Sitting of 3 April 1973

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
DERBY FRIAR GATE CHAPEL BILL [Lords]
MERCANTILE CREDIT BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time and committed.

PETITION

  Family Allowances and Child Tax Credits
  Mrs. Castle: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition about family allowances and the tax credit scheme on behalf of the Married Women's Association and the women's organisation of the Labour Party, signed by 300,000 women and men of this country. May I add that the signatures would have been over a million if a number of people had not been misled by the Chancellor's reference to this matter in his Budget speech.
  The petition sheweth.
  That grave hardship would be done to the welfare of children and families if the family allowance or child tax credit which may supplant it under the Government's proposals, outlined in their Green Paper, were not paid directly to the mother in respect of all children.
  The petition therefore goes further than the assurances so far given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and seeks the support of this House in urging that
  Any family allowance or tax credit in lieu of that allowance which may be introduced in respect of any child in the family, including the first, shall be paid directly to the mother and that such payments shall continue to be universal with none of the exclusions proposed in the Green Paper.
  The petition concludes:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urges Her Majesty's Govern-
  202
  ment to retain in the event of any reorganisation of the tax credit system relative to family allowance arrangements whereby family allowances or child tax credits are paid directly to the mother.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Health Education Officers
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of health education officers employed by local authorities; and what is the number of local authorities employing them as a percentage of those local authorities empowered to appoint such officers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): About 200 full-time health education officers are employed by 60 per cent. of the local health authorities in England and Wales. The numbers of staff engaged part-time on health education are not available centrally.
    Mr. Dormand: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been insufficient improvement in those figures in recent years? Ought not the Government to be pressing local authorities until they have all appointed such officers? Has not the time arrived for a massive and continuing campaign by the Government and local authorities to show people that positive preventive health care is better than cure? Would not the Minister further agree that such a policy would in the long run save money quite apart from bringing much benefit to many thousands of people?
    Mr. Alison: We share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the preventive potential of health education. The increase in the number of local authorities employing these officers has not been quite as poor as the hon. Gentleman suggests. For instance, in 1966 there were only 67 whereas in the current year there are 108. This is a substantial increase. In the past year there was an

    203
    increase of 10. Many other members of the health team in local authorities undertake part-time health education.
    Mr. Ashley: If the Minister is prepared to disclose information on this aspect of the social services, why is he refusing to disclose information on the wider aspect of the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act by local authorities, particularly in view of the recent report which shows a disgraceful failure by many local authorities to implement that Act?
    Mr. Alison: That is another question. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are awaiting returns on some aspects of the implementation of that Act.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), may I ask whether the Minister is aware that this is a deeply important matter? Has he seen the disquieting report by the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases? Is it not utterly disgraceful that there are five counties with a population of 8 million which spend less on holidays for the disabled than one London borough? Is he further aware that the report shows that some local authorities provide 25 times as many telephones for the housebound disabled per 100,000 of the population as some other authorities? Is it not time we had full information about what local authorities are providing in the social services field?
    Mr. Alison: It may be easier to improve uniformity of standards when the health services are centrally administered by the reorganised National Health Service.

    Widowed Mothers (Benefit Disregards)
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many widowed mothers are currently subject to a limitation of supplementary benefit as a result of their children taking employment outside school hours.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): The most recent information is at November 1971 when a sample inquiry showed that there were of the order of 150 such cases.
    Mr. Booth: Does the Minister agree that the number may be much larger now than it was when that sample survey was made? Is it his intention that boys who do paper rounds before going to school should have to contribute towards the maintenance of their widowed mothers? Will he undertake to review the limits placed upon the earnings of schoolchildren in the payment of supplementary benefit to the mothers?
    Mr. Dean: I will, of course, consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the widowed mother's allowance, which is the main allowance involved, is not affected by any earnings there may be. As regards supplementary benefit, the widow can earn £2 and have it entirely disregarded, and £1 for a child under 16 and £2 for a child over 16 can also be disregarded. Therefore, in addition to the main allowance, which is entirely disregarded, there is also a disregard of earnings which goes some way to meet the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

    Family Allowances
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider amending the Family Allowance Act to permit continuing payment of family allowance for a limited period in respect of children who have been sent to a List "D" school or other establishment from a children's hearing.
    Mr. Dean: No, Sir. A child who is sent to a List "D" school or otherwise committed to care is legally removed from parental control. This is the natural point at which to stop counting the child in the family for allowances purposes.
    Mr. Ewing: Does not the Minister agree that this is a punitive measure? When the Act was introduced, was not the emphasis to be placed on treatment rather than punishment, and on what grounds does the Minister justify continuing the punishment aspect? Will he say why, when the eldest child of a family of two, three or more children gets into trouble, the family allowance is stopped for other children further down the age list on the basis that the eldest child is the qualifying child for family allowances for the other children?
    Mr. Dean: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, nor that this

    205
    measure is punitive. Family allowances are available to help families with the cost of bringing up their children. In these cases that cost has been entirely removed from the parents.

    Abortion
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations have been made to him following the publication of the results of recent research which indicate that mothers who have had a previous abortion are more likely to have a stillborn, premature or defective child; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): None, Sir. But I am glad that the Lane Committee will be considering this matter.
    Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the evidence so far produced shows that of children born to mothers who have had one abortion, about 200 are seriously handicapped, about 2,000 are likely to have mild defects and about 1,000 are stillbirths, and that it is estimated that between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. of women who have had an abortion are likely to be sterile? In view of all this evidence, is it not time that my right hon. Friend reviewed the operation of the Abortion Act to make sure that abortions are limited to cases of medical necessity and are not resorted to merely to save social embarrassment?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have a great respect for the two authors of the report to which my hon. Friend refers, but they are non-medical and there are possible shortcomings in the evidence and conclusions which make it unwise to depend entirely upon them. But there is a need for further research, and I am glad that the Lane Committee will be considering the views of the Wynns and will, I hope, be making its report to the House later this year.
    Mr. William Price: Has the Minister any idea how long the Lane Committee is likely to take?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I have just said that I hope the report will be available later this year.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that, what-
    206
    ever the report says, the consequences of abortion have been tragic. Will he concentrate his thoughts on further advice on family planning which has an important bearing on this matter?
    Sir K. Joseph: It was because the Government were so concerned about some aspects of abortion that the Lane Committee was set up. We eagerly await its advice.

    War Widows' Pensions
    Mr. John Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will award war widows' pensions to all those whose ex-Service husbands died before 3rd September 1939.
    Mr. Dean: War widows' pensions are awarded by my Department only in cases where the husband's death was due to or hastened by service before 30th September 1921 or after 2nd September 1939. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for claims arising out of service during the intervening period.
    Mr. Hannam: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is a small and dwindling group of widows of ex-Service men of the First World War who married after their husbands were discharged from the forces and subsequently remarried after their first husband's death and are not eligible for a war widow's pension? I refer particularly to the case of Mrs. Williams, whose husband was a soldier in the First World War and was killed in action. Mrs. Williams remarried another ex-soldier who subsequently died of injuries received in the First World War and she has not received a pension. Will my hon. Friend give this kind of case particular consideration?
    Mr. Dean: I remember the case which my hon. Friend has put to me. The difficulty when one makes improvements is how retrospective they can be because of the difficulty of making the assessment. I take the spirit of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the Minister prepared to contact the Royal British Legion, which could provide him with interesting data on this and related questions to help him to assess the situation?
    Mr. Dean: I am glad to pay tribute to the Royal British Legion for the invaluable help it gives my Department in administering the war pensions scheme and trying to improve it.

    Hearing Aids
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now provide behind-the-ear aids for all deaf people who can benefit from them.
    Mr. Alison: No, Sir. We have not yet completed our consideration of the many relevant issues.
    Mr. AshleyWould the Minister care either to get on with the trick or change his line of patter? When I asked a similar Question in February 1972, more than a year ago, he said that he was actively considering. In March he was seriously considering. In May he was expediting his study. In July he was looking into it. In August he said that there was no unnecessary delay. In December he was still looking into it. Today he says that he has not yet completed his study. Would it not be a good idea for the Minister, instead of parroting phrases, to give proper consideration to deaf people who cannot afford to buy expensive hearing aids?
    Mr. Alison: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraged by the appearance of the word "completion" in this saga. We are moving steadily towards completion. The hon. Gentleman will be amongst those who appreciate the need to integrate carefully questions of appliances with clinical treatment involving medical and para-medical personnel. It is better to hasten slowly towards a fully effective conclusion.
    Mr. John Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the behind-the-ear hearing aids which are the subject of the Question have been in existence for many years? Is it not difficult to understand why it should take his Department so long to investigate this problem? As the studies are now nearing completion, will he say that he will give his conclusions to the House within the next two or three months?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend may not realise that the problem is not one of appreciating the refinements of either the
    208
    Medresco aids which are currently supplied or the commercial head-worn aids that are now on the market. It is the more complex question of changing over from one form of hearing aid to another in the National Health Service in the context of a full clinical assessment of needs and the full range of audiological support that such an operation entails.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his Department started this inquiry in 1966 and that he has had his interdepartmental report on hearing research since April 1972? Does it not emerge from the moving account of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) which appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday that anyone who has suffered damage to his hearing mechanism is concerned not only with the cosmetic aspect but with psychological and other problems? If the 2¼ million deaf people, half of whom do not yet have hearing aids, are to benefit from behind-the-ear aids, the Minister must move far more quickly.
    Mr. Alison: I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, while the cosmetic aspect is an important element and indeed has a psychological factor to contribute, we must not underrate the success and the value of the Medresco aids to those who use them.

