have not been able to see whether any amendment is necessary. Subject to that, I do not wish to seem ungracious, since the noble Lord has been very good to the Committee this evening and I should like on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall to say that we welcome this new clause.
LORD MOLSON: I am at an even greater disadvantage than my noble friend Lord Waldegrave who has seen a draft of the clause. I saw it only this morning and I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Dartmoor Protection Association or any of the other people primarily concerned, but I have given to it the best consideration I could since this morning, and I think that it completely fulfills the promise made by the Government in another place. I am very

135
appreciative of what has been done, despite the fact that I must reserve my position if, after further consultation, I find that it does not meet the wishes of some of those for whom I speak in this House. I think that it is satisfactory, and I again repeat my gratitude to the Government.
LORD KENNET: This Amendment is consequential on the last one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 21, at end insert—
("'the appropriate Crown authority', in relation to any land, has the same meaning as 'the appropriate authority' as defined by section 101(11) of the Act of 1949.").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 24, at end insert—
("'Crown road' means a road, other than a highway, to which the public have access by permission granted by the appropriate Crown authority, or otherwise granted by or on behalf of the Crown, and
"local authority concerned', in relation to a Crown road, means the authority having power to make an order as respects that road under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 as extended by this section,").—(Lord Kennel.)
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Exchequer grants for countryside]:
LORD KENNET: As the Bill stands at present, grants for tree planting and the acquisition of land for it are confined to National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Throughout the Bill the general purpose has been to extend the powers of grants hitherto associated with those restricted types of areas to the whole countryside. This Amendment remedies the omission in the present text of the Bill and brings it into line with what was promised in the White Paper by extending these grants also to the whole countryside. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 13, at end insert ("and expenditure in or in connection with the acquisition of land for the purposes of the functions conferred by the said section 89(1)").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Protection for interests in countryside]:
9.10 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALEmoved to leave out "and forestry" and insert, "forestry and the minerals industries". The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that due regard is paid to the needs of the minerals industries, in the same way as, for instance, those of the agricultural industry. As the legal definition of a mineral undertaker is:
"any person engaged in the winning and working of minerals by way of trade or business in, on or under land, whether by surface or underground working".
and agriculture appears to consist in the working of land, I trust the Minister will agree that there is a certain amount of logic in what I am now trying to put forward.
I should agree with some noble Lords who felt that mineral workings were, by their very nature, unpopular locally, but that should surely not mean that their interests should be totally disregarded. I believe the Minister cannot say that mineral works are covered by the phrase in Clause 33, which says that due regard must be paid to the economic and social interests of rural areas. I have three reasons for saying that. First, the actual output of minerals in a rural area is likely to be used in an urban area; secondly, the extractive industries are not labour-intensive; and, thirdly, the rate-support grant system means that it makes little difference to the rural areas whether they get the benefit of rates on mineral production or not. The Minister must surely bear in mind that minerals can be worked only where they are found, and the necessity for working them in a particular locality can be decided only on a national basis.
The specific reference to agriculture and forestry in Clause 33 as at present drafted could well be interpreted by some

137
conservationist bodies as meaning that the factors of agriculture and forestry are of overriding importance, thus providing an automatic ground of objection to any application for planning permission to work minerals. I feel, too, that the volume of objections is likely to increase, and this could no doubt influence local authorities and, possibly, inspectors in their decisions. In order to redress the balance, I sincerely hope that the Minister will be willing to accept this Amendment so that the minerals interest is taken into account under this clause at the same time as other interests. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 45, leave out ("and forestry") and insert (", forestry and the minerals industries ").—(Lord Merrivale.)
LORD MOLSON: I hope that the Minister will not accept this Amendment. It is already clear from Clause 33 that all the bodies concerned must pay
"due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas."
There is no need to refer particularly to minerals. They are already included in the economic and possibly the social interests of rural areas. In so far as the Act of 1949 and this Bill are seeking to preserve the beauty and charm of the countryside, it is natural that there should be provision that due regard should be paid to agriculture and to forestry. It is implicit in what is said in this clause that due regard will also be paid to the winning of materials. I hope that not more than due regard will be paid. There is no doubt that the winning of minerals is one of the greatest causes of the defacement of the countryside; and therefore it would be completely wrong, from the point of view of the general purpose of this Bill, to make special provision for it.
LORD KENNET: I am going to advise the Committee against this Amendment. Let me say first of all that I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, about minerals having to be won where they are is a very strong one. This gives the extractive industry, the mineral industry, a prima facie claim to figure in this clause along with forestry and agriculture, because you cannot
138
have forestry anywhere except in the I countryside, you cannot have agriculture anywhere except in the countryside, and you cannot extract minerals anywhere except where they are, which is usually in the countryside—and when they happen to be under towns it is not convenient to extract them there, for obvious reasons. I hand the noble Lord all that; and these are very strong points. But there are two points which seem to me to outweigh them.
First of all, there is the fact that although agriculture and forestry are economic, wealth-generating activities, and although they can take place only in the countryside, yet they are precisely what the countryside is made up of. What is the countryside if it is not agriculture? What is the countryside if it is not forestry? This is what has made the countryside what it is; and this is still what makes it what it is for the great majority of the acres in our country. Secondly, although minerals must be mined where they are, yet there are other things which can be done only in the countryside and which do not, and in my sub mission should not, figure in Clause 33. If you have to build a road or a motorway between two cities, you can build it only in the countryside. If you have got to make a reservoir, you can make it only in the countryside. Yet I do net think the Committee would think it wise to add in this clause a "due regard" provision about roads and reservoirs.
One can go further than this. It may be that in the future we shall have hover-trains and monorails between the more closely built-up parts of our country; and they, too, can be built only in the countryside, because once again they have to join cities, or cities and airports. I do not think the Committee would wish to add a saving provision for them in this clause. In the last resort I would even go so far as to mention houses themselves With our increasing population, apart from slum clearance and the replacement of old towns, houses can be built only in the countryside. That is what town expansion means; that it what New Towns mean. Yet I do not think the Committee would feel that the purposes of this Bill would be best served if we added a provision that authorities must have due regard to the interests of new housing.

139
So, all in all, I would sooner group the extractive industries, for all their special claim, along with roads, reservoirs, hovertrains, monorails and housing, on the side of the fence which does not get mentioned in this clause, and leave the clause as it stands, mentioning simply forestry and agriculture, which are the very stuff and fabric of the countryside. So I would recommend the Committee not to accept this Amendment, for all the good reason there is behind it.
LORD MERRIVALE: I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I was hoping he would deal with one point, and it is this. There was a very definite statement made by my noble friend Lord Molson that, in effect, the interests of the extractive industries, the minerals industries, would be covered in this clause by the words,
"the social and economic interests of rural areas".
Before I act one way or another, I should like the Minister to confirm that point, whether in fact the minerals industries are covered by these words.
I think, too, that my noble friend Lord Molson has rather overstressed the idea that the minerals industries would deface all our countryside. On the other hand, I think he rather minimised the importance of our extractive industries. We live by our industries and our exports, and I do not think one could minimise the importance to our country of, for example, the cement industry or the china clay industry. I feel that to some extent the Minister has failed to bear in mind the interests of those industries. I appreciate that this Bill is primarily concerned with amenities; but I think that the industrial aspect should perhaps be considered a little more than it has, because the industrial interests of this country will be affected by the Bill. I would end by asking the Minister whether he would reply to the point raised by the i noble Lord, Lord Molson, on this question: that the interests of the minerals industries are covered by the "economic and social interests" mentioned in the clause.
LORD KENNET: I meant my silence to indicate consent. It is clear that the minerals industries are covered by this part of the clause, "the economic and
140
social interests of rural areas" in two ways: first, because the industries themselves directly generate employment and wealth in the immediate locality; and, secondly, because by producing the materials and selling them at sensible prices to town and country dwellers alike they thereby contribute to the creation of national wealth as a whole which is enjoyed, on rising standards, by rural dwellers as well as town dwellers.
LORD MERRIVALE: Am I to understand that the Minister is giving an assurance to that effect?
LORD KENNET: Perhaps I could make it clearer. It is not an assurance that anybody will or will not do anything, which is the usual form of ministerial assurance. I was not asked for that. I must not trespass on the rights of the courts to interpret Statute law. I cannot imagine people differing from the interpretation that the extracting industries are covered by these words.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. There will be other opportunities to raise this matter again if need be. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON had given Notice of his intention to move, after Clause 36, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of 1962 c. 38, s. 3
".The power of the Minister under section 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 to authorise or require local planning authorities to delegate certain functions under that Act shall not be exercisable as respects functions relating to a National Park or to land in a National Park."
The noble Lord said: I understand that this matter has been raised in relation to town and country planning in another place. It was also debated on this Bill in another place, and I understand the assurances given by the Government were reasonably satisfactory. Therefore, without necessarily undertaking that I shall not raise it at the Report stage, I do not propose to move this Amendment.
LORD HENLEYhad given Notice of his intention to move, after Clause 36, to

141
insert a new clause dealing with National i Park Wardens. The noble Lord said: This Amendment, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood, Lord Molson and myself, we do not propose to move because the Government Amendment No. 64Z, so far as we can see, satisfies all our requirements. I say "so far as we can see", because your Lordships will have heard the words of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, at the beginning of this evening's debate to the effect that he had done his best to find out whether all our points had been covered. On the face of it they appear to have been covered.
Clause 37 [Power to make byelaws and related provisions about wardens]:
9.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSmoved in subsection (1), after paragraph (c), to insert:
"() any land across which a footpath or bridleway runs, as respects which land the owner of it has consented to the application of the powers contained in this section to the land."
The noble Viscount said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and hoping that I shall say to the Committee what he would have wished to say, I beg to move this Amendment.
It aims to extend the by-law-making powers and warden control of local authorities to land to which access is lawfully gained by means of footpaths or bridleways and where, as a result, trespass occurs and damage is done to the land and the fixed equipment on it. The initiative would be taken by the owner of the land who wished to have some by-law and warden control. This additional enabling power safeguard would, I hope, appeal to the owners of land in and near to urban development, access to which is lawful by means of the proper use of public rights of way, which leaves the land open to unlawful trespass and damage.
The greatly increased leisure use of public rights of way through private land is shown to give rise to increased damage to fixed equipment, and I am bound to say that in my experience of public inquiries up and down the British Isles I have heard this said many a time by those who live near urban development. Nevertheless, as worded, the Amendment leaves the local authority with an absolute
142
discretion whether or not it is going to accede to requests for by-law and warden control. On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 8, at the end insert he said paragraph.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD KENNET: This is a very wide extension of the 1949 Act by-law-making powers which are confined to National Parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and access land. There is a lot of the country which is not that, and I think that in view of the enormous square mileage of the country which is to come in, and in view of the fact that it will include, as the noble Viscount said, quasi-urban or nearly urban areas (and it would probably include actual urban areas where there were footpaths) I think that the Committee should consider the enforcement problem.
Suppose local authorities choose—and I take the point that a local authority does not have to do so—to use this power outside the National Parks and A.O.N.B.s and access land who is to enforce the by-laws they make? The police cannot do it. We have been into this, and it appears to be out of the question. With everything else that they have to do at the moment, and with the present manpower shortage, it would not be reasonable to expect the police to take on this duty as well. So we are forced back on to the question of wardens. Should local authorities recruit wardens to do it?
It has not been possible for me to find out the exact mileage of footpaths and bridleways in England and Wales in the areas which would be covered by the Amendment, but it would certainly run into many hundreds of thousands of miles. If only a small fraction of this were to be covered by by-laws under the provision suggested by the noble Viscount, and even if many of those by-laws would be largely unenforced, I think that one would have to expect a large increase in the number of wardens. The gross cost of a paid warden is about £1,200 a year, so that even if local authorities were to appoint a number of wardens in the low hundreds to do this, as they might have to for all these hundreds of thousands of miles, it would mean quite a sizeable sum in the total

143
moneys available for the whole of the countryside expenditure.
On those grounds I would advise the Committee not to adopt this Amendment. But I do not want to be rigid about it. I have already said that I shall consider so many things, and have invited so many noble Lords to meet me about them, that I am anxious not to do that again, unless there is a very strong feeling in the Committee that something like this should be introduced. So my advice is not to accept this Amendment, but I should not wish the Committee to divide on it. Sooner than that, I would consider the Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I wish to apologise to the Committee for not having been in my place when this Amendment was reached, a little earlier than I had expected. I was trying to get some physical sustenance after sitting in the Chamber for six-and-a-half hours continuously. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for having moved it on my behalf.
I do not wish to press this Amendment in its present state. No doubt it is capable of improvement, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is making an excessive case against it when he calculates the immense cost that might be involved. This would only be effective where both the owner of the land and the local authority—the by-law-making authority—were in agreement that it should be done. Where they are both in agreement, it seems to me a pity that it should not be possible to do it. Under this Bill there will be wardens in many places, but I certainly was not envisaging that this would happen on a vast scale, leading to the employment of hundreds of wardens. I was putting it forward rather in the belief that there might be cases where a power of this kind would be valuable and acceptable to both local authority and landowner. If the local authority thought that it was going to be difficult or expensive, they would have nothing to do with it, and I can imagine that a considerable number of owners would not be interested. But it seems to me a pity if we let this Bill go without making a provision for those cases where this kind of power would be valuable.
144
I do not want to press this to a Division, because I do not think that it is a matter on which there should be controversy. On the other hand, I am not disposed just to withdraw it and let it be. If the noble Lord will say that he will consider this matter further and perhaps discuss it with me, I will be happy to withdraw it. If, of course, noble Lords get up and say that they do not want any more to do with this, I would have to accept that situation. Frankly, I cannot see that the acceptance of some kind of provision of this kind would do any harm, bearing in mind that no local authority would be compelled to commit itself if pressed to do so by a land owner or farmer. I hope that the noble Lord will go so far as to say that he is ready to examine this further and perhaps have a discussion with me, as in all the other matters which we have agreed to discuss.
LORD HENLEY: I hope that the noble I Lord will not forget that even if this costs a certain amount of money, a certain amount of money must be spent if this Bill is going to work. The noble Lord maximises the cost of this and minimises the costs to individual landowners and occupiers. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot have it on the cheap, paid for by landowners and occupiers, and then say that he cannot safeguard their interests by providing a warden service because it will be too expensive.
LORD KENNET: I will certainly agree to reconsider this matter and talk with the noble Lord about it, if he so wishes, between now and Report.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:
Wardens
".—(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park may appoint such number of persons as may appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient to act as wardens as respects any land within the National Park to which section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (Common land) for the time being applies, whether or not within the area of the local planning authority.
(2) Before a local planning authority first exercise their powers under subsection (1)

145
above as respects any land, they shall, if practicable, consult the person entitled to the soil of the land.
(3) The foregoing subsections shall be construed as one with section 92 of the Act of 1949 and shall be subject to subsection (4) of that section (saving for interests of landowners).
(4) The purposes for which wardens may be appointed by an authority under the said section 92 (as amended by this Act) as respects any land or waters are—

(a) to secure compliance with any bye-laws, with the provisions of the Litter Act 1958 and with any requirements imposed by or under section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925,

(b) to advise and assist the public, and

(c) to perform such other duties (if any) in relation to the land or waters as the authority may determine.

This subsection shall have effect in substitution for subsection (2) of the said section 92."
The noble Lord said: This is another long-awaited Amendment about the appointment of wardens. I do not think the committee will wish me to run through the rather long history of this matter in another place. Various attempts to get it right were made, and none met with general consent. I will go into that later if any noble Lord wishes me to, but for the moment I will confine myself to the effect of the proposed new clause, which is to empower local planning authorities in National Parks to appoint wardens to operate on commons within the Parks, subject to Section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925; that is, commons to which the public have a de jure right of public access. At present, such commons are excepted land and, therefore, not open to access and may not be wardened.
In the Lake District National Park especially there are large areas of what are called, in the jargon of Section 193, "commons"—that is de jure access commons—within the Windermere and Lakes Urban District Council area, and this has inhibited the planning board from making arrangements to secure proper public behaviour on these commons. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause provides for consultation with the owner of the common. In certain cases, of course, the owner may be the local authority, and therefore that eases the consultation problem. The purposes for which wardens may be appointed are set out in subsection (4), and I think the Committee would expect. I think the purpose of the clause is self-evident, and
146
I hope that it will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD MOLSON: I should like to express our appreciation to the Government for drafting and moving this clause. It is on the general lines that were put forward by a number of National Park authorities in the other place. It took the Government a little time to make up their minds to accede to the requests that were made, but they have now done it, and done it, so far as I can see, very handsomely.
LORD CHORLEY: I am glad to know that my noble friend Lord Molson is quite satisfied with this. The new clause has only just been put down, and it has not been possible for me, at any rate, to ascertain the views of the joint planning board for the Lake District and the other National Park authorities who are concerned in this matter. I mentioned at an earlier stage the tremendous enthusiasm of the warden service ii the Lake District. This has been carried on in the Lake District in a way which has been of somewhat doubtful legality because of the provisions of the 1949 Act. It is not peculiar to the Lake District, because a number of other National Parks have been in the same position. It has been found sensible, in all the circumstances, not to enter into access arrangements with the landowners.
In the Lake District particularly, the landowners have been most generous. They have given free access over the fells to walkers and climbers for many years, and it was felt reasonable that this policy should be adopted by the planning hoard. It had the disadvantage that the provisions of the 1925 Act were not applied, and undoubtedly this gave rise to some legal difficulties. On the face of it, it appears that the proposal in this new clause covers the situation. But it is a complicated position, and I should like to reserve the right, if on further study some defect should be found in this proposal, to bring the matter up again at the next stage of the Bill, and possibly put down something by way of Amendment
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power to amend local Acts concerning local authorities]:
LORD KENNET: This Amendment fulfils a promise made at the Commons Report stage and provides that in making an Order under this Bill the Minister shall not repeal or amend any enactment so far as it relates to a water undertaking of a local authority. I think the purpose of the Amendment is self-evident; I believe it is uncontroversial, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 32, at end insert—
("() shall not repeal or amend any enactment so far as it relates to the water undertaking of a local authority").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
9.41 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, after Clause 40, to insert the following new clause:
Designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty
".—(1) This section has effect where the Commission makes an order under subsection (1) of section 87 of the Act of 1949 designating an area for the purposes of that Act as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 87 of the Act of 1949 the Minister may not confirm an order under subsection (4) of that section nor vary an order under subsection (7) of that section so long as any representations made under subsection (2) of that section and not given effect to by the order as submitted to the Minister have not been withdrawn unless—

(a) if the representation is made by a local authority he has caused a local inquiry to be held, and

(b) in any other case he has either

(i) caused a local inquiry to be held, or

(ii) afforded to any person by whom any representation has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose,

and he has thereafter considered the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or to hear representations."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name on the Paper. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that objections to the designation of areas of outstanding natural
148
beauty are properly considered. For instance, mineral undertakers have found in the past that such designation by the Commission has created difficulties when they have come subsequently to apply for planning permission to work minerals in the area, in spite, I believe, of Ministerial protests to the contrary. Consequently, in the past the mineral undertakers have in their own protection made representations against proposals for designation. But they have been ignored by the National Parks Commission, which at present is required to consider only objections from a local authority. Also, I believe that the psychological effect of designation is to stimulate local objections to proposals to work minerals. I would add—I believe this is true—that planning permission is generally given, but after considerable and unnecessary delay.
I should like, for the Record, to give your Lordships two examples, one of a refusal of planning permission, and the second of an objection to the inclusion within a designated area of a quarrying area which was providing the raw materials for three existing cement works. The first example which I quote to your Lordships concerns a mineral undertaker who has a lease on gravel-bearing land in the Cannock Chase area of outstanding natural beauty. The lease ran from April 15, 1939. Following the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act application was made for planning permission, which was given for a 20-year term which will expire on December 31 this year. The gravel deposits are not exhausted, and application has therefore been made to continue working by deepening the existing pit, possibly another 42 feet to about 150 feet. But I should like to stress that no extension of the surface worked is involved.
The Committee of the statutory county council which is responsible for the administration of county council land for public access has objected to the proposal for continued working, giving as its first reason that—and I quote:
"the site is located within the Cannock Chase area of outstanding natural beauty adjoining the attractive village of Brockton and continued working of the quarry will form an increasingly damaging scar on the landscape and injuriously affect the amenities of the area."

149
That in spite of the fact that there will be no extension of the surface worked.
The second example I should like to quote concerns the Sussex Downs area of outstanding natural beauty. Here, representations were made on November 26, 1959, against the inclusion of a chalk-quarrying area owned by a company, part of Which was already being excavated and part forming reserves to ensure the continued supply of important raw materials for production at the adjacent Shoreham cement works. In February, 1962—that is, a full two years after the original representations—and following various reminders, the case was turned down. The company was told that it had been forwarded to the Minister along with the draft designation order, but no opportunity was given for discussion of the representations. Then later, when revised proposals for the Sussex Downs area were publicised in December, 1964, representations were again made and were again turned down without discussion. It is the lack of discussion about which I am complaining.
I also understand that when assistance is sought from the Minerals Division of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government the invariable answer is that designation will not affect the working of minerals. I am wondering whether in future that will still be true, in view of the assurance given by the noble Lord on Second Reading, when he said that in those areas of outstanding natural beauty amenity must be the overriding consideration. For that reason I am wondering whether, when this Bill become an Act, the Minerals Division of the Ministry will be able to give a similar assurance. Perhaps the noble Lord can answer that point.
Under these considerations which I have mentioned, will the Minister not agree that there should be the right to a formal hearing of objections to proposals for the designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty, and that there should be reference to the Minister of the inspector's report? In conclusion, I would add that the Confederation of British Industry believe that a full public discussion, when objection has been made; to an application for designation, would often result in an assurance that supplies of raw materials for what can be, in effect, very costly works will not be
150
prejudiced and therefore much of the delay later on could be saved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause; 40, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merrivale.)
LORD KENNET: The objections of the noble Lord to the present procedure have not been based on any assertion that areas of outstanding natural beauty are declared when they are of insufficient outstanding natural beauty, but on the ground that the representations of the mineral industry against the establishment or enlargement or inclusion of certain places in those areas have not always been heeded. I think we need to keep a sense of proportion about this. The question at issue is whether or not it is of outstanding natural beauty. In regard to this question the mineral extractive industries have no special expertise which they can bring to bear or the subject.
When there is a proposal to designate an area of outstanding natural beauty the National Parks Commission are required to consult the local authorities concerned, to publish a notice of the Commission's proposals and to consider representations. In forwarding the order to the Minister for confirmation the Commission are required to forward any observations made by a local authority, and any representations made by other parties to which effect is not given in the order.
So, if the Commission cannot satisfy the mineral extractors by varying their proposals, they must tell the Minister they do not propose to satisfy them and the Minister will think about it at his level. This means the Minister is aware of sustained objections. He is not required to cause a local inquiry to be held, and I would recommend the; Committee not to insert a requirement that he should in future cause a local inquiry to be held. The reason is that the interests of the mineral extractive industry are touched for the first time only when the question of planning permission arises. In the designation of an area of outstanding natural beauty nobody's rights are changed. This is merely a line on the map in which certain values and, hitherto, certain grants are to prevail. Even the grants in future are to be spread