    Pensioners' Homes (Insulation)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress he has made in his discussions with local authorities and voluntary bodies about the need to insulate the homes of retirement pensioners to prevent heating loss.
    Sir K. Joseph: A joint circular was issued to local authorities and a number of voluntary bodies in August last year by my Department and the Department of the Environment suggesting steps which could be taken to improve living conditions of elderly people, including draught exclusion and better insulation.
    Mrs. Castle: What is the good of a circular? When will the Government take action and publish a detailed report showing what action has been taken? Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the importance of

    209
    insulation was a gimmick to avoid paying an adequate heating allowance? Is he not aware that, unless the wind is whistling through the walls, the maximum an old-age pensioner can get in heating allowance is 90p a week? Will he confirm or deny that the number of pensioners currently receiving this allowance is between 2,000 and 3,000 out of 2 million-odd pensioners on supplementary benefit?
    Sir K. Joseph: My reference to insulation was not a gimmick, nor was it meant to distract attention from the additional money which the Government are now proposing to make available from 1st October by way of heating additions because we are removing the offset of the long-term addition. Insulation remains a matter of crucial importance and the Government hope that local authorities and voluntary bodies will more and more—although this cannot happen overnight—improve the insulation of some dwellings of the elderly which desperately need it.
    Mr. Crouch: Since my right hon. Friend has underlined the importance of insulation, would it not be of great assistance if the Secretary of State for the Environment did all he could to raise building standards and thus to improve insulation for these pensioners?
    Sir K. Joseph: The real task lies in the improvement of existing buildings rather than of new buildings. It is the existing buildings that need insulation and the process is often relatively cheap —the sort of insulation which a man about the house can supply but which elderly spinsters or widows cannot supply for themselves. This is why the churches and voluntary bodies, working in the neighbourhood and in co-operation with local authorities, can do a power of good.
    Mr. John Silkin: The Secretary of State has forgotten the last part of the supplementary question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Will he please confirm or deny that the number of elderly pensioners who receive the maximum heating allowance of 90p a week is between 2,000 and 3,000?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have not precise figures because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I suspect that the figure may
    210
    be of that order. The right hon. Lady did not table that precise question. There is a heating component in the supplementary benefit allowance and the extra is an addition. That extra will be paid without offset in terms of the long-term addition from 1st October and from that date about 400,000 supplementary pensioners will get benefit by way of an additional allowance.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, until such time as the proposals for the intermediate treatment of young offenders laid down in the Children and Young Offenders Act 1969 come into effect, he will consider making funds available for a wider use by supervising officers of courses at outdoor pursuit centres provided by voluntary organisations.
    Sir K. Joseph: Local authorities already have powers which could be used to make grants for this purpose.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend see any limit to the resources which are available for this facility? Is this matter given encouragement by his Department or is it left entirely to local authorities?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is certainly a limit because of all the tasks which local authorities have to face, but as the intermediate treatment plans are brought into finality by the regional planning committees and as they receive my approval— which I hope will be during this year— in most cases the opportunity for intermediate treatment and the budgets locally allotted for the purpose should increase in each region.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authority resources are largely taken up by social work departments in replacing family allowances which his Department takes away from the children when they are committed?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that is absolute rubbish. But if the hon. Gentleman wishes to table a Question I shall, so far as I am able to gather the information without disproportionate effort, seek to look into it.

    Alcoholism (Treatment)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will initiate a comparative study of the success ratios of different methods of treatment for alcoholism; and if he will publish his findings.
    Sir K. Joseph: The Addiction Research Unit of the Institute of Psychiatry has been conducting research into the success ratios of different methods of treatment of alcoholism and its findings are expected to be published in due course.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the method of treatment used, after-care of the patient is particularly important? Is he satisfied that sufficient help goes to organisations which are able to offer this sort of service?
    Sir K. Joseph: Sufficient, no—but much increased, yes. The Government set aside £2 million in the autumn of 1970, out of which a great increase is now being provided in the number of treatment beds within the National Health Service and from which there are extra grants for advice centres and hostels supplied by voluntary bodies. I pay tribute to those voluntary bodies which take on this work, because it is important to give help to those who need it as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that public money is being spent on research into the problem of alcoholism? Can he say whether the brewers have indicated their willingness to contribute to research into this subject?
    Sir K. Joseph: The £2 million to which I have referred relates to increased services to alcoholics within the National Health Service and the voluntary sector. The Government also provide from public funds money for research, and there is a fund run by a sub-unit of the Medical Research Council which receives some support from the brewing industry. I cannot say how much support is given since that is not my responsibility.

    Pneumoconiosis Claims
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many
    212
    decisions the commissioner reversed in favour of claimants for industrial injury benefit arising out of claims for pneumoconiosis in 1972 and to the nearest available date in 1973.
    Mr. Dean: The statistics do not show pneumoconiosis cases separately, but for the year ended 31st December 1972 the commissioner dealt with 589 industrial injuries questions, of which 187 were decided in the claimant's favour. Subsequent figures are not yet available.
    Mr. Eadie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does that answer to some extent substantiate the feeling that the commissioner's decisions are not treated with a great deal of favour by many people, particularly by those associated with industry? Does he not think it worth while to look into the whole procedure? Will he say on how many occasions a commissioner's decision has gone against a man who during his lifetime received a substantial pneumoconiosis pension and why on his death the commissioner has appealed even against a tribunal decision which went in the man's favour? Will he give the House information so that we may know whether the procedure adopted is fair and equitable for people in industry?
    Mr. Dean: I should be unhappy if the situation in terms of the appeal procedure generally were as the hon. Gentleman outlined it, but there are some extremely difficult areas in this respect— and pneumoconiosis is one of them. For that reason the review of pneumoconiosis by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has been undertaken. We expect to have its report fairly soon and I am sure that it will give valuable guidance on the difficult areas the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
    Mr. O'Malley: In view of the widespread and understandable dissatisfaction in the coalfields at the treatment of pneumoconiosis victims, is the hon. Gentleman aware that Labour Members are in favour of a comprehensive and major policy review of the whole of the pneumoconiosis legislation? Will he confirm whether the Government take a similar view?
    Mr. Dean: The first thing we must do is await the report of the council which has been looking into this subject for a

    213
    considerable time in depth to see what advice it can give us.
    Mr. Rowlands: If the hon. Gentleman comes to one of my weekend surgeries he will see one elderly widow after another coming in who is baffled and angry at the fact that she does not receive a pension or house coal because it has been ruled that, although her husband may have been suffering 100 per cent. disability in terms of dust in his lungs, that was not a contributory cause of his death. I hope the hon. Gentleman will change his mind. Instead of saying that this is a difficult area he should wipe the rule away altogether and establish the right of widows to receive pensions and coal in these circumstances.
    Mr. Dean: As a Member representing a coal-mining area, I also see coal miners' widows in my surgeries and therefore I know something about this matter from personal experience. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the whole basis of the injuries scheme which has existed since the war—namely, that death must have been caused or aggravated by the conditions of a person's work—should be completely changed. He raises a very wide question.