151
over the countryside. Nobody's rights are touched until the question of planning permission arises. If the mineral extractor is refused planning permission, he then has a right of appeal to the Minister, and that is the time for the Minister to take into account the needs of the mineral industry, if the local authority has not already taken this into account by granting permission in the first place.
I do not think the noble Lord would go so far as to say that in settling the question, in issuing a decision on the planning appeal, the Minister should not take into account the fact that the appeal related to an area of outstanding natural beauty. He does, and should, and I cannot believe that the industry would wish otherwise. It seems to me that if the full protection for the economic rights of this industry can be obtained at the moment when a planning application is made it is a needless duplication to write in anything about a public inquiry and public discussion in the designation of these areas.
There are analogies to it in the Civic Amenities Act which this House passed not long ago, in which there is a proposal for conservation areas. There is no appeal against that. There is no public inquiry against or about designation of conservation areas. When there is an appeal and a public inquiry is when anybody is ordered to preserve his house against his will, because it touches his individual rights. This is the same situation that applies to the mineral industry in an area of outstanding natural beauty. I hope that the Committee will be content to leave the law unchanged and that the mineral extractive industry will be content to defend their rights and plead their case when their rights are in question and the matter is susceptible of a decision.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful for the considered reply of the Minister, which I shall read with great interest; and perhaps I shall revert to this matter at a later stage. There is a point he did not touch on. He said that the interests of the extractive industry were considered, but he did not say anything on this question of undue delay and also about the considerable expense. Could he look into
152
this question of undue delay, which does arise? I agree that in the end planning permission is given. There is a difficulty about objections being considered when they are put forward by the mineral industries, but I think their main concern is this question of delay and lack of public discussion. Could the noble Lord say anything now, or at any rate consider it for a later discussion on another Amendment which I might put down?
LORD KENNET: If the noble Lord will send me examples of delay in reaching planning decisions in the case of the mineral extractive industry which he believes have been more extensive than the normal delays encountered by industry in general in seeking planning permission, I will go into them. But so far he has not produced any evidence that the mineral industry is worse off than others.
LORD MERRIVALE: I will certainly look into this and supply whatever information I can. With that assurance, kindly given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Crown land]:
LORD MOLSONhad given notice of his intention to move in subsection (5) after "25" to insert "and section 28". The noble Lord said: In view of the Amendment put down by the Government which the Committee has accepted, I do not move this Amendment.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Interpretation]:
EARL HOWEhad given Notice of his intention to move, in subsection (2), after the definition of "land", to insert "'road used as a public path' has the meaning I given by section 27 of the Act of 1949;". The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment which I do not move.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Procedure for taking common land]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR had given Notice of his intention to move to leave out paragraph 3. The noble Lord said: In view of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when we were discussing the Motion, That Clause 9 shall stand part, there is no need to move this Amendment.
9.56 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORmoved to leave out paragraph 5. The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, for two reasons. The first is that this paragraph does not seem to make sense. I have compared it with the Commons Hansard. Perhaps I should mention that this Schedule was moved into the Bill at short notice at a quite late stage in another place, so there was little opportunity for all Members there to examine it in detail. May I read it to your Lordships to see whether your Lordships can understand it better than I can, It says:
"No restrictions apply to commons generally, or to any particular common, contained in or having effect under any enactment, and no trust subject to which the common land is held, shall prevent a local authority from taking part of common land in accordance with this Schedule."
If this paragraph said:
"No restrictions which apply to common generally,"
or
"no restrictions applying to commons generally",
I could read it in a way that would make sense. But I cannot help thinking that something has gone wrong here, and I hope I am not infringing Commons privilege in saying that the trouble really arose in another place, because I can assure your Lordships that this precisely repeats the words which were printed in the Commons Hansard. Perhaps the noble Lord will look into that. If he can read that out to your Lordships in a way which makes sense—
LORD KENNET: Before the noble Lord goes on to the substance of his Amendment, may I say that I cannot read it out, but I can tell him what was the intention of the Government in these circumstances. It was to overcome any
154
statutory restriction on trusts which night otherwise prevent a local authority from taking part of the common under Clause 9. But I will look into the drafting.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Considering that Parliament is most careful about watching matters referring to common land, and because this was moved into the Bill at such a late stage in another place, I thought it right to raise this question, quite apart from the drafting. It is a most surprising and sweeping provision that no restrictions which apply to commons generally—I think that is what it means—or to any particular common shall prevent a local authority from taking part of common land in accordance with this Schedule. This means that whatever restrictions may originally have been imposed, or whatever trusts were drawn up subject to which the common land is held, we are providing that they shall be swept aside.
This is a sweeping decision in every sense. It may be right, but I think Parliament should take note of it and should be aware of what it is doing. I realise that there is a case for Clause 9, and that this Schedule is really the deailed; implementation of Clause 9, but I think I it would be wrong if your Lordships allowed this to go through without drawing attention to it and without asking the representative of the Government whether it is really essential that this far-reaching provision should be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 43, leave out paragraph 5.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: Further on the drafting point, it is, of course, a printing error. It is not true to say that no restrictions apply. Perhaps they do. That is what the subsection is there for. It should read, "no restrictions applying", and then as before. The error will be rectified. I agree with the noble Lord that I the need for this power is not self-evident. That is so because the restrictions, covenants, trusts, and so on, which one would empower the local authorities to override in the context of this Bill are invariably, I think I am right in saying, to the effect that the common shall be kept open and shall be for the enjoyment of all. The intention of most

155
owners of commons is the very same. Indeed, there are manifold legal obligations on them to do precisely that, but the Government have still thought it unavoidable to give local authorities compulsory purchase powers over small parks and commons in order that they may do things on them which might, at first sight, appear to conflict with the intentions of the owner, or the owners and the law governing commons, in that they might enclose a minute portion of a common. For instance, you cannot build public lavatories without enclosing a few square feet of common, and it may be that in a multiplicity of commons owners a tiny handful of them, or one or two, might object to this out of sheer cussedness.
All the Schedule does is to ensure that these powers shall run, even in the case of commons where there are old covenants and restrictions of one sort or another. The overriding purpose of the local authority in these cases will be, as in all other, to increase and improve the access of the public to all commons, and the view of the Government is that the creation of compulsory powers is as much justified in the case of commons subject to old trusts and covenants as it is in other commons, a view that the Committee has already accepted.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BARNBY: I wanted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would find it convenient to give some additional explanation on paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 2. There appears to be some confusion as to how this shall work. There are in the Bill many clauses which have suggested action in various directions which would involve the question of an appeal to the Minister. Paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 2 definitely outlines how the Minister shall give his decision, et cetera, shall take all steps to give the necessary information, or shall cause a public inquiry to be held. Now it is certainly right that the Minister should
156
protect himself by taking care that he gets every kind of representation before he gives a decision, and that is provided for. That would not be any hardship to anybody.
But the owner of land who might be affected is here subjected to uncertainty as to the decision of the Minister after he has given each person making such a representation
"an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose…"
That is clear procedure, and it goes on to say: "or cause a public inquiry to be held". Presumably, the owner of the land will be the one to be subjected to some action which the Minister contemplates or which somebody appeals to him to take, and it would appear that the owner of the soil will have to pay the costs of defending himself against possible demands in certain circumstances, when the Minister will want to satisfy himself as to the propriety of such action.
LORD KENNET: I am not sure that I take the noble Lord's point, but it is beyond doubt that a compulsory purchase order cannot be made under this Bill if there is an objection to it from a person having a locus to object and if that objection is maintained, without there being a public inquiry. Does that meet the noble Lord's point?
LORD BARNBY: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that explanation, but he has not made clear who pays the costs of the owner of the soil in his defence against any proposed action.
LORD KENNET: It is not a defence against a proposed action; it is an objection against a proposed action, and in the normal case the objector pays his own costs.
LORD BARNBY: If the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied, I would only say that I am trying to be helpful in seeking an interpretation of something which may cause confusion. Perhaps at the next stage the noble Lord may see fit to add something to the provision.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Public Rights of Way]:
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY moved, at the beginning of Schedule 3, to insert:
"LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 (1925 c. 20)
Section 193 (rights of the public over commons and waste lands)
It is hereby declared that the right of access of any land specified in this section is a right of access on foot only."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks a clear-cut definition of something which has produced a great deal of confusion. It is brought about by the nebulous wording of the Law of Property Act 1925, which was not made clear when the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 was drafted. As a result, the definition is uncertain, because access granted by the 1925 Act to the public to commons did not indicate how this was to take place. It was not made clear whether it was to be on foot, on horseback, in a vehicle, or whatever it may be. As it stands, it appears that the 1925 Act is not taken into account and clarified in the 1949 Act. For that reason it is now suggested that a clear interpretation should be given.
Considerable reference has been made during the proceedings of this Committee to the definitions clearly set out in Section 27 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, which define a footpath, a bridleway and so on. There has also been reference to the Gosling Committee which made clear its views. It was said in another place that the Government accepted in principle the need for definition, and it was therefore thought likely that a Government Amendment would be introduced into the House of Lords to give effect to the recommendations. That was said on February 20, at column 1103 of the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT. But it does not seem that that promised Amendment was introduced, unless there was an intention of some definition tied up with the Amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to passage on wheels.
I shall refrain from taking up the time of the Committee by referring to the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Lands, which gives a great deal of information, but I would remind your Lordships that in the area of com-
158
mons there are a lot of forests, woods, barren lands, open lands and, of course, areas of special scientific interest. The commons are owned in turn local authorities, by the National Trust and by private individuals, and there appears to have been a lack of uniformity in their treatment. Local authorities have power to make by-laws, but the National Trust is in a different category. In the case of certain commons, such as Esher Common, the Minister appears to have issued an order forbidding passage on horses.
I am given to understand that there is a legal difference between "access" and "passage". It is very difficult for the lay mind to understand how one can have access to, without also having passage on, a common if one is going to have any use for it. That was certainly envisaged by the Gosling Committee when they made their recommendations to the Minister. The present misfortune for both people on foot and horse riders, is that they are in ignorance about what is permitted with regard to commons. Footpaths are considerably "chewed up" by horsemen, and in many areas there is asperity of feeling between people who want to use a certain footpath. It would be to the benefit of all, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, if no uncertainty were left in this legislation which might tend to produce contention between different users of commons. Because it seems so clear that there is need for this definition, I shall not make the further points which might be of interest to the Committee in coming to a decision, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accept this Amendment and dispose of the present unfortunate situation.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Barnby.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I hope the Government will be able to help my noble friend, and indeed the Committee, by clarifying this matter. On a new clause moved by the Government earlier this evening and then withdrawn, rights of way for foot passengers were about to become rights of way for cyclists.

159
Now we are discussing a separate but related issue, the right of access to common land. That unquestionably means in all cases, I believe, right of access for pedestrians. Does it mean also right of access for persons on horseback? Does it mean right of access for cyclists? Does it mean right of access for people with certain types of vehicle?
LORD MOLSON: It is of course the case that only the courts can decide exactly what is the meaning of a Statute, but it has been the task of the Commons Preservation Society over a large number of years to advise the owners of commons and of commonable rights, and they have for many years, ever since the passing of the Act of 1925, given the advice that the rights of the public as regards access to commons under Section 193 applies only to access on foot. I hope, therefore, that the Government will confirm that they take the same view.
EARL HOWE: As to the question of the right of access by people on foot, I am afraid I must dissent from that. I feel that if right of access is to be given it should be given to all members of the public, whether they are on foot or on a motor vehicle. I suggest that if access is to be given, it might be given to a motorist to park his vehicle within 15 yards of the highway. I gather it follows the general pattern of the law that this should be permitted—and possibly at a greater distance than 15 yards. Also, I think the Royal Commission on Common Lands gives some justification for this kind of action.
LORD KENNET: This is a difficult situation, because the advice available to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is exactly the opposite to that which has been given by the Commons Preservation Society, and therefore, presumably, to that given to them by highly-qualified lawyers. The advice which my Ministry has been able to obtain is that the famous Section 193 includes horses. How much does this matter? The noble Lord has said that there is confusion about this and that it ought to be cleared up by an Act of Parliament. Of course, one is always emotionally inclined towards clearing up confusion, but I verily believe that in this case it is not so im-
160
portant whether one should do that or not, because the owner of a common— it may be a local authority, it may be a private person or it may be any number of different sorts of people—has the right under the present law to apply to the Minister for an order under that same section, Section 193, to impose limitations and conditions on the exercise of the rights of access, or indeed to limit the extent of the land to be affected by those rights. Quite a number of these orders of limitation have been made over the years doing precisely this—restricting the riding of horses to specified parts of a common, or to specified parts on it. I believe the noble Lord may be familiar with the facts I am giving to the Committee, since he has himself applied for such an order very recently, to which there have been objections and into which there must therefore be a public inquiry.
I would advise the Committee that this situation is a tenable one. There is doubt in the law, but if it is felt by the owner of any common that there are too many horses on it and that they are spoiling it for other people, or that they are chewing up the grass, or whatever it is, all he has to do is to apply to the Minister for an order, which will instantly clarify the matter. The Minister will either make an order, in which case there will be no horses, or he will refuse to make an order, in which case it will become more likely that the horses are permitted everywhere—a great deal more likely, I would say. Of course, one may say that there has perhaps been something not quite serious in what I have been saying, and that Parliament must always seek to clarify confusion. I would agree with that: in the long run it must. But I hope the Committee will take the view that this is not the Bill to do it. Major legislation is coming forward on commons. It is an absolutely colossal subject, far wider than the confines of this Bill which simply seeks to spread grant over the country and to provide for access orders in particularly difficult places. The whole of the commons legislation has to be cleared up. It is a major task; but it will be done. I think that the overall clarification that the noble Lord desires—and I can see his reasons—should be produced within the context of commons legislation in

161
general rather than under a Countryside Bill, given that the owners of the commons already have a perfectly good administrative recourse in the meantime.
LORD BARNBY: I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation but I must admit it is quite disappointing. He adopts the attitude of contemplating a continuation of confusion. Many passages in the course of this Bill have brought vividly to light the need for clarification and definition; and, in the absence of this, a great deal of the value of what has been legislated is thrown into confusion. I cannot refrain from asking the indulgence of the Committee to make some remarks about common lands. The noble Lord himself admits that this is a very wide subject and perhaps, at this stage of the Bill, it is a pity that time has to be taken up on it. But so great will be the disappointment to pedestrians and riders at what the noble Lord has said that I say, with the greatest regret, that I cannot let it pass without inflicting on the Committee some views on its broader aspects.
Let me remind the Minister that common land in the country extends to over 1 million acres. There are an enormous number of commons. Does he suggest that each one is to be interpreted by special order on application to the Ministry? Who is to pay the cost of it? That is a point that I raised earlier. I admit, as I did on Second Reading, that while I am discussing the broad question I have a particular interest in that I am responsible for a common and, as the owner of the soil, I am familiar with these conditions and see them in practice. With that knowledge I say that what the noble Lord suggests— that any case that arises throughout the country on the conditions of a common has possibly to be the cause of a hearing by the Ministry which may take six months of a year to resolve—produces a great deal of confusion and discord over what is permissible in one community and not in another.
I think it unfair to the community that the Minister should presume to put that kind of legislative handicap on the whole of the country as it affects commons, distributed as they are so widely. I would remind the Committee in regard
162
to the interpretation of this Act that there are places where the commons are on heavy London clay, with tracks quite impassable in the winter and wet weather but baked hard and deeply cracked in summer. This is the sort of place we are talking about, where the conditions are quite chaotic and pedestrians find themselves condemned to use what the Act calls footpaths but which are in reality only rides for horsemen. Speaking as one who has been associated with horse riding all his life, I speak with feeling for the horsemen. They are ignorant about where they can go and what they can do.
LORD HENLEY: I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Lord. I think he has missed the point of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was sympathetic to the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, was in, but he pointed out that the whole question of the law on commons is in a state of hopeless confusion and the subject of an inquiry from which we all hope that some legislation will come which may help the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. That being so, I think that possibly the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has said enough.
LORD BARNBY: With due respect and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the homilies he addresses to me and the advice he has given, I should say that is exactly the point I made. It is this absence of definition. I ask for a simple definition.
LORD HENLEY: My point was that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was most sympathetic.
LORD BARNBY: I must ask the permission of the Committee to read a line from the 1925 Act and remind the noble Lord of Section 193. The rubric is:
"Rights of the public over commons and waste land."
and the section states:
"Members of the public shall, subject as hereinafter provided, have rights of access for air and exercise.…"
I should have thought that quite simple phraseology. But how are the rights to be exercised? Do you go on foot; on a horse; on wheels?

163
It would be the simplest thing to insert a definition, and I must remind the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary that if that Amendment were adopted it would mean that the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 would immediately become effective. Under Section 127 that clearly defines what is possible for a bridlepath and what is possible for a footpath. The Gosling Committee recommended that that should be adopted. Surely I am not doing anything unreasonable in pressing that the Committee should ask for an interpretation and acceptance by the Minister of what has been recommended by the Gosling Committee, which was set up, as the Minister said, to advise him on these difficult matters. Because of that I would remind the Committee also that the present legal position, as I am informed by the Footpaths Association, who are the official and best-informed organisation in the country on the matter, is that horse riding on a public footpath is a trespass against the owner of the soil, but it is not a criminal offence. That is one of the difficulties, there is no definition and no understanding—
LORD KENNET: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, would confine his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee, which is about riding horses on commons.
LORD BARNBY: I can only repeat that I thought I was dealing with the Amendment; and there was no way of explaining it except by bringing in all that. I hope that the noble Lord may yet give consideration to this point and that on Report stage he may be able to give us some definition, because it seemed that, although in another place some Amendment on this subject was promised, it has not yet come. In that belief I thought it would be simpler for the noble Lord to agree to these words which would correct the legal difficulty with regard to the Law of Property Act 1925. I assure the noble Lord that it is a pretty widespread complication, and I hope that before Report stage he may be able to reconsider this. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in Part I [Miscellaneous Amendments, Act of 1949], after the proposed amendment to Section 33, to insert:
("Section 37 (Powers of Minister to expedite survey)
The power of the Minister in section 37 to expedite the preparation of maps and statements shall include the power to direct a surveying authority to prepare a revised map and statement in draft form where the period referred to in section 33(3) has expired and where, after consultation with the surveying authority, it seems to the Minister that because of changes since the relevant date the definitive map, or the las preceding map prepared in definitive form, as the case may be, is no longer a reasonably accurate record of public rights of way in the area of the authority.")
The noble Lord said: We now come to a part of the Schedule which deals with Amendments to the 1949 Act. The Government are asking for an Amendment to Section 33. I wish to ask them to take rather more rights than they have at present under Section 37 of the Act. This is a section which the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society have found rather defective in operation and which they, and those who work with them, feel could with advantage be amended. It is a rather technical matter and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if a stick closely to the brief with which I have been provided.
The present position is that the surveying authority has to prepare a revised draft map within five years of the relevant date of the previous definitive map. Rather unexpectedly, the relevant date is not the date on which the definitive map was published, but the date on which the original draft map was published. In nearly all cases, this was a date shortly after the passing of 1949 Act, usually during the years from 1950 to 1953. The procedure in reaching the definitive stage has been so long in many cases that the definitive map is completely out of date before it is published. The definitive map published to-day— and these maps are still being published —reflects the footpath pattern of no less than 15 years ago and therefore revision has become urgent. The revision procedure is much quicker than the original procedure. The Bill, by Schedule 2, Part II, will make it still quicker. Counties which have done the revision already frequently manage to do it in

165
from one to two years. Hampshire is a good example. Thus the really useful document is not so much the definitive map as the revised definitive map, because, since this can be completed in as short a time as from one to two years, it means a fairly recent relevant date.
In view of the great value of the revised maps, it is extraordinary that the Minister has no power to expedite publication of these maps. The need for such powers has become evident during recent years. It can be illustrated by the case of the Yorkshire East Riding, in respect of which, by means of a Question, I succeeded in stimulating the department to take action. The Council published its draft map in 1953. Then it did absolutely nothing, until it was spurred on by the Minister, who directed the publication of the original map in 1966 and the definitive map in 1967. Under the expedited procedure, only non-controversial paths have been shown on the East Riding definitive map. All disputed paths have been left to be determined at revision stage. Yet there is nothing to oblige the East Riding Council to commence the revision state. The Minister has no power to do so under present law. It is that situation which we ask to have remedied.
Again, there are counties which reached the definitive stage some time ago, and they have taken no steps since then towards commencing the important review stage. These counties include Herefordshire and Oxfordshire, both of which published definitive maps in 1961 and have done nothing whatever since. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and that the Minister ought to have power to spur them on and stimulate them. This is the object of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 46, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Charley.)
LORD KENNET: So far as we know, there are only two counties where the definitive map is really out of date and who are not going as fast as they should with the review. I do not want to make a meal of this point, but we in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would be just as happy chasing a couple
166
of counties at any one moment rather than having the sledgehammer powers of default to order them to get on with it. In other words, I would advise the Committee that it is not really necessary to extend the default powers, which are always slightly unpopular, and are to be taken only in cases of crying need. I do not think the evidence suggests that this problem cannot be solved by other means.
LORD CHORLEY: I am very disappointed with that reply. From what the Minister has just said, one would think that this was a very minute problem in which only one or two counties are engaged. But this is not the case. During the last year or two I have put down quite a number of Questions, and they have by no means covered all the defaulting counties. I am surprised that the Minister should, in effect, refuse to have these powers conferred upon him. I do not think he realises how unsatisfactory the position is. I do not wish to press this Amendment at the present stage, but I should like to collect a dossier, as it were, and perhaps return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he agrees with the statement of the facts made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. If it is the case that these local authorities are under an obligation to produce these revised maps and are neglecting to do so, are we really to understand that the Minister prefers not to take powers to require them to carry out their obligation?
LORD KENNET: Let us go into detail on this, after all. The noble Lord quoted, I think, three authorities which were late in preparing their maps—I assume the noble Lord's agreement Two of them, I think he said, were two years late—that is, they have to produce the revised maps five-yearly, and they have gone seven years—and the third authority is later than that. A further question arises. If an authority is late in doing its review, one must consider now much it matters; that is, how much evidence there is that the existing definitive map is out of date and inadequate. I am