    Industrial Disputes (Benefit)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the length of time so far taken by his departmental investigation of the payment of supplementary benefits in industrial disputes; when he now expects to complete it; and what decision he has reached in his investigation about the provision of subsidised butter for strikers and their dependants.
    Sir K. Joseph: As to the Government's review of supplementary benefit for strikers' families, I have nothing to add to my replies to my hon. Friend on 6th February and 6th March. The question of subsidising butter is being considered by Ministers.—[Vol. 850, c. 58–9; Vol. 852, c. 213–5.]
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If we have really decided that, rather than incur the displeasure of Mr. Vic Feather and Mr. Hugh Scanlon, we will inevitably require the taxpayer to subsidise those who strike in defiance of legislation which the Government have chosen to pass, might it be
    214
    better that we should say so rather than proceed much longer with the farce of this interdepartmental investigation?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry, but I must tell my hon. Friend that this has not been a charade. If he is distressed, as he may well be, by the length of time that Ministers are taking, I could, under pressure of examination, disclose other subjects, alas, on which we are taking even longer, because there are some very difficult issues involved.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the Secretary of State draw his hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in the building industry there is a thing called lump labour, which means that certain people are not paying their national insurance contributions, some people are actually drawing their dole and working and some who should be paying taxes are not paying them? Will the Government do something about this, which is much more serious than the sort of nonsense that the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) raises every so often?
    Sir K. Joseph: I know that the hon. Gentleman realises that the responsibility to which he refers is not mine but is at present being tackled by the Government. In so far as there is abuse, the recent Fisher Report drew attention to some aspects of the lump.

    Mental Hospitals
    Mr. Roger Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect the hospital building programme will have on alleviating the conditions in mental hospitals.
    Sir K. Joseph: The programme helps by providing local services in replacement of those in mental hospitals and by improvement schemes in the mental hospitals themselves.
    Mr. White: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that the renovated workhouse-type hospital is totally inadequate in terms of modern mental medical techniques. Will he therefore ensure that, within the hospital building programme, purpose-built hospitals are erected for patients who are in so much need?
    Sir K. Joseph: The present Government have raised the capital expenditure on psychiatric hospitals, mental illness

    215
    and mental handicap by over 80 per cent. in real terms, comparing 1972–73 with three years ago, which is a pretty notable increase. But good psychiatric techniques can be practised in old buildings and there are some first-class psychiatric services in some of our older hospitals.
    Mr. McGuire: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real aim should be to use the beds available wisely and to rehabilitate the people in mental hospitals back into the mainstream of civilian life? If that is so, can he say why a family in my constituency who want to have their daughter, the victim of a broken marriage, transferred to a hospital nearer where they live so that they can aid her rehabilitation into civilian life have been told that there are regional groupings and that because the family live outside the regional hospital grouping where the daughter is confined, until a transfer is found she will have to remain there, to the discomfort of herself and to the dismay of her family? This will delay her rehabilitation. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about it?
    Sir K. Joseph: The country is desperately short of community facilities for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped and this is what is preventing the hospitals from carrying out their proper functions. This Government, by extra money and by a White Paper on mental handicap and a circular on mental illness, have set in hand an improvement and an increase in the community services, which I have said will take 10 years to produce good results and 15 years to produce first-class results. But the improvements are in hand.

    Hospital Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the difference between the overall hospital capital expenditure for the current year programme compared with that of 1969–70.
    Sir K. Joseph: Hospital capital expenditure in 1972–73 is estimated to be about £183 million compared with £101 million in 1969–70; this represents an increase in real terms of just over 50 per cent.
    Mr. Winterton: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging
    216
    reply, which I am sure will be very welcome? What emphasis has he managed to place on the deprived sectors, such as the mentally ill, the chronically ill, the disabled and the long-stay patients?
    Sir K. Joseph: A disproportionately large increase has been deliberately made in the non-acute sector. I have just said that an 80 per cent. increase in real terms has been made between the two years I mentioned in capital expenditure on mental handicap and mental illness, and almost as big an increase in services for the elderly.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is now a generally-accepted need to make preventive and curative medicine less hospital-oriented? What are his plans for reducing the proportion of the total National Health Service expenditure spent on hospitals and increasing the proportion spent on general practitioners and community services?
    Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Lady cares to put down a Question, I will give her the precise answer, but the general position is that, in each year for which the present Government have been responsible, there has been a shift, within the rising real expenditure on the health and personal and social services, away from hospitals towards the community services. That is deliberate and it will continue.

    Speech Therapy
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take following the publication of the Quirk Report on Speech Therapy.
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between his Department and the county councils in supplying an adequate national coverage of speech therapists to deal with adult patients as well as children; and what coordination there is on speech therapy research.
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, following the Quirk Report, he will increase the number of speech therapists employed by his Department.
    Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, Scotland and Wales are considering the recommendations in the Quirk Report, including those for a unified service, an increase in the number of speech therapists and an expanded programme of research. There is close co-operation between the Departments.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend say that the Government will accept the target of 2,500 speech therapists which the Quirk Report recommended? In connection with this, will he bear in mind the importance of ensuring an increase in the supply when the Government are having an increase in the expansion of nursery education? If this is to be effective in detecting impediments and speech difficulties among young children, does he agree that we must have the requisite number of speech therapists in order to take advantage of the nursery education programme?
    Mr. Alison: We do not dispute at all the vital contribution that speech therapists can make in precisely the field to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. As for accepting at this point the target figure which the Quirk recommendation includes, we could not do so until our comprehensive consultations with all interested parties are completed. They are in train at present.
    Mr. Redmond: When my hon. Friend is considering this matter will he also look into the problem of deaf children who can be given the priceless gift of language if they have speech therapy at the right age?
    Mr. Alison: Yes, we certainly understand the vital connection here; indeed the Quirk Report itself refers to this aspect and makes recommendations.

    Family Planning
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he intends to offer to doctors about the interpretations of "social need" in the new rules for family planning.
    Sir K. Joseph: The arrangements which I announced on 26th March provide for family planning advice and treatment to be available free to all and for supplies to be subject only to the stan-
    218
    dard prescription charge except in exempted cases when they would be free. The category of "social need" which was necessary under the 12th December proposals does not now apply.
    Sir A. Meyer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that almost certainly there will be mounting pressure to switch from the system of making standard prescription charges to the provision of completely free facilities? Is he confident that he can withstand this pressure indefinitely?
    Sir K. Joseph: As always I shall rely on the force of rational argument in the House, which I am sure will prevail.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the mechanics for collection of prescription charges from clinics at present under local health authorities and those run by the Family Planning Association? How will it be arranged?
    Sir K. Joseph: All this change will come into effect only from 1st April next year, when it will be the National Health Service and not local authorities which will be responsible.
    Mr. Fell: Do the supplies include vasectomy and sterilisation?
    Sir K. Joseph: The sterilisation and vasectomy provision is already made in the National Health Service for medical cases. I should like to have notice of my hon. Friend's question so that I can make sure that I give the reply precisely.

    Area Health Authorities
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he will be giving to the proposed new area health authorities about co-operation with voluntary bodies and associations in their areas.
    Sir K. Joseph: I cannot yet add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) on 26th February—[Vol. 851, c. 302–3.]
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend make absolutely certain that the very strong local associations which appertain to hospitals, particularly in my part of the world, are in no way damaged by the reorganisation which is about to take place?
    Sir K. Joseph: The present Government have multiplied tenfold the public money going to support the headquarters of voluntary bodies. Ministers of the present Government are intensely enthusiastic about voluntary service and will do everything possible to encourage it.

    Attendance Allowance
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the consultation that takes place between his Department and the medical practitioner of a person seeking a constant attendance allowance.
    Mr. Dean: Yes, Sir. On receipt of a claim for attendance allowance, the Attendance Allowance Board requests the disabled person's own medical practitioner to visit him and submit a report. This report is supplemented by additional evidence when the claimant's doctor thinks that would be helpful. In cases of special doubt or difficulty the Attendance Allowance Board may ask the doctor for additional information.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that in spite of that reply there is widespread criticism by the local doctor and very often by the social worker of the person who is applying for an attendance allowance and whose claim they are supposed to be supporting? With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that shows that there is not widespread agreement. In view of the financial sacrifices made by many people who keep their relatives at home rather than in hospital, is it not time that we showed a little more humanity on this issue? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore suggest that, where there are questions of doubt, a doctor from his Department should examine the person concerned before any decision is made? That is not the practice at present.
    Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair. There are 90,000 of these new allowances in payment already. They are increasing week by week as the new rate of allowance comes into operation. Of course there are lessons to be learned, and we have not yet got the administration right. But there is close co-operation between general practitioners, social workers and doctors who have to make the eventual judgment.
    Mr. Waddington: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us think that
    220
    the Attendance Allowance Board is still interpreting the regulations in a very restrictive fashion? I appreciate that an unsuccessful applicant, after a review, cannot appeal to the Secretary of State, but will my hon. Friend look at one particular case in my constituency where there seems to have been refusal on a review in the most obvious case?
    Mr. Dean: I should be glad to look at the case referred to by my hon. and learned Friend or, indeed, any case raised by any other hon. Member which he feels should be looked at again. There is the review procedure, which provides for a great deal of flexibility in this area.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Undersecretary aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) sounded rather complacent? Is he satisfied with the way in which, for example, renal dialysis patients are being treated? Is he aware that we on the Opposition side of the House are not satisfied? Will he look again at the very important matter raised by this Question?
    Mr. Dean: Yes. What I am saying is that the allowance is being extended. This is a new allowance. Of course we are not satisfied, and it is for that reason that the extension is now taking place. We shall bring it forward as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Fry: Is it not to the great credit of the Government that the constant attendance allowance has not only been introduced but is being extended this year so that many who have been denied the allowance will qualify for a reduced allowance this autumn and about 250,000 extra people will be helped? Is not that to the great credit of my right hon. Friend and the present administration?
    Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the matter into perspective. That does not mean that we are complacent. We are acting as fast as we can to see that still more people become eligible for the allowance and get it paid.