167
advised that there are only two definitive maps in the whole country (the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned one of them, but there is another) which are clearly out of date. In one of these two cases the review is already under way, and in the other is about to be dealt with urgently.
I can only repeat that I do not think this is a case where the Minister should go out of his way to seek default powers. But it may be that the Committee will feel that he is not going out of his way to acquire them, and why should he resist them? I should not like to resist too hard if the Committee thinks that the Minister should have these powers. I think it would be illogical for me to refuse to do anything about it, even if the evidence is that it is not necessary. After all, if the Minister takes them, he does not have to use them.
LORD BARNBY: In the course of moving his Amendment Lord Chorley referred to the obligations of county authorities. Section 27 of the Act of 1949 directs them clearly to prepare a draft map for their area showing thereon a footpath or a bridleway. Is it to be understood from what the Minister said regarding the maps clearly setting out bridlepaths and footpaths that the interpretation of the Act as to a bridle path or footpath is to continue to be invalidated by the uncertainty of the Act of 1925? Are we to have the chaotic position that, in spite of the provision of maps by the county council, they are invalid? What is the good of spending money on producing them?
LORD KENNET: No, it is not to be so understood.
LORD BARNBY: I could not hear.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord asked me whether it was to be understood that these maps were to continue to be invalidated by the uncertainty attaching to Section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925. My answer to him is, No, it is not to be so understood.
LORD BARNBY: But with due respect to the Minister, they are in valid now—is this not so?—by virtue of the Act of 1925.
LORD CHORLEY: When we remember that this duty was first placed on local authorities nearly twenty years ago now, surely we must realise that some rather greater stimulus towards getting on with their duty is required. However, having said that I reserve the right to return to this matter at a later stage, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.42 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in paragraph 4(5), after "authority", to insert:
"publish in the London Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the area of the authority a notice stating his intention to make such a direction and shall".
The noble Lord said: Here, I am asking for rather more rights for the public, so that they may be made aware of decisions which very much affect them and of which at the present time they are unaware. Moreover, no provision exists to provide them with the necessary information.
I think the matter can be explained most clearly and succinctly by taking the two distinct cases which may arise. First of all, we have the case where the authority publishes a map omitting what a local amenity society believes, on the evidence before it, to be a public footpath. The society then makes representations to the Minister under Schedule 3, Part II, paragraph 4(1), and if the Minister decides that the society's representation is correct, under paragraph 4(5) he must give notice to any person who is "adversely affected". That is the phrase which is used: "adversely affected". This obviously includes, and everybody will say rightly, the landowner. So that the two sides which are affected—that is, the local authority and the landowner— can then put their views and have the matter properly cleared up. That is very fair and reasonable.
However, when you come to look at the reverse of the situation it does not work the same way: what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. The authority publishes a map including a path to which a landowner objects. The Minister decides that the landowner is right, and he then has to decide who are the persons who are "adversely affected" (the same phrase being used,

169
of course) under paragraph 4(5)—this your Lordships will find at the top of page 49. In fact, the persons "adversely affected" are in this case the general public, the people who have taken the right to use the footpath. Unless there is provision for advertisement, members of the public, and local voluntary bodies of which they are members, and which are concerned with these matters, will have no standing whatever, and will in fact have no knowledge of what has happened: that a path which they had believed to be safely put upon the map has in fact been challenged by the landowner and the challenge has been allowed by the Minister.
It is true, of course, that under the existing wording of the paragraph the Minister would have to notify the authority, but that is quite insufficient from the point of view of those people wishing to use the path and of the various societies which are interested and concerned in the matter. And the object of this Amendment is to enable all those who are concerned in this way to know what has happened, so that they can make representations. The wording used is similar to that which is used whenever notices have to be issued, and I think it is sufficient and satisfactory to meet the case. I hope that the Minister will be rather more forthcoming on this occasion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 4, at end insert the said words.— (Lord Chorley.)
LORD KENNET: In my view there is a lot in what the noble Lord has said. I am not quite sure that I followed all his reasoning in detail, but if he would be kind enough to withdraw his Amendment and come and talk to me about it, I should like to investigate the possibility of putting down something to the same effect on Report.
LORD CHORLEY: I am grateful for the Minister's reply, and in view of it I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Local Authority Committees and Joint Boards]:
10.48 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in paragraph 4(1), to leave out "Not less than one-third" and insert, "The Chairman and not less than one-half". The noble Lord said: This is similar to an Amendment that I moved in 1949 in another place, when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was piloting his National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill through that House. If National Parks are really to be National Parks, and to follow national policy, then the committees which are responsible for their administration should be to a larger extent representative of the national interest, and the national representatives should not be in a small minority, as they are at the present time.
This has become an increasing cause of friction and irritation during the last twenty years, and in a number of cases —not, I think, in the case of the High Peak National Park or the Lake District, but in a number of the other National Parks—the policy has been limited and controlled by the policy of the local authorities. When National Parks were originally set up it was not the intention that this should be so, although I admit that this provision was contained in the original Act. Therefore I take this opportunity of again arguing that there should be a small majority representative of the national interest. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 21, leave out ("Not less than one-third") and insert ("The Chairman and not less than one-half").—(Lord Molson.)
LORD KENNET: I welcome the appearance once again of this old friend in our debates, because its very appearance in this Chamber will remind the public and all those concerned that the National Parks are indeed National Parks; that is to say, that their importance transcends local considerations, although it can never be separate from them or living above them on a different plane altogether.
Having said that, I wonder how much further the Committee would wish me to go. The Amendment as it is framed would take the National Parks out of local government altogether for planning purposes but would leave many of the functions which will be in question on the rates. I think probably the noble Lord would agree that the Amendment

171
must fall on the fact that it places the Parks in national power but does not place all the expenditure on the Exchequer; and this would be an unacceptable compromise between true national control and the present local control mitigated by a strong national element.
LORD MOLSON: This Bill has progressed a long way through Parliament and it is based upon a White Paper. This principle for which I am contending has been consistently rejected all the way through, and while I still maintain it is a right one I will not press it any further upon your Lordships tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.52 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY moved, in paragraph 4, after sub-paragraph (2), to insert:
"() At least one of the members of a joint board or joint advisory committee or a planning committee or sub-committee of a planning committee referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, who is appointed by each county council, shall be a county district councillor from a county district wholly or partially included in a National Park."
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Gainsborough has asked me to move this Amendment on his behalf. Whatever happens with regard to old friends, which we have just been discussing, I think there is no doubt that there is no provision for district councils to appoint representatives, and such councils within the National Parks feel that their views go unheard for want of representation and because all too often members appointed by county councils do not live within the National Parks.
This Amendment is put forward by the Rural District Councils Association, of which my noble friend in whose name this Amendment stands is President, and supported by the Urban District Councils Association. I think it is a modest one. It does not ask for separate representation for urban, rural or borough councils, and it does not preclude a county council from appointing a county councillor who is also a district councillor. What it does ensure is that at any rate one local authority representative will be a district councillor within a National
172
Park and so able to speak for the inhabitants of the Park in a way which county councils in parts of the county distant from the National Park would be unable to do. All the Amendment seeks is to ensure that a limited number of district councillors are elected to Park authorities from councils within the National Parks so that the views of the inhabitants within the Parks are given proper attention.
In these days I think there is a widespread feeling—one sees evidence of it in the Scottish nationalism and so on— that many matters closely affecting people in areas are discussed and controlled at a great distance. I hope that this modest Amendment to bring in district councils in this very modest way will go some way to alleviating that feeling, and I hope that the Amendment may be favourably considered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 38, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Grimston of Westbury.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I attach a great deal of importance to this Amendment which my noble friend has moved. I think it is not only in the interests of district councils that we should move something like this into the Bill but also in the interests of the National Parks and the public generally. Perhaps I may remind the Committee, even at this late hour, that the original theory was that the two-thirds of the members of these committees who were to be appointed by the county council were to represent the local interest, and the other one-third, who were to be appointed by the Minister, were to bring in the wider national considerations.
Unfortunately, it has not worked out exactly like that, because it has not always been secured by the county council concerned that their representatives are truly local representatives of the local interests of the Park itself. I know that there are notable exceptions to this. In the case of the Dartmoor National Park Planning Committee, for example, the Devon County Council secures that the purpose of this Amendment is most generously met. The Devon County Council ensures that among its nominees to the committee there are always at least one urban district councillor and one rural district councillor from

173
councils within the Park. That shows that it is perfectly possible, and that my noble friend is not asking for anything unreasonable.
But if one can contrast with that the situation in the Yorkshire Dales National Park Planning Committee, I believe I am right in saying that out of the 12 members appointed by the county council, only two are resident in the National Park. Yet these are the people who, under the theory as presented to Parliament in 1949, were to be the people who on the Park planning committee were to represent the specifically local interest. It so happens that of the six nominees of the Minister only one is resident in the National Park. I am not taking exception to that, because under the theory which I have outlined, and which has been accepted by Parliament, it should be the duty of the county council and not of the Minister to ensure that there was local representation.
It seems to me that if the Committee were to accept this Amendment, or something on the same lines, we should be achieving a quite definite purpose. We should be going far to ensure the achievement of the original purpose that was set before Parliament nearly twenty years ago. By this Amendment we should guarantee that at least one of the members of the planning committee appointed by the county council was a member of either an urban district council or a rural district council situated within the Park. That person could ensure that the strictly local aspects of all matters were fully considered by the planning committee.
I think your Lordships are already agreed that it is desirable that this legislation should work in a way that will create the maximum of good will rather than generate suspicion. I ask your Lordships to believe that it does generate suspicion if hardly any members of the Park planning committee, which has such considerable planning powers over a National Park, are in fact resident in the Park. I would strongly commend my noble friend's Amendment as a way to correct this defect.
LORD KENNET: I am not sure whether I heard the noble Lord aright, but when he moved the Amendment I think he said that there is no provision
174
for one or more of the members of a board to be a district councillor. I am sure he did not mean to say that. If he did, he would not have been right.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: Absolutely to ensure it, was how I put it.
LORD KENNET: The position is that there is no obligation that one should be. Let me say, first, that the Government entirely agree that the immediate local interest should be fully and properly represented on the board or joint committee. Whether or not it must always be done by a district councillor I think is an open question. It might well be done by a county councillor who lives right in the middle of the Park; it might be done by a county councillor who was also a district councillor. There are any number of ways in which it could be done. Lord Brooke gave the example of the Dartmoor Board where they already do it, and this seems to be a great success. What we are talking about really is whether to proceed by compulsion or by exhortation to ensure that this is done. On the whole, I think that the Committee ought to be chary of accepting powers of compulsion, ought to be chary of imposing upon the boards or councillors as constituting the boards, the duty of doing it this way rather than that way, and also of telling them that they must do it rather than urging them to do it.
Now when the Bill is through, as I have so often had occasion to say, the Minister of Housing and Local Government is going to issue a circular; and if the Amendment is not carried tonight he will most certainly make this very point in the circular. Therefore, my advice to the Committee is that, for the sake of lightness of touch, and in order not to stimulate resentment amongst those interests which might be against doing it by force (although I am sure that nobody will be against doing it voluntarily) it will be better to put it in the circular rather than in the Bill itself.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: I thank the Minister for what he has said. It is obvious, I think, that he views the object of this Amendment with sympathy. I am not sure that I entirely agree with him in this case that it should be done only by persuasion, followed up by a circular, which may or may not be

175
observed. But I wonder if he would give an undertaking to look at this again between now and the next stage, and perhaps have some discussions about it. If he would be ready to do that I would gladly withdraw the Amendment at this stage. In spite of his sympathetic attitude I cannot say I am entirely satisfied with what he has said.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I confess that I am not satisfied, although I know that the noble Lord the Minister is doing his best. Nineteen years have passed since the original Act reached the Statute Book. I believe I am right in saying that for nineteen years successive Ministers have been urging county councils to pay attention to the idea embodied in this Amendment, and with certain honourable exceptions, of which the Devon County Council is one, the encouragement has fallen on rather stony ground.
I entirely understand my noble friend's suggestion that, instead of pressing this now, he should ask that further consideration should be given to it between now and the Report stage of the Bill, but I hope that if he does withdraw the Amendment it will be appreciated by the Committee that this is a change which must be brought about, and that mere repetition of the general urgings by the Minister to various county councils to do this will not suffice. Frankly, I should like to see this written into the Bill, but I appreciate that there is another stage, and maybe it can be done by agreement when we come to the Report stage.
LORD KENNET: While it is true that this issue has been around for nineteen years and the district councils have
wanted compulsion for nineteen years, the county councils have resisted compulsion for nineteen years, and I think there is little more to find out about the situation. No doubt concrete evidence of matters which have been misplanned because of the absence of district councillors from planning boards might cause the Government to take a different view. But for the moment, if the Committee will allow me, I think I should perhaps quote a letter which was written by the Minister of State to the Rural District Councils Association after a series of meetings which he had with them recently. In that letter he said:
"In view of what it has been found possible to do in some parts of the country under the existing legislation, we have it in mind to commend the practice of including district council representatives among the members in one of the administrative circulars that in due course we shall issue."
I am now telling your Lordships that we will put it not in one of the circulars, in due course, but in the circular about this Bill. And I doubt very much whether it would be realistic to hope that we can remove this long conflict between the county councils and the district councils as quickly as necessary to get something in at the Report stage, although having said that, I would add that I shall never refuse to meet any representative of any local authority association on any point.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: I am sorry, but I think in view of that statement we should come to a decision, and I wish to press the Amendment.
11.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 74) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Redmayne, L.

Barnby, E.

Glasgow, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ilford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Thurlow, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Mills, V.

Vivian, L.

Carrington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Raglan, L.

Champion, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Rowley, L.

Chorley, L.

Kennet, L.

Segal, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Greenway, L.

Molson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.13 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in paragraph 4, to add to subparagraph (3):
"and in making appointments the Minister shall have regard to the importance of ensuring that each such joint board, joint advisory committee, planning committee or sub-committee of a planning committee, as the case may be, shall include persons with practical experience of agriculture and forestry."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a different point, because the Amendment which we have just been discussing refers to appointments by a county council, whereas this one refers to appointments by the Minister. I am urging in this Amendment that, in exercising his right to appoint one-third of the members of these various bodies, the Minister shall have regard to the importance of ensuring that each body includes persons with practical experience of agriculture and forestry. Again, I have no doubt that this was part of the original idea of the 1949 Act; that is to say, that each of these bodies, whether a joint board, a joint advisory committee, a planning committee or a sub-committee of a planning committee, should include people with practical experience of agriculture and forestry.
I think we are all agreed, and have been agreed for twenty years, that the administration of the National Parks should not be such as to freeze the life of the Parks. The people who live in the Parks are just as important as the visitors, and a large proportion of the people who live in them are dependent for their living on agriculture or, to some extent, forestry. It has given me concern—it gave me concern when I was the responsible Minister—that among persons appointed by the county council to these various bodies, there did not always appear to be enough persons who were concerned in farming or the management of woodlands. As I said on the previous Amendment, it was the original concept that the Minister's nominees should be those who would supply the national element and ensure that on the appropriate Park board or committee national considerations relating to the whole idea of a
178
National Park were well represented. But as things have worked out, it has regrettably occurred that we have had some of these local bodies, with most important administrative responsibilities towards National Parks, which have not had included among their numbers a sufficient representation of agriculture and forestry—two occupations which are at the heart of the life of most of the National Parks.
One may well say, of course, that there are other interests which are important; that not everybody in a National Park lives by agriculture or forestry. But I venture to submit to the Committee that these are the main industries of the National Parks, in so far as they have industries at all, and I think it would be very regrettable if one continued to have any of these administrative bodies for the National Parks on which agriculture and forestry were unrepresented. It seems to me that it is time we laid down in a Statute, now that we have the opportunity of legislation, that each of these bodies, whether a joint board, a joint advisory committee, a planning committee or a sub-committee of a planning committee, should include persons with practical experience of agriculture and forestry. It is of course thoroughly desirable that the county council or county councils setting up the body should look after this themselves, but if in any instance they fail to do so then I suggest that Parliament should make it clear that it becomes a duty of the Minister to make good that defect and, in choosing his own appointees, to ensure that practical experience of agriculture and forestry is represented on the body concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD HENLEY: I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that agriculture and forestry together are the single most important thing, so far as industry goes, in the National Parks. Indeed, I think it would be almost inconceivable if some of the representatives on these joint bodies were not highly expert in agriculture and forestry. Nevertheless, I sometimes think that the interests of any particular subject like agriculture or forestry can be best served by people getting on to these bodies not

179
necessarily because they are experts in agriculture and forestry but because they are something else—because they are county councillors, or what you will— and that in the long run this is where the right kind of influence (and I am speaking now for the agricultural and forestry influence) can most effectively be applied.
I voted against the last Amendment because I thought that it was constricting; that if you try to make room on every kind of committee for every interest you end up by having a committee which is really not so good as it would be if you left it entirely open to put the right people on it. I take the same view here. Nobody can have been stronger in trying to argue, as it were, the lobby of the agriculture and forestry interests throughout this Bill than I have, to try to see that fair play is done within the context of this Bill, which in every other way I regard as an extremely good Bill. So I feel I am on fairly sure ground in saying that, because I have argued their interests effectively, I am in no sense running away from them here. I think that their influence would be better felt by not making it statutorily essential for them to be put on to these bodies, but to let them get on in their own way, and possibly in other directions, as it were.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think there can be a certain amount of misconception here. I think that there are people who have the interests of the National Parks at heart who feel that their natural enemy, so to speak, is the farmer or forester in the Park; that everything that he wants to do is to restrict the access of people to the Park and that he does not like people wandering over his fields. Of course, there must be always an element of this; but I would support the Amendment that it should be the duty of the Minister to see that there are sufficient expert agriculturists and foresters on the Committees, not because those are hostile to the purposes of the Park, but because it is only by having expert and skilled advice on the Parks that you can ensure that proper and sensible agriculture is done and undue restrictions are not brought about. The Park should be a vital living thing, not a museum. If it is to be more like
180
a zoo than a museum, if things are to be alive in it, you must have agriculturists and foresters on the Committees.
11.22 p.m.
LORD KENNET: Once again, the question is between statutory compulsion on the Minister to do this and on relying on the Minister to do it anyway— which he has said in Parliament that he will do, and I have repeated it here and will repeat it again. He will do it. I think the Committee should be swayed by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about this matter which I think put the issue better than I could have put it from the Government Benches. There are two fundamental objections to doing it in this way, two objections to putting a statutory duty on the Minister; and, of course, the objections do not apply to leaving the matter to be done by common sense and by the kind of balancing act which all Ministers are used to doing without statutory compulsion.
The objections which apply to putting this in the Bill are the following. First, forestry and agriculture, though infinitely important, are only one group of interests among several which are concerned with National Parks. If the Minister is bound to see to it that foresters and agriculturists get on the Committees, then we must logically write into the Bill provisions that will bind him also to see that the amenity people get on, that representatives of the users of the National Parks get on. I am not sure that we should not also see that those capable of protecting the scientific interests of the National Park areas get on. In other words, once you start telling a Minister that such and such a person must be there, you must go on to say that all relevant people must be there and that they are as follows.
The second reason against doing it this way is that throughout the history of these provisions successive Ministers have always set their faces against having delegates on these planning boards. The noble Lord may argue that he is not asking for delegates but only for people with experience. That is true. That is what his Amendment says. But let us think what will happen. We must imagine that the county council has not provided an agriculture or forestry person. Then the Amendment of the

181
noble Lord, Lord Brooke, comes into effect and the Minister is bound to remedy the defect. It is all there in the Statute. He must do it the proper way.
The first thing he does is to get his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to approach the National Farmers' Union for their suggestions about a suitable person. If he did not do that, the farmers might complain that they were not consulted on the exercise of his statutory duty to put an agricultural person on the board. He does that; and the N.F.U. comes up with the best man that they can. Now this man knows he is the candidate of the N.F.U. for the job. I think one is bound to admit that such a person will become a delegate for particular interests on the planning board.
Hitherto the practice has always been that the Minister's appointees have been chosen because of their merits as individuals and the contribution they could make to the running of the National Parks, and particularly because of their lack of local involvement and their ability to see national rather than local considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, may say that the persons with agricultural experience that he has in mind could well not be local people and not be bound by parochial considerations, but I think they would still feel themselves bound to act solely, or at least overridingly, with regard to the farming interests—that is what they would have been put there for—and we should be back with the delegate situation which successive Governments, I think rightly, have always avoided.
During the Second Reading debate I quoted, and it may be worth while to remind the Committee of it again, the letter sent by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the National Farmers' Union on January 31 this year. He said:
"It seems to me that the best course will be for me to give an assurance in the course of debates on the Bill that the Minister, in making appointments to the planning committees and Joint Planning Boards should bear in mind the need to redress any imbalance there may be, having regard to the known qualifications and interests of the elected members."
That assurance I gave in similar terms on Second Reading and I repeat it now. The Committee may care to be reminded that an Amendment in rather similar
182
terms was tabled by Mr. Rippon in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons and was withdrawn in the light of the assurance which I have just repeated here. All this being so, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, may agree to withdraw his Amendment. The effect will be achieved by the terms under the assurance I have given that the Minister will redress any imbalance which appears from among the elected representatives.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for what he has said, and I am sure that my noble friends will be also. With respect to him I think that his first counter argument was more convincing than his second. There is, of course, a difference between the situation under this Amendment and the situation under the previous one. In the previous Amendment we were seeking to ensure that the county councils concerned did something, and it was because of my fear that all the county councils might not take notice of the communication they received from the Minister—and they would be within their rights not to do so—that 1 supported the Amendment so as to write something definite into the Bill. Here it is a question of action by the Minister. Naturally, I accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said about the Minister being pledged, by one means or another to secure the result which I, by this Amendment, would have sought to move into the Bill. I accept what he has said; I have no doubt that that promise is given in full sincerity; and therefore I feel that it would be right to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in the proposed repeals to The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, to insert:
"In section 8(2) the proviso.
In section 8(3) the words "or while a direction under the proviso to the last foregoing subsection is in force as respects any such authority".
Section 8(4)."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move to insert the words in the Amendment The

183
effect of the Amendment is to insert them in the list of provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 which are repealed under this measure. It was always the intention that in the case of National Parks which cover part of more than one county it would be normal to have a joint board. In the original Act the Minister was given power to dispense with the formation of a joint planning board in a multi-county National Park, leaving the constituent parts of the Park to be planned and administered separately by several county councils, with a joint advisory committee as the only unifying factor.
In the Peak District and Lake District National Parks joint boards have been established, and I think that it would be generally agreed that they are the most satisfactorily administered of all the National Parks. In Snowdonia, where there are three counties; in the Yorkshire Dales, where there are two; in Exmoor, where there are two, and in the Brecon Beacons, where there are three, the Minister has used his power of dispensation. It was originally intended that this power of dispensation should be used only where there were special circumstances—that was, where a Park lay predominantly in one county and only a small part of it lay in another. In practice, it has been used by successive Ministers of Housing and Local Government in response to pressure from local authorities fearful that the administration of a National Park might prove too national for their comfort. It is the considered opinion of the Standing Committee of the C.P.R.E. on National Parks that in no case has greater efficiency resulted.
The present Government admitted in their White Paper on Leisure in the Countryside that the present state of affairs is unsatisfactory. In paragraph 13, they said:
"No immediate major change is proposed in the administrative arrangements within the National Parks."
And because of that sentence I am apprehensive that the Parliamentary Secretary may not welcome my Amendment. The paragraph goes on to say:
"The Government have, however, been impressed with the weight of opinion in favour of joint planning boards for those Parks which cover more than one county. They hope that
184
the planning authorities concerned will consider very carefully the possibility of the change. The Government will consider whether it will be desirable to exercise their power to revoke existing arrangements if further experience shows this to be required."
I voted against the provision for ensuring that representatives of district councils should be selected to serve upon these committees and boards. I believe that it is generally in the interests of the sound administration of the National Parks that these should be in the hands of people who take a broad view of their responsibilities. I believe that it is desirable that they should have a staff of their own and should not be unduly under the influence either of the local authorities or, still more, of the local ratepapers. I move this Amendment in order to deprive the Government of the power to grant continued exemption from the purpose of the Act of 1949 to have joint planning boards. If the Government are not prepared to go so far as to accept this Amendment, I should at any rate be glad to hear that they have given further thought to their own paragraph 13 in the White Paper and to bringing some pressure to bear to ensure that there are joint planning boards in all National Parks and not just the two I have mentioned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 12, column 3, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD KENNET: Once again, this Amendment seeks to remove a freedom of action from the Minister. I would remind the Committee that if we leave the law unchanged, the Minister is perfectly free to impose a joint board on any group of county councils which does not have one at present. He can direct it to be set up. The Amendment would simply force him to direct it to set up forthwith, whether his judgment was that it should be set up or should not be set up, and even whether his judgment was or was not that it was going to be set up anyhow without his having to use his powers to enforce its setting up.
My advice to the Committee is that we should not put this in the Bill—and I do not think the noble Lord is going to press the Amendment—because several things are coming forward from the Royal Commission on Local Government. We have already got the recommendations for Wales—and I know that