    TRADE UNIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Ql. Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the

    221
    Library a copy of his public speech to the London Universities Conservative Association on 16th March on the relationship between the Government and trade unions.
    Mr. Redmondasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made to London University Conservative Association on 16th March 1973 on Government and trade unions.
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the London University Conservative Association in London on 16th March on the economy.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I did so on 19th March, Sir.
    Mr. Ashton: In that speech the Prime Minister said that he was concerned with the unfairnesses embedded in present-day society. Is he aware that the trade unions are also concerned about his potential unfairnesses in helping owner-occupiers with high interest rates and doing nothing about rents? Is he also aware that the trade unions, while wishing to see some aid given to owner-occupiers with regard to the 10 per cent. interest rates, expect at the same time that the present rent increases will be curtailed, so that there is fairness to all sections of the community?
    The Prime Minister: We have already dealt with the particular question of rebates by increasing them greatly at the beginning of the year after we had discussions with the trade unions.
    Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend recall what he said in his speech about people who never go on strike? Does he not therefore welcome the news today that 69 per cent. of the miners have shown restraint? Will he express the hope that some other people might follow their example?
    The Prime Minister: The whole House will welcome the balloted decision of the miners. More and more people are beginning to realise how irrelevant any action on 1st May will be.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that this time last year it cost him
    222
    more than £100 million to pay off the miners after the seven-week strike? Does he not remember that in order to stop it on this occasion he introduced a Bill costing £1,200 million in an attempt to buy them off? If the miners carry matters a stage further next year, it will take even more money to buy them off.
    The Prime Minister: I do not regard the investment in the coal industry as buying off the miners. What the investment in the coal industry is designed to do is to safeguard the living of the miners but above all to safeguard the fuel supplies of this country.
    Mr. Adley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed one-day strike on 1st May will be about the most irrelevant event of the decade? Does it not show that not only the TUC but also the Labour Party appear to be totally out of touch now with the feeling of the country as expressed by the miners today?
    The Prime Minister: I have just said that more and more people are recognising—and saying so in the trade union movement—that it is irrelevant. It will not change the Government's position. Stage 2 is now in operation. I understand that some 50 settlements covering about a million workers have already been made under stage 2. The whole thing, therefore, is pointless. What would be much more to the point would be if the Leader of the Opposition told the House what his real position is on this matter.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: I have repeatedly stated my position. Will the right hon. Gentleman now state his? As he has refused, on four occasions when I have asked him, to take any action on mortgage interest rates until he has now been pushed into it, will he say whether we can now expect a statement today or tomorrow, because this is of interest to millions of families whom he has let down?
    The Prime Minister: If the Government think it right to make a statement, they will do so. But meanwhile it would be of interest if the Leader of the Opposition would say whether on 1st May he proposes to act, to strike or to abstain.

    RATES
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement with regard to the communication he sent to Alderman W. Sefton concerning the rate problems of the major cities.
    The Prime Minister: In reply to letters from Alderman Sefton, I have referred him to the Government's announcement of extra rate relief to domestic ratepayers most affected by revaluation and to our intention to press on with discussions about the formula for the distribution of grant to the new authorities in 1974–75. I have also told him that his proposal to introduce a new grant system before 1974 would be impracticable.
    Mr. Kaufman: Why did the right hon. Gentleman bring the representatives of the great cities to No. 10 Downing Street on a wild goose chase to discuss the financial problems affecting the great cities when, even before that meeting took place, he had decided to do nothing to help with those financial problems, apart from the footling aid to a tiny minority of those adversely affected by the rating revaluation? Is this deception, together with higher rents, higher mortgages, higher food prices and VAT, creating the right atmosphere for phase 2?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite unjustified in what he has said. It is entirely opposed to what the leaders of the cities have said in their letters which they have written to me since, including Alderman Sefton, with whom I have had a very friendly correspondence. Those who will benefit from the action that we have taken, who are the ones suffering particularly from revaluation, do not take the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend inform Alderman Sefton that if he wishes to limit the expenditure of Liverpool Corporation he might abandon his proposal to spend another £10 million on Speke airport?
    The Prime Minister: I specifically said to the cities, and indeed, to all the local authorities, that I would not discuss specific items with them. However, it is of importance that since the Department of the Environment took up the monitoring of local authority finances more than £10
    224
    million has been saved on the present rate expenditure for the forthcoming year.
    Mr. Terry Davis: If the Prime Minister felt able to enter into correspondence with Alderman Sefton of Liverpool City Council, may I ask why he did not feel able to send a personal reply to the letter which he received from the chairman of the finance committee of Worcestershire County Council?
    The Prime Minister: I am prepared to look into that matter. The correspondence which I have had from Alderman Sefton was on behalf of the six cities. It is obviously not possible for me personally to answer letters from all the local authorities. These matters are dealt with by the Department of the Environment. If there was a particular reason I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

    INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the public speech he made on 16th March 1973 in Bromley on strikes.
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on industrial relations made at Bromley on 16th March.
    Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Bromley on 16th March on economic and industrial affairs.
    The Prime Minister: I did so on 19th March, Sir.
    Mr. Duffy: Does the Prime Minister recall stating in that speech that sub-stanial pay increases were available under phase 2 to the lowest-paid, including hospital workers? Is he aware that they will probably be worse off by the autumn, given the expected rise in the cost of living, notably in food prices and mortgage charges? Why not admit that the prices side of phase 2 is not now developing to plan?
    The Prime Minister: The point that I made about the hospital workers was that they could have been receiving the

    225
    award under phase 2 from the week beginning 14th March. The same applies to the civil servants. They could be receiving their increase from 1st April. I wish to emphasise that point. However, I do not accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the end of phase 2.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the reasons for strikes has been his own boring posture of silly sabre-rattling in the direction of the trade unions? Has not the time now come when he should treat trade unionists as normal human beings, which they are?
    The Prime Minister: It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to sustain any thesis of that kind when one sees the extent to which the trade unions have cooperated throughout the standstill. It has not been necessary to issue one order in respect of a breach. As I have said, in more than 50 settlements they have already accepted phase 2 and are operating it.
    Sir Gilbert Longden: Was not one of the messages in that speech that there is too much conservatism in industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that conservatism with a small "c", just like liberalism with a small "1", is potentially disastrous to the country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that both sides of industry would do well to recognise that change is their ally?
    The Prime Minister: All I have to add to my hon. Friend's list is socialism with either a small or a big "s". I quite agree with him in quoting again the title of the pamphlet which we wrote 20 years ago. It was this theme which was the basis of my speech.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The right hon. Gentleman has just said how much he appreciates the co-operation that he has had from the trade unions. Would it not be a good gesture now on his part to show his appreciation by withdrawing the Industrial Relations Act, which has failed anyway?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think it is clear from recent statements that I am no longer being asked to do that. I am being asked to consider certain specific amendments, and that I have always said I am fully prepared to do.