185
Wales will be uppermost in the minds of some noble Lords. We have the Report on Wales; this will be followed by a decision on English local government; and we want to get a bit of experience of the Countryside Bill itself in the National Parks. This matter— and by "this matter" I mean the desirability of the Minister's exercising his present powers to compel the setting up of a joint board—is under continuous review. The situation outlined in the White Paper is not really changed. If the Government had the power at that time to do so, they still have the power. No immediate major change is proposed in the administration, and the Government are considering now, as they were then, whether it would be desirable to exercise this power in this or that case.
Having said that, I should say that I think the establishment of some objective criteria of efficiency in National Park planning boards, and in single county National Parks, too, by which the performance of different boards could be judged would be an interesting exercise. When the criteria had been established the performance of different boards could be tested against them and a body of opinion might develop which would enable the counties themselves which adhered to their independence to modify their views, if they so wished, about what ought to be done.
LORD MOLSON: In view of the "unsatisfactory" nature of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Duty to maintain stiles, etc., on footpaths and bridleways
25.—(1) Any stile, gate or other similar structure across a footpath or bridleway shall be maintained by the owner of the land in a safe condition, and to the standard of repair required to prevent unreasonable interference with the rights of the persons using the footpath or bridleway.
(4) The highway authority shall, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) above, contribute not less than one quarter of any expenses shown to their satisfaction to have been reasonably incurred.
11.38 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (3), after "contributions" to insert:
"of such amount in each case as they shall, having regard to all the circumstances, consider reasonable".
The noble Lord said: We now revert to the postponed Clause 25, and I am grateful to the Government for having moved to postpone it so that I could be present to deal with these Amendments. This clause, as the Committee will remember, concerns the duty placed on the owner of the land to maintain stiles and gates on footpaths and bridle-ways. The point at issue here is the amount of contribution that the highway authority shall make towards the cost of that maintenance. Subsection (3) of Clause 25 says:
"The highway authority shall have power to make contributions towards expenses incurred in compliance with subsection (1) above",
And subsection (4) says that the highway authority's contribution shall be not less than one-quarter of any expenses shown to their satisfaction to have been reasonably incurred. This matter was debated at some length on the Report stage in another place, and the Minister of State, speaking for the Government, said at column 1173, on the 9th April:
"If hon. Members think it would be helpful, I would be prepared to consider introducing in another place a wording … that the authority shall make such contribution as in all the circumstances appears to be reasonable, or words to that effect, and then provide for a minimum contribution of 25 per cent."
The Government did not put down an Amendment that required the highway authority to make a contribution of such amount as they shall consider reasonable, and therefore I tabled this Amendment. It seemed to me necessary that the Bill should contain a definite indication to the highway authority that this is intended to be a flexible provision as regards their contribution, and that the 25 per cent, minimum is not to be in fact a fixed figure. Unless we make some Amendment of this sort in the Bill I can hardly see how any owner who was dissatisfied with receiving the minimum of 25 per cent, would have any ground on which he could challenge the highway authority's decision. All he could do would be to point to what the Minister

187
of State had said in the House of Commons, which of course is not part of the law.
The matter was further debated on that occasion, and the Minister of State finally (in column 1186) advised the House to accept a Government Amendment that was tabled, and to reject an Opposition Amendment to the Government Amendment. Then he went on:
"If that is done, there is my undertaking to move in another place an Amendment to amend the wording of subsection (3) in the words I have indicated."
All I am doing now is to put down the Amendment which I understood that the Government had already promised to table here. I can perhaps facilitate proceedings by saying that if the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, either in this particular wording or at any rate in principle, I will then shorten the proceedings by not moving the subsequent Amendment which is designed to raise the minimum from one quarter to one half. I can see that if the second Amendment were carried it might be open to challenge as an infringement of Commons' Privilege. But I cannot think there is any such objection to this first Amendment of mine, which appears to me to be carrying out an undertaking given by the Government; and it is in that friendly spirit that I move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 29, after ("contributions") insert the said words.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: It may shorten the debate if I say instantly in the same friendly spirit that I accept this Amendment.
LORD BARNBY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having agreed that we should, to use his own phrase, "leapfrog" this clause, because I was anxious to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was going to say about it. The Minister has certainly been patient and forthcoming in his definitions throughout the course of the Bill, but I am just going to encroach once more on his patience and ask him in regard to this clause, which I should have—
LORD KENNET: I wonder whether the noble Lord heard what I said. I am
188
recommending the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD BARNBY: I thought we were dealing with the Motion, That the clause shall be agreed to? I beg your Lordships' pardon.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 25, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
11.45 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: This clause, together with Clause 24, seems to impose requirements which involve some expenditure by the owners of the land. I refer particularly to Clause 25(1). As this seems to be in similar strain to the clause on signposts, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is to be understood that this land also includes commons, because those of us who have made a particular study of commons realise that this can put considerable obligations on the owners. So often commons are immediately contiguous to towns, and therefore there is need for indications as to the paths and where they lead. If signposts are put up by the owner of the land, as is suggested here, and they are continually pulled down, is it to be understood that some of the cost of replacing them can be recouped under this clause? And as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has expressed the belief that the authority's contribution ought to be one half and not one quarter, is it to be understood that this includes common land as well as any other land?
LORD RAGLAN: I am sorry that my noble friend so readily accepted the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, because I am opposed in principle to Clause 25(1), where it says that the footpath or bridleway
"shall be maintained by the owner of the land in a safe condition".
I know that in opposing this principle I shall lay myself open to being called merely a reactionary land owner, but I do not mind being accused of that when it is my belief that my reasons for opposing it are both logical and fair.
I believe there is some misapprehension about the reasons for which most footpaths came into being. The vast majority were not created by the general

189
public. They were used by people who lived and worked in the locality, and some of them were access paths to fields or to wells. Others were used by the local population for all sorts of other business, such as going to their work or to the "pub" (I include going to the "pub" as business) and, most importantly, many footpaths came into being at a time when it was legally compulsory to go to church.
I am sorry to make a speech at such a late hour, but I think it is an important point. I have a farm where there was once a Quaker meeting house, and the 1921 ordnance survey map shows no fewer than nine footpaths going to this house. As my noble friend Lord Chorley mentioned, under the 1949 Act a great many of these footpaths were abolished, but the ones which are left, certainly in the area around my farm, follow exactly the same lines as the paths laid down centuries ago. They are of course the same paths, but now they are to be used, kept open and maintained for an entirely different purpose from that for which they originally came into existence. They are not to be used by and maintained for local people going on their business. They are for the public in general and for tourists in particular. They are no longer just local footpaths but public highways, and under this Bill the landowner would be required to maintain part of a public highway. If he did not maintain it he would be required to be charged quite a considerable part—we do not know how much—of the cost.
As a dweller in some very lovely countryside, I welcome ramblers, and I am glad townspeople and strangers can look at it and get pleasure from it. But I and all other landowners will be placed in this position. The Bill is saying, in effect: "You will open your house to tourists. You may not charge a fee, but you must keep the carpet clean, and if you do not keep it clean and in good condition we will have it cleaned and mended and charge you part of the cost."
I must emphasise the difference between maintaining a path and stiles for the convenience of the local inhabitants and keeping them for general tourists. For one thing, I feel—perhaps I should not—much more of an obligation to the
190
local inhabitants than I feel for tourists; and for another thing the regular user of a footpath knows its weaknesses and dangers and looks to them, and perhaps does something about them from time to time. But under this clause, so far as I understand it, a hiker strolling along the road with a pack on his back and a map in his hand can demand the proper upkeep of some footpath which he has never seen before and which he may never use again. He is even less likely to want to use the footpath again if, under the combined weight of his sturdy body and a 75 lb. pack, the stile breaks and he breaks his leg. The landowner is liable, and it is a very unfortunate situation for him to be in. I do not think he should be liable.
I suggest to your Lordships that a footpath is a public highway or it is not a public highway. I have several stretches of public highways on my land used by public vehicles. In law and in theory I own the land underneath, the tarmac, but I am not responsible for the upkeep of it, and nobody expects me to be. I see no reason in principle, in fairness or in moral obligation, why a landowner should be expected to maintain a public highway because it is called a footpath. The owner or occupier is merely being turned into a kind of charity for the benefit of the Ramblers Association and others like them. In my opinion, if the general public wish to use footpaths they should be prepared to pay entirely for their upkeep. As your Lordships know, the occupier is already at a disadvantage in that he cannot put a bull in a field or plough up the path. No occupier likes footpaths, and now it is intended to impose this additional statutory burden.
I am sure that the Government have had weighty advice from various bodies on this matter. I do not know whether it has occurred to any of them what an unfair imposition is now proposed. I am sure that there should be some radical look at the whole matter. If my noble friend replies to what I have said I shall read very carefully what he says, but I believe that in the end we should come round to the principle that the entire onus for the upkeep of public footpaths should be on the public who use them.
LORD HENLEY: I have one question to ask the noble Lord on the clause. There was an undertaking in another place that the responsibility for public rights of way would be transferred to the local planning authority. Has this been lost sight of?
11.55 p.m.
LORD KENNET: TO take the questions in turn, as far as I can remember at this time of night the answer to Lord Barnby is Yes, Clauses 24 and 25 do apply to commons. They apply only to footpaths and bridleways, but they apply to footpaths and bridleways whether they cross common land or private land. I should perhaps say a word about the general outline of Clause 25. It does something new in putting the duty on the landowner to keep up his stile or gate. We should not lose sight of the fact that the landowner presumably has a stile or a gate there in the first place because there is something on one side of it that he wants to prevent going to the other side—cattle, usually.
LORD RAGLAN: Tourists.
LORD KENNET: Tourists are another point. Cattle, I would say, or sheep. The noble Lord is complaining that this is a duty laid on the owner to keep up his stile or gate. This suggests that he thinks that in certain cases the landowner may wish to ignore that duty of keeping up the stile or gate, and to keep on doing as he was doing before; namely, allowing the stile or gate to decay. Because he is not worried about his stile decaying, therefore he is, by definition, not worried about whether what is on the one side of it moves over to the other side. In those circum stances he would be better advised to remove his stile, when he would no longer have any liability to keep it up. Beyond that what this clause does—
LORD RAGLAN: May I ask my noble friend further upon this issue: Is not the landlord obliged to put the stile there if a footpath is shown on the map? I do not know the law on this matter; perhaps my noble friend does.
LORD KENNET: No; he can leave a gap there if he wishes. He is obliged to put a stile there only if there is what would otherwise be an impassable fence
192
there. He is then obliged to put a stile there so as to allow the tourist to get over.
To turn to the subject of the liability of the landowner, this question is one which I had hoped to be in a position to answer, but I regret to tell the noble Lord that I cannot at this moment. I will write to him, or perhaps he can raise it again on Report. The main point of this provision is the institution of grants, because one must expect that the Countryside Bill will increase the number of people using footpaths and that will increase the wear and tear on the stiles and gates which are there and which the landowner wants to keep up for his own reasons—perhaps because he has cattle or sheep in the field. To meet that, the provision is that there shall be a minimum grant of 25 per cent, as of right. All the landowner has to do is to ask for it. If he has a stile on a footpath or right of way he asks for his 25 per cent, on all his repair costs and he gets it. Because of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, which has just been carried, the local authority will be bound to go further than that if, in its judgment, it is reasonable to do so. Thus, the 25 per cent, is not a standard rate or indeed the maximum rate but it is positively the minimum rate. That being so, I think there is a balance of new obligations laid on the local authority by the clause.
On Question, Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
11.59 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in line 4, after "for" to insert
"the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and for".
The noble Lord said: I do not think there should be any difficulty about this Amendment. On the first day of the Committee stage the insertion of similar words in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill was carried against the Government, making that subsection read:
"The functions conferred by this Act on the said Commission… are to be exercised for the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty".
Since that is now the first of the general functions of the Commission, it is only natural to include similar words in the