    SOUTH AFRICA
    Mr. David Steelasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make an official visit to South Africa.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) on 27th March. —[Vol. 853, c. 1095–6.]
    Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister now able to confirm that the Government are agreeable to the setting up of a Select Committee of this House to investigate the standards of British firms operating in South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: There have been discussions about this matter between my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and the Opposition. I stated my position clearly last week. It is for a Committee of this House to decide whether it is appropriate for it to make inquiries of any particular kind, including this one.
    Mr.Biggs-Davison. If there is to be such an investigation, may I ask whether it would be right, helpful and informative to have a similar investigation into the wages paid in other developing countries?
    The Prime Minister: This, again, is a matter for a Select Committee if, as I said, it
    "deems it right and appropriate".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1096.]
    However, I do not think anybody would deny that there are also deep-rooted problems about the standard of living of people in all the developing countries, and this means to a large extent the level of wages.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: In anticipation of a possible visit to South Africa by a Select Committee of this House, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to ensure that his Department gets as much information as possible from South Africa about wages being paid by British firms there? Will he also ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what instructions and political advice are being given by trade

    227
    missions to South Africa financed by his Department?
    The Prime Minister: The advice which is given regarding wages has been published and is made available to every firm. It emphasises the opportunities which they have for increasing wages and raising the standard of living of their employees. That information is also in the hands of trade missions which go to South Africa. I think that information about the practices of individual British firms could be available in London.
    Mr. Ridley: Will my right hon. Friend also consider setting up a Select Committee to inquire into the reasons why wages and the standard of living are so much higher in capitalist countries like America?
    The Prime Minister: I take my hon. Friend's point. I do not think that it requires a Select Committee to go into this question to recognise the enormous advances which have been made through technology, the removal of restrictive practices and in other ways in some Western countries.

    NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Minister of New Zealand to make an official visit to London.
    The Prime Minister: The New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister is at present visiting London but, as I told the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) on the 29th March, there are at present no plans for Mr. Kirk to do so, though he would always be welcome.— [Vol. 853, c. 393.]
    Mr. Dalyell: Since New Zealand is understandably concerned about the French nuclear tests, may I ask whether we can count on the Prime Minister to go shoulder to shoulder with the Duke of Edinburgh up the Champs Elysées?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman cannot count on my going off in a frigate into the Pacific.

    SOCIAL SERVICES
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Social Services concerning the effect of revaluation for rating on social services.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Ashley: In view of the fact that many social service projects to help the disabled will be butchered as a result of the Government's policy of revaluation, does the Prime Minister intend to stand aside and allow this to happen or will he now intervene to ensure that projects to help the disabled are preserved by local authorities?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give an all-embracing undertaking of that kind. I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government have very great sympathy with social service projects of this sort. I myself opened a magnificent one in Newcastle only 10 days ago. I think that that is a sufficient guarantee that we we shall do all we can to help.
    Mr. Marks: Will the Prime Minister confirm that after the monitoring by the Department of the Environment the rate demand in cities like Manchester will be reasonable in view of their social problems?
    The Prime Minister: It is not for me to to confirm a judgment of this kind. It must be for the electors in Manchester.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the present Government have done more for the disabled than many of their predecessors—[HON. MEMBERS: "Any."]—and that this Government will continue to protect the disabled against the effects of inflation?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have pledged ourselves to do this for old-age pensioners, for Service pensioners and for the disabled. It is now widely recognised that this Government have been able to do more than their predecessors, especially for the disabled.

CONTAINER AND PACKAGING CONTROL BILL
3.30 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Secretary of State to regulate the use of materials for containers and packaging; and for connected purposes.
This Bill is in some ways reminiscent of the Unit Pricing Bill which I introduced last year in that it has as one of its aims the affording of extra protection to the housewife in her struggle against inflation and to get better value for money. I hope that the Government will feel as sympathetic to this Bill as they did to my last one. It comes at an opportune moment in that only yesterday the Consumers Union published the results of a survey on packaging which shows that some 94 per cent. of housewives would prefer less extravagant packaging and lower prices and that 85 per cent. indicated a willingness to place their household refuse in separate containers for glass, metal, paper, plastic and food waste if that could lead to a saving or to some stabilisation in rates. No wonder there is general concern because, as a recent article in the Daily Mail put it, the most expensive mouth to feed in Britain today is the dustbin.
The Bill would give the Secretary of State a chance to contain the dustbin's appetite and in the process to strike one of the most effective blows for those who treasure our remaining rural and urban delights and who see them daily violated by the trash-can legacy of the pleasure seekers or unwillingly despoiled by the frenzied frustration of those who are charged with the daunting task of dealing with the nation's rubbish.
That some discipline is necessary is obvious to anyone who walks a trolley round a supermarket or a dog through the countryside. The shelves are glossy with elaborate packages which inflate the prices of the products they contain, and all too often have a hedgerow afterlife that is nasty, brutish and prolonged.
We are dealing with an enormous problem. Almost a million tons of plastics were used last year plus 750 million paper bags, 10,000 million cans and 375 million aerosols. In 1972 industry spent £1,035 million on packaging, of which some £650
230
million went straight into dustbins and on to rubbish heaps. Once there, responsibility for its removal rests with the local authorities, who four years ago were spending £66 million a year on collection and disposal. It is reckoned that by 1980 each householder will produce 32 lbs. of refuse a week.
It is not only the weight which causes difficulties, but the volume. Without a doubt the largest increase in volume has resulted from the more extensive packaging of goods. An official report put the percentage of packaging in household refuse at 60 per cent. by volume and said that it would rise to 75 per cent. by 1980.
What happens to it all? At the moment about 80 per cent. of all our rubbish goes straight into holes in the ground, under controlled conditions. Incineration accounts for very little. It is an expensive alternative. As an increasing amount of packaging is formed of indestructible plastic, it will never be broken down by the agencies of time and decay. It will lie there for ever, a needless and ugly blight upon future generations—
"A plastic bottle is a bane for ever: its ugliness increases. It will never pass into nothingness."
All this is done in the name of convenience which manufacturers seem to put next to godliness and which, after all, is rather more profitable.
I do not advocate a return to the paper bag era or to the unwrapped and the unhygienic. I seek moderation in all things. Is it necessary that a sauce bottle should be contained in a box which has a picture of that very bottle on the outside? It is sheer waste. Is it necessary for shoe laces to be contained in a hygienic plastic bubble when they could be handed over the counter as shoe laces? Is it necessary that eyeshade in a tiny container should be in a large box with plastic and other materials inside not contributing to the product at all? As for the aerosol, so many products which could equally well be sold in bottles are put into aerosol containers, and the average price of the container alone is about 8p. Is it essential that a certain brand of cologne should have a third of its price accounted for by packaging?

231
Cannot we call a halt also to the expensive laziness which lies behind the non-returnable bottle, and can we allow our dairies to go over to the plastic bottle? There is a threat that within a few years every bottle of milk will be a plastic bottle. The Friends of the Earth have conducted a survey showing that in one year alone 11,680 million bottles will require to be disposed of. That is enough to build six columns to the moon—not the kind of serious contribution to the space race that we should make. Alternatively, there could be enough in a fortnight to encircle the earth three times with the wretched things.
I appreciate that the Bill has its limitations. But its very flexibility would give the Secretary of State, without assuming Draconian powers, the ability to say, "Hold. Enough", and to examine and advise.
Whether our watchword is anti-inflation or anti-pollution, we cannot afford to do nothing. T. S. Elliot once said of the twentieth century that its only memorial would be the asphalt road and a thousand lost golf balls. Even worse would be a thousand empty Coke cans.
For the sake of the housewife of today and the rambler of tomorrow and, above all, to show that we are conscious that the problem must be tackled sooner rather than later, I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick Cormack, Dr. Gerard Vaughan, Mr. Ernie Money, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Edward Taylor, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. David Clark, Mr. Peter Hardy, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, and Mr. Frank Judd.
CONTAINER AND PACKAGING CONTROL
Bill to empower the Secretary of State to regulate the use of materials for containers and packaging; and for connected purposes, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th May and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (PRICES)
  3.39 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move,
  That this House, believing that food prices under the Common Agricultural Policy are already too high, calls upon Her Majesty's Government, as a matter of vital national interest, not to accept any further general increase in EEC prices.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to inform the House that I have selected the Government's amendment, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Motion and to add instead thereof.
  endorses the determination of Her Majesty's Government to give the highest priority to combating inflation in the European Economic Community's overall interest; and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's initiative in pressing for means of support other than raising end prices in the development of the Common Agricultural Policy.
  Mr. Shore: This is a careful and modest motion designed not to cause controversy here but to unite behind the Minister the overwhelming sentiment of Parliament and the people on two basic principles about the common agricultural policy— first, that food prices in the Common Market are already too high and, second, that they must not be allowed to rise further in the year ahead.
  We do not seek to tie the Minister down in any unreasonable way. If, as I had very much hoped, he had accepted our motion and thus opposed any large increases in prices, he would still have been able to agree, if the evidence had been sufficiently convincing, to adjustments upwards and downwards according to sensible criteria of supply and demand for individual products. In other words, it would have been open to him to agree to cuts in the price of butter and to consider on their merits proposals for increases.
  All that we are seeking to rule out is any across-the-board increase affecting