193
Title to the Bill. I am confident that at this late hour of the night the Parliamentary Secretary will not want to resist this Amendment, which is really entirely consequential on a decision which has already been taken. I hope, therefore, that he will be prepared, with a gracious demeanour, to accept it.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 4, after the word ("for") insert (" the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and for").
LORD KENNET: Accept it I will, but I cannot promise a gracious demeanour because it is not quite clear to me at this time of night how far this is consequential on a decision which was carried against the Government's advice. I do not want to end on a sour note, but I would just point out that I do not know what they will want to do about this in another place. However, I accept the noble Lord's arguments that this Amendment hangs together with the other one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS BILL [H.L.]
12.2 a.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Organisations of which United Kingdom is a member]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: At this witching hour—the very witching hour—I am not going to delay your Lordships more than a moment. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for answering most of the points which I raised during the debate on Second Reading, but I should like to
194
raise again one general point with which I think the noble Lord did not deal very fully, and that is the question of reciprocity. Referring to the granting of these privileges, he said in his opening speech:
"It is difficult to rest this on a basis of reciprocity since reciprocity will occur between the host Government and the organisation, but in practice there are many organisations which are operating in many other countries and we may well be a member of those organisations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29/4/68, col. 933.]
But the point, as I see it, really is this: Will these organisations have the same privileges in practice when operating in other countries as they do in Britain? Presumably the 1961 and 1963 Vienna Conventions laid down a certain scale of immunities which the countries who signed these Conventions observe.
Does this Bill give additional—and I underline the word "additional"— privileges and immunities which are not included in these Conventions?. If so, how can we be sure that other countries will accord similar immunities to international organisations that we do? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clear up this point.
It so happens that over the weekend I was speaking to a friend who had recently returned from our Embassy in Moscow, and he was complaining that in certain matters there was no reciprocity between our two countries. He said, for example, that members of the Soviet Embassy in London were able to drive to their country place at Hawkhurst quite freely, whereas members of our Embassy in Moscow were not given similar freedom. I wonder whether the same practical lack of reciprocity would apply as between the headquarters of an international organisation situated in Moscow and those of an organisation in this country. No doubt the accepted ground rules are much the same in our respective countries, but in practice certain diplomats from other countries seem to have greater freedom in this country than ours do in theirs I do not doubt that this is so, and I should particularly like to make the point, that, in the main, it may be in our true interests to give more than we receive in this respect. Even so we should watch this situation carefully, but I hope that in the long run certain

195
other countries will reciprocate fully by respecting not only the letter of international agreements but their spirit. I hope that the noble Lord may be able to say something on this point.
LORD SHEPHERD: The instance given by the noble Earl was in relation to diplomatic immunities and privileges. Here we are dealing with a different aspect; that is to say, with organisations which may have their headquarters or place of meeting in this country.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: But the same principle applies.
LORD SHEPHERD: In practice, certainly among European countries, we fall behind what is granted by others. One of the purposes of this Bill is to be able to match them in the privileges and immunities which are granted to the type of organisations covered by this Bill. As the noble Earl is aware, no grant of immunities or privileges beyond Schedule 1 can be made, and in any case all the immunities and privileges must receive Parliamentary consent. Therefore, we shall have the opportunity to look at each and every one as it is presented to Parliament.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Commission of the European Communities]:
LORD SHEPHERD: Amendment No. 1 seeks to bring Clause 3 into line with Clause 2, by making it possible to confer on families of senior staff of delegations from the Commission of the European Communities the customs privileges which may be conferred on the senior staff themselves. A similar provision is contained in Clause 2(3) in regard to senior staff members of Specialised Agencies of the United Nations with their headquarters in the United Kingdom. It is intended that the privileges given to senior staff of the Commission and to Specialised Agencies situated in the United Kingdom should, so far as possible, correspond. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, at end insert:
("and, where the exemptions, privileges and reliefs referred to in paragraph (b) of this
196
subsection are so conferred on any such officers, Her Majesty may by the same or any other Order in Council confer the like exemptions, privileges and reliefs on persons who are members of he families of those officers and form part of their households".)—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: We accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Consequential amendments, repeals and transitional provisions]:
LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is consequential upon the passing of the Consular Relations Act 1968. Since this Bill is intended to replace the 1950 Act, it is necessary to insert a reference to it in the Consular Relations Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
("() In the Consular Relations Act 196S, at the end of section 1(3) there shall be inserted the words "or the International Organisations Act 1968"")—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is of a drafting nature. Its purpose is to make sure that the terms of the Bill give effect to its intention. I beg to move;
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, at end insert—
("and, while any such Order in Council continues to have effect in relation to an organisation,—

(a) the enactment in question shall continue to have effect in relation to that organisation as if that enactment had not been repealed, and

(b) section 8 of this Act shall have effect as if in that section any reference to this Act or an Order in Council made there-under included a reference to that enactment or that Order in Council ")—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Privileges and immunities]:
LORD SHEPHERD: With the permission of the House I shall move Amendment No. 4, but will speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. These are purely drafting Amendments. The present drafting suggests that the domestic servant of a representative could receive exemption from income tax in

197
respect of his employment only to the extent that the representative himself was entitled to exemption from income tax in respect of the employment of his domestic servant. The revised drafting removes this incorrect implication. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 16, at end insert ("and")—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, leave out lines 17 and 18.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 21, at end insert "and shall be entitled to exemption from taxes on his amoluments in respect of that employment to the like extent as, by virtue of the relevant Order, that representative is entitled to exemption from taxes on his emoluments as a representative ".—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.12 a.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after paragraph 23, to insert:
"() Persons who are members of the family and form part of the household of such a member of the official staff as is mentioned in paragraph 20 of this Schedule shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities set out in Part II of this Schedule to the like extent as, by virtue of that paragraph, that member of the official staff is entitled to them.
() Persons who are members of the family and form part of the household of such a member of the official staff as is mentioned in paragraph 21 of this Schedule shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities set out in paragraphs 9 and 13 of this Schedule to the like extent as, by virtue of paragraph 21 of this Schedule, that member of the official staff is entitled to them."
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 23 of Schedule 1 already provides for immunities and privileges to be conferred, if required by the terms of the relevant international agreement, on members of the families of representatives to international organisations. This Amendment extends the provisions of paragraph 23 to cover the families of members of the official staff of such representatives. Under the relevant international agreements, permanent representatives of Governments to international organisa-
198
tions, such as our noble friend Lord Caradon in New York, and their official staffs are treated like members of a diplomatic mission. By an extension of the same principle, the members of their families may also be treated like members of diplomatic families.
At present there are no families entitled to this treatment in the United Kingdom, but the proposed provision may be required in the future to enable us to accord to the families of permanent representatives to international organisations in this country similar treatment to that which the families of our permanent representatives to international organisations in other countries are given. In this special event we should not want to introduce special legislation for this purpose. It is not our intention to take action, but we felt it right to have this provision in the Bill so that we shall not have to come to Parliament for authority to do so if the need arises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 34, at end insert the said subparagraphs.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Of course we agree to the Amendments which the noble Lord has proposed and which we have adopted. But there is one point which I must raise on the Question, That Schedule 1, as amended, stand part, and that is the social security aspect. The Explanatory Memorandum, when dealing with Schedule 1, states that there will be exemption from social security obligations, and this is expanded in paragraph 13 of the Schedule 1 on page 11. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether this means that the National Health Service is available to members of missions in this country, without their having to pay National Insurance stamp contributions. I fully understand why they should have a limited exemption from estate duty, but surely if they are to have the benefit of our National Health Service they should pay for it. I do not know whether the noble Lord will answer me on this point.
I should also like to say in regard to Schedule 1, that I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having written to me

199
in regard to the word "family" in paragraph 23(2), which we discussed on Second Reading. Although, as he said in his reply to me, it may seem a little confusing, it is in my view entirely satisfactory. I see that in his letter to me he states that in the Schedule to the Act of 1950 the term used was "wife or husband and children under the age of 21", and that the reasons for proposing a change are that the 1961 Vienna Convention introduced the concept of members of the family who form part of the household. I gather that this term has not been defined in International Law or in domestic law, but that in our administrative practice—and I accept this—it is regarded as including the spouse and minor children resident with the entitled children, but may also include other persons in special circumstances—for example, a dependent parent or a sister managing the household for an unmarried officer. I fully understand, however, that under our administrative practice each claim to privilege will be considered on its merits, and therefore I am glad to accept the noble Lord's assurance on that point.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am grateful to the noble Earl, who has accepted the position in regard to families. I confirm that persons who are covered by this Bill and the orders that may be made under it, who are exempt from liability to make contributions under the National Insurance Act, are also exempt from the liability to pay National Health Service contributions. It is true that these persons, particularly the representatives and high officers who are entitled to diplomatic treatment, and the staff of organisations having establishments in the United Kingdom, will be exempt, but will have the facilities provided by our National Health Service. I believe that to make an exception would mean considerable administrative difficulty in dealing with a relatively few people. On the other hand, of course, there are certain countries, in the Commonwealth, in particular, and also in Europe, where they do not have a Health Service like ours but where some kind of reciprocal treatment is provided. As the noble Earl will know, if he is travelling abroad and falls sick there is some reciprocal treatment.
200
I think that at this present moment of time the numbers are so small and the administrative difficulties so out of all proportion that it is right we should still let them receive treatment provided by our National Health Service, but that by this Bill they should be relieved of all liability under the two Acts concerned. This is a matter which could be looked at in the future, but at the moment I understand the administrative difficulties are such that it would be far better to leave it as it is.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: The only point I wanted to suggest was that the Government of the country concerned might pay these charges.
LORD SHEPHERD: It may well be that this could at some time be permitted, but in many cases, of course, as the noble Earl knows, there are arrangements for reciprocal treatment for our people in these countries, as there is for their people in ours. But I will certainly look at it.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

  PENALTIES FOR ASSAULTS ON POLICE
  PENALTIES FOR ASSAULTS ON POLICE