  233
  butter, cereals, sugar and other main agricultural commodities. We were emboldened because we knew that we were doing no more than the Minister had allowed us to believe that he would wish to do. In the statement which he made last Wednesday he said that he was opposed to any across-the-board price increase in Europe this year.
  We think it right to debate the matter on a formal motion because the issue of food prices is the most important single issue of the day. It is our view that the matter should be decided in the House by the elected representatives of the British people. It should not be decided by Eurocrats and by Ministers meeting in Brussels.
  I do not think that anyone will doubt that it is crucial to our standard of living and, above all, to the living standards of the less prosperous part of the nation, to keep our food prices stable and, if possible to reduce them. I shall not burden the House with any unnecessary figures, but the extent to which our living standard is being threatened by rising food prices is not yet sufficiently understood and known, even in this House.
  When we last debated food prices on 3rd November during the Queen's Speech I drew attention to the fact that the rise in food prices was accelerating, and that during the last two years prices had risen on average by 10 per cent. a year. I said that in the previous three months— that is May to August 1972, which was the latest available figure—the rate had risen to 14·5 per cent. per annum. That debate took place on the eve of the Government's so-called prices and incomes freeze.
  Since the freeze, far from slowing down, the rate of food price increases has further accelerated. In the three months between mid-November and mid-February, prices have risen by a full 5 per cent., or at an annual rate of 20 per cent. Some prices have increased, of course, far beyond that average figure. I regret to say that there is no sign that the upward march has been significantly checked. Only today we had fresh evidence from the Food Manufacturers' Federation of what is in store for us during this year. On the Federation's estimates, if I have them correctly, butter
  234
  prices are to rise by 24 per cent., sugar prices by 18 per cent., meat prices by 12 per cent., fish prices by 10 per cent. and dried egg prices by 20 per cent. That is its own estimate.
  Not only is it essential to reduce price increases for social reasons, or to ease the strain on older people, on families and on the lower paid, but it is crucial to the success of any sort of counter-inflation policy.
  A thought which must pray on the Minister's mind as we enter phase 2 of the Government's so-called counter-inflation policy—this applies not only to the Minister but to all his Front Bench colleagues—is that the great mass of our people do not begin to understand how it is that when their incomes are frozen or severely restrained by Government action, the same Government should do nothing to prevent prices rising in foodstuffs, in rents and mortgages, and in house and land values. Worse, in many cases—witness VAT this week—the Government make things worse by directly increasing prices through their own actions.
  Part of the Government's direct responsibility for putting up prices is their acceptance of the Common Market's regulation of our food prices. Of course, the Minister does not like to be reminded of that. He would like the nation to believe that rising food prices have nothing to do with what we regard—and I think correctly—as the incompetence and folly of his right hon. Friends who negotiated the Treaty of Accession.
  The Minister has been sedulously spreading the myth that all our misfortunes are due to movements in world prices, over which we have no control. That is only part of the story. On 1st March, the Minister made his first increase in sugar prices. We had a debate on further increases only last night. The first increase was a direct consequence of the Common Market rule that we have to phase out our present sugar subsidy. The second sugar increase will take place on 1st May and the third on 1st July.
  We have had to abandon the bacon stabilisation scheme under which, as with sugar, bacon had been previously subsidised. The first price increase due to Common Market bacon policy took place on 1st March, and we shall have two further increases by the summer. They

  235
  cannot be less than 3p a 1b. I think that I am being modest in giving that figure.
  Unhappily that is not all. Butter is to be increased on 1st May—and we have the Minister's authority for this—by the incredible figure of £86 a ton or 4p a lb. As the Minister knows full well, that is the first of six increases over the next five years, at the end of which our butter prices will be almost 150 per cent. more than they are today. That is a direct consequence of the Common Market's food policy.
  Can the Minister confirm what we read in the papers about the reported sale of Common Market butter at cut prices to the Soviet Union? I am all for helping developing countries. I should not wish to be unfriendly in any way to a great country with which I hope we shall have ever more friendly relations in the future. However, to sell to the Soviet Union, if the reports are correct, 200,000 tons of butter at the price of £150 a ton—that is one-quarter or one-fifth of the real price not only in Europe but, as it will become, in Britain, the cost in subsidies to those who produce the surplus being over £120 million—is sheer madness. Let us hope that we have a denial from the Minister.
  The last foodstuff which I shall mention is beef. As the British housewife knows, prices rose in five days in December by as much as they were supposed to rise in five years of Common Market membership. Do not let the Minister say that that had nothing to do with the Common Market. In fact, it had. Of course, there were many factors at work. One was that last year 10 per cent. of the total production of British beef went out of Britain into Europe. That was because the prices in Europe had gone up owing to its premature policy of slaughtering beef in 1970 in order to help reduce the butter mountain. The result was a shortage of beef. Meat was sucked out of this country at the high prices then on offer, and the Minister did nothing to seek to arrest that movement.
  There is a threat of a further increase of over 10 per cent. under the Community's proposals which are now before the Council of Ministers, and which were again referred to yesterday in the Food Manufacturers' Federation forecast of
  236
  increased prices this year. No wonder the Minister said last night:
  "… the food prices peak has not yet been reached."
  I now turn not to the rise in British food prices up to existing Common Market levels but to the proposals for a further across-the-board increase in CAP prices which are before the Council of Ministers this week. From what the Minister told the House last Wednesday it seems that that is precisely the point to which he has the most vehement objections. Resistance to further price increases is wholly consistent with the passage in his own amendment which refers to
  "means of support other than rising end prices in the development of the Common Agricultural Policy.",
  an interesting and significant phrase which I hope he will elaborate.
  Here we have, or should have, a substantial measure of agreement, as will become clear when we consider those central features of the CAP that we on this side, and, I hope the Government, will seek to change. Let me say what is wrong with the CAP, and what are the central features we seek to change.
  First, it is grossly protectionist. In the EEC's making Europe substantially self-sufficient in the main foodstuffs, regardless of Europe's competitiveness with countries outside, food is produced inside the Common Market at a far higher price than would otherwise be necessary, and the standard of living of the European people is correspondingly lower.
  Secondly, the method of support and production for European farmers used in the CAP—basically a guaranteed price for an open-ended quantity of production—leads inevitably to a continuing and chronic problem of over-production. The butter mountain of 400,000 tons that has built up is not the first butter mountain we have had. Only two or three years ago a similar mountain existed. Other commodities are constantly in surplus production. The ingenuity and resource of the engineering industry in the Community is constantly fashioning new machines to denature and destroy that which the earth of Europe grows each year.

  237
  As for the Intervention Board set up in this country, if my information is correct, all over Britain empty storage capacity is being bought up and leased by the board to take food out of the British market, to take it away from the British consumer, who might otherwise have what is available at a lower price, and to put it in the stores so that prices can be maintained at an artificially high level.
  The third objection to the CAP is that the chronic tendency to over-produce is a major disrupting influence in world trade. The disruption occurs not only because low-cost producers like New Zealand are denied access to the European market but because European surpluses are dumped on world markets at ludicrous prices. I should like to illustrate that and to drive it home as strongly as I can. Over half the annual cost of FEOGA, over £500 million a year, year in and year out, goes to pay the difference between the dumped prices of European surplus products in third markets and the price inside the Common Market.
  The fourth objection is that in spite of the defects I have described the CAP gives only a partial stability to farmers generally, and fails to secure a reasonable standard of living for the poorer peasant farmer. That is acknowledged by virtually everyone. It has led to what is by Continental standards a considerable exodus from the land. That is what the Mansholt Plan for farm restructuring and pensioning-off older farmers is partially designed to meet.
  The fifth objection is the way in which the CAP is financed. It is unacceptably unfair and unacceptably expensive. Contributions made to it are unrelated to the capacity to pay of individual countries or the benefits they receive in return. The contributions system the EEC introduced, which the Government in their treaty negotiations accepted, amounts to a tax on those Community members with the strongest links in both industrial and agricultural trade with the other continents of the world. In short, those— above all, Britain—that import the most food from outside the Continent of Europe will pay the bulk of the food levies. Those that trade extensively with other continents—again, Britain above all —pay by far the larger part of the
  238
  Customs duties to Brussels. That is the second part of the triple tax system employed in the financing of the CAP.
  My last fundamental objection is that all those defects are reinforced by the decision to relate common agricultural prices not to the exchange rates of the individual countries, which over time inevitably change, as we have all seen, but to a permanent and irrevocable unit of account which must not be departed from, even though countries revalue, devalue or float. Thus, we have an extraordinary picture, after the last two convulsions of the dollar, in which the Germans revalued upwards, Holland and Belgium revalued as well, but not to the same extent, the Danes and French remained at par, and the Italians and British are floating at a substantially devalued level in relation to their previous parities and to the unit of account.
  Instead of a single price for agricultural products, the nine nations concerned, through currency changes, have established five different price levels. To bring them into line again, the Brussels Commissioners are solemnly at work on the most elaborate system of levies and subsidies the world has ever seen. I do not believe that the system can work for much longer. It is too complicated, too susceptible to evasion, too expensive, and entirely vulnerable to a new breach in the next currency squall.
  Nor am I convinced that a common agricultural policy, nor even a common price policy, requires acceptance of a fixed unit of account. During the past 14 years the countries of the EEC have gone through many exchange rate alterations as their relative competitiveness has changed. The resulting revaluations and devaluations have not, in the case of industrial goods, prevented a common market from emerging, with prices disciplined by competitive forces. That has been the experience of the steel industry and of other commodities in intra-Community trade.
  Why should agriculture be different? If the relative prices of industrial goods can be changed by currency movements, why should agricultural prices be irreversibly and irrevocably fixed? Is the answer to be found in the absurd quest for a common currency in an economic and monetary union towards which the immutable unit of account for agricultural prices is seen as the first major step? I should like the

  239
  Minister's comment on that. If it is so, our determination to unmoor national prices from the unit of account will be all the stronger.
  I noted with pleasure what Mr. Ertl, the German agricultural minister, said only a few days ago about not worshipping and dancing around a calf of gold, referring to the unit of account. I also noted with some interest what the right hon. Gentleman himself said on Wednesday:
  "I said yesterday in Brussels that I thought it a mistake to involve agriculture and monetary matters in one proposal".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1310.]
  That is the beginning of sense. I shall strongly support the Minister in any move he takes to unmoor national agricultural prices from the absurd restraint of the unit of account.
  I do not claim that all the defects in the CAP that I have mentioned can be cured by our motion. But the House will not have failed to note the central relevance of our demand that there should be no further increase of CAP prices. If prices can be held—better still, if they can be reduced—we shall: first, diminish the protectionism of the CAP; secondly, reduce the tendency to over-produce; thirdly, lift from world food markets the threat of European dumping; fourthly, encourage new methods of support and income for the poorer farmers, hinted at in the Government's amendment; fifthy, reduce the cost and the burden to us of the CAP budget; and sixthly, prevent the proposed across-the-board 2·76 per cent. price increase, whose sole rationale is to simplify the levy-subsidy system now at work in the Nine by bringing the prices of the Benelux countries into line with those of France and Denmark. That is the sole aim. Thus at a stroke the national objectives of short-term and long-term policy can be served by the emphatic endorsement of the motion we have on the Order Paper.
  I would add as a final point that the criticisms I have made are not simply British criticisms. They have been voiced in whole or in part by all serious students of the continental food system, by Dr. Mansholt, by M. Vedel in the famous report of M. Pisani, the former French Minister of Agriculture, and most recently in the Commission discussions last month when M. Spinelli outlined an
  240
  entirely new agricultural support system One of the ironies and tragedies of the 1970–72 British negotiations is that if those negotiations had either been deferred or had been pressed more toughly, the common agricultural policy would almost certainly have been abandoned by the Six.
  As it is, we have given it a new lease of life. There has now been added to the Community of Six with its chronic surpluses of agricultural production, the one great food deficit market in the world, the British food market—and, as I have sometimes said before, Britairn has become the second stomach of France. But it is one which will be filled, and filled rapidly, given the capicity of Western European to grow food, in a very few years' time. Then the same tendencies of a chronic over-production will re-emerge. To prevent this we must begin now by calling a halt to food prices.
  Finally, I turn to the key words in the motion that we have moved opposing food price increases:
  "as a matter of vital national interest."
  No one will doubt from what I have said that our national interest is vitally involved. But as those who have followed our debates have recognised, or will recognise, the words carry a special meaning within the EEC. For those are the words that express what has been accepted as the veto power of the individual member State in decision-making in the Council of Ministers. It is the form of words which was used in order to embody the French demand for a veto for their own national purposes in the great disagreement which took place and which was resolved, or partially resolved, in the summer of 1965.
  So unless we have been deceived in this past year, that power lies within the power of the Minister of Agriculture to act on our behalf next week, if he wishes. It is a power which he himself claims to have. It is a power which, while he himself does not wish unnecessarily to brandish it, is essential in his dealings with the Eight. I say "essential". Of course he will need it. There is not one strong ally for the British position on food and agriculture among the nation States of the Community today. That is the situation we are in and we would be very foolish if we did not recognise

  241
  it. Hence, it is essential that we should have, and be seen to have, and be ready to use, this veto power.
  Our willingness to use it is a test not just of the Minister's personal courage —that is not the point—but of the sincerity and determination of the Government to deal with this crisis of hyper-inflation and uncontrolled food prices that we are facing in Britain today.
  It is his deliberate omission of these words from his own amendment to our motion that not only gives the game away about his own intensions or the intentions of the Government, but gives an unanswerable reason why this House should unite in rejecting the Government's amendment and affirming the motion that I have moved.
  4.5 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
  endorses the determination of Her Majesty's Government to give the highest priority to combating inflation in the European Economic Community's overall interest; and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's initiative in pressing for means of support other than raising end prices in the development of the Common Agricultural Policy.
  I listened to the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) with care, but I found it difficult at times to understand whether he was speaking in principle against our position in Europe altogether or against this specific question of the present debate on the common agricultural policy. We all know the attitude that he has always taken in this respect and we understand his feelings in relation to it. But this Government, like its predecessors, have always accepted that if we accepted membership of the Community we accepted the common agricultural policy. This was a matter which was made abundantly clear by the present Leader of the Opposition in a speech which has been many times quoted in this House.
  It is the firm conviction of this Government, which has been supported over and over again by votes in the House, that our membership of the Community is in the national interest, that it is essential for the future prosperity of this country, and that we must participate in the enlarged
  242
  Common Market and join in the benefits that co-operation on a European scale can bring. That is our policy. We intend to pursue it to the full. The CAP is a part of the Community's organisation and, like our predecessors in office, we have accepted that and we do not propose to undermine it by direct or indirect means.
  No one pretends that it is perfect or that it ought not to be modified in the light of developments. But it was an achievement on the part of the original Six member States to agree a joint policy of agricultural support and that policy was hammered out by them in long discussions. We should remember that it is a matter to which they attach great importance. They are concerned that it should not founder because of current monetary difficulties which, one has to accept, have created real problems.
  The aim of CAP is to devise means of giving farmers a reasonable income—
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: In France.
  Mr. Godber: —in a community which is to a great extent self-sufficient in temperate foodstuffs and yet has a serious problem in connection with the size and structure of agricultural holdings. That is the burning problem of European agriculture.
  Almost all developed countries use some kind of system to support their farmers. A deficiency payments, free market system such as that which we have been operating since the end of the war would put a prodigious open-ended commitment on the Community's funds in years of world surplus, and to rely merely on direct income supplements to farmers would simply exacerbate the structural problem. I must therefore make it clear that we accept CAP as a reasonable method of supporting farm incomes in a society which is so largely self-sufficient as is the enlarged Community, and it is not our purpose to destroy it.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the statement by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14th July 1971 when he said that our entry into the Common Market would not increase the cost of living in this country by more than half of a new penny in the

  243
  pound in each of the transitional years. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's view now?
  Mr. Godber: The figure which has been given many times in this House is an estimate of around 2½ per cent. a year. That is the figure in relation to the cost of food, and food is, of course, one quarter of the total retail price index. Therefore, if it is around that order it is around the figure which my right hon. Friend gave.
  In order to get things in the right perspective after the speech by the right hon. Member for Stepney it is as well to consider what would be the effect for this country if we were without question to accept the whole of the proposals put forward by the Commission. The effect from 1st May this year would be to add 0·2 per cent. to the retail food prices index, or 005 per cent. to the whole of the retail price index. That is the extent of the effect of the proposals, and in view of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman it is as well to get those figures on the record.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House, in view of those figures, if that is the case and if the danger of a food price increase from this source is as small as he is now suggesting, why he should have said in Brussels that the whole of the Government's counter-inflation policy might be threatened if the proposed increases were to proceed?
  Mr. Godber: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to develop my argument on this matter. I have had to bring things back into perspective in view of the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney. In Brussels I was referring not merely to the immediate impact but to the long-term effect and that is why I said that we would wish to restrain the price increases.
  All different forms of developed economies have a system of support for farmers. Merely to rely on direct income supplements to farmers would merely exacerbate the structural problems which are at the root of Europe's difficulties in this matter. We accept the CAP as a reasonable method of supporting farm incomes in a society which is so largely self-sufficient as the enlarged
  244
  Community. It is not our purpose to destroy it but on the other hand everyone must recognise the needs of the present situation. The most urgent task is the battle against inflation and the need to keep food prices in check.
  Most people in the Community agree that there is an imbalance in the support between livestock and cereals which has to be put right over a time. We attach great importance to that. It is no derogation from the CAP to shift a sizeable section of support from the subsidisation of end prices to various forms of direct production subsidies. I therefore have no hestitation in emphasising to my colleagues in the Council of Ministers in Brussels the need to combat inflation to avoid, where possible, rises in retail food prices, and to consider the development of production subsidies.
  I recognise, as I emphasised in my statement on our annual farm review, that in a situation of food shortage farmers will not have the confidence to produce more and to increase supplies unless they have reasonable confidence in the future and in their ability to meet rising costs and to maintain their incomes. In the battle to conquer inflation that must be in the interests of everyone, including producers. If the confidence of producers is not to be lost, as I said in Brussels, we must strive to eliminate both shortage and surplus. We can see both of these in the Community at the present time.
  Labour Members frequently refer to the shortage of beef, as did the right hon. Member for Stepney. We want to see increased production in the Community as a whole, just as we want to eliminate surpluses. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about obtaining a balance in production, which we believe is important.
  The other great problems we face are connected with the monetary situation. The right hon. Gentleman was correct to emphasise this, and I agree that it is a difficult problem. I do not believe anyone would deny that the CAP was originally designed to operate on a system of fixed exchange rates and that as long as these are absent the policy will be more difficult to operate. I therefore sympathise with the Commission's desire to take even a relatively small step in

  245
  order to ease the complicated situation. But in my opinion the monetary situation remains too uncertain for a speedy solution to the problem to be possible—and a solution is to be found in a monetary context rather than in an agricultural context.
  As I stated in Brussels, I cannot welcome any solution which demands price rises across the board when they bear no relation to the needs and situation of the commodities concerned, when they press most heavily on those member States most beset by inflation and also help least those countries where farm incomes are most under pressure. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Herr Ertl. It is interesting to note that he and I were at different poles in our discussions in the council last week. We both agreed that the introduction of the monetary compensatory amounts in regard to the overall proposal complicated the issue. For Germany it complicates the issue because it reduces the reward from their farms. For us it gives an overall addition which we found embarrassing. We were at different ends of the spectrum but we both thought that the proposal was wrong.
  At the discussions in Brussels last week each country put forward its general views on the proposal to the Commission and these varied very widely from ourselves at one end of the scale, arguing against any general rise, to the Irish at the other end, who were saying that the rises proposed by the Commission were quite inadequate. The proposals embraced two quite separate aspects. There was the 2·76 per cent. increase across the board designed by the Commission to eliminate some of the existing currency implications and, on the other hand, there were specific additional increases for certain commodities.
  The highest rise proposed was for beef at 8 per cent. followed by pig meat and rye at 4 per cent. and a smaller increase of 2 per cent. for milk. All of these would be in addition to the 2·76 per cent. general rise. At the same time the proposals called for a reduction of 11 per cent. in the price of butter—and that is significant in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said—but with a compensating rise in the price of skimmed milk, and a consumer subsidy on butter which would
  246
  work out in our currency at around 2p a lb. This is an important aspect of the proposals. On the one hand there are the across-the-board proposals linked to monetary ideas, and on the other there are specific incentives which could have advantages if they brought increased supplies of such commodities as beef.
  The right hon. Member for Stepney concentrated on beef and said that prices rose as much in five days as they had risen previously in five years. That is a slight exaggeration, but they certainly rose sharply at the end of the year. He suggested that what was proposed by the Commission would represent a further increase of 10 per cent. That is not correct, as he will appreciate, because it is not a further increase over the market price level, which is substantially in excess of the community guide price level at this time. Therefore, the market price and the price in the shop would not be affected at this time if the proposals were accepted.
  Mr. Fernyhough: May I take it that the 2p reduction in the price of butter will mean that butter will come down 2p a lb., or does it mean that in May it will go up 2p less than it would have done if we had paid the additional CAP charge?
  Mr. Godber: What it means is that no decisions have yet been taken on the matter. If, however, the proposals put forward by the Commission were accepted in total, the second of the right hon. Gentleman's propositions would apply, namely that the increase originally expected would be less by 2p a lb. [Interruption.] That is the position. Hon. Members may laugh, but I would have thought that they were glad that the price had been reduced in this way, whatever the implications of the subsidy system.
  In the context of the present level of market prices the Commission is arguing that there are reasons throughout the Community for some increase in beef prices and to a lesser extent in prices for pig meat and rye. We shall be considering these aspects in more detail in Luxembourg next week. None of these would raise consumer prices. Apart from milk, what disturbs us so much is the across-the-board addition of 2·76 per cent. This would add to the eventual prices in Britain although the immediate impact is

  247
  minimal. Because of the currency adjustment proposed it would not raise prices in Benelux or Germany.
  Since Germany is the country which claims most strongly the need for higher prices for her farmers, she would get as little satisfaction at that end of the scale as we would at the other. It is clear that an agreed solution will be difficult to achieve. I made clear in my statement of 28th March the general line I have taken at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels. I said then that it was from the sort of position I had outlined that consideration of these proposals should begin.
  We have to seek to avoid surplus production, increasing support costs and consumer prices. We have to change the balance of incentives between commodities and we have to look at the problem of each commodity on its merits, not as part of some generalised policy. Other countries have differing views on such problems. Between us we have to reach a European solution. It will be a long and difficult debate, but that will be nothing new. We must ultimately reach an agreement to which we can all subscribe and which will take account of the essential needs of European producers and consumers.
  It must clearly be a solution which recognises to the full the problems of inflation and the overriding need to get to grips with it. This is the problem. It is a difficult one and we shall have to consider carefully the arguments put forward by others, just as we would expect them to look at our arguments.
  Mr. Shore: We have heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he finds these across-the-board increases of prices disturbing and unworkable. What the whole House and the nation wants him to say is that they are unacceptable. There can be plenty of give and take on the other matters of individual price negotiation, but what is unacceptable to us, certainly in the context of the second stage of the prices and incomes legislation, is any across-the-board price increases, unjustified by agricultural merit.
  Mr. Godber: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. I have chosen my words with care. We have taken a position strongly critical of this and shall
  248
  be having further discussions. It is certainly not helpful for me at this stage to spell out my position more precisely than I have done.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to various aspects of food prices. It is necessary to get the position in perspective in the light of what he said. Well over half the food we eat is manufactured food which has been subject to the standstill arrangements. There has been only a 1 per cent. rise in the price of manufactured food since last November.
  This has meant real difficulties for food manufacturers. Between November and February the cost of their raw materials and fuel went up by 15 per cent. I pay tribute to them for what they have done to help moderate the rate of inflation during a period when, whatever hon. Members opposite say, a world shortage has pushed up prices. We have made it clear from the start that it is impossible to exercise a similar control over the prices of fresh and imported foods which are subject to fluctuation from seasonal or external causes without allocating supplies or putting a heavy additional burden on the taxpayer.
  During the winter months the supply problems are greatest and the prices of seasonal foods invariably rise. In taking a figure and extrapolating it, the right hon. Gentleman has reached a misleading conclusion. Food prices always rise during winter but the rise last winter was little more than the rise in the corresponding period in the last two years of the Labour Government. During those winter months the increase was over 11 per cent. a year.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: There was not a freeze then.
  Mr. Godber: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) says that there was not a freeze during the period of the Labour Government. I can only say that his memory is not very clear.
  This year the situation has been made doubly difficult by the adverse trend of world markets. Not only has there been a failure of world grain harvests, particularly in Russia and China, but there has also been drought in Australia and New Zealand and there have been shortages of fish in the North Atlantic and near Peru. This is quite apart from the problems of Iceland. There has also been a

  249
  rising world demand for beef which no one can deny. All of this has meant large increases in the price of cereals, meat and fish throughout the world.
  This has not only affected the United Kingdom. These price rises have been reflected not only in Europe but in the United States. They have had nothing whatever to do with Britain's entry into Europe. Some commodities, particularly meat, are now well above the price level which would result from the full adoption of the common agricultural policy. This in turn means that the percentage price proposals put forward by the Commission would not have a similar proportional effect on retail food prices.
  Following President Nixon's announcement last Thursday that he was imposing a ceiling on the price of meat, there were suggestions by hon. Members opposite that we should follow suit. There are, however, major differences between our situation and that of the United States, which I am sure that they do not take fully into account. Imports play a much more important part in the United Kingdom meat supply situation than they do in the United States. In the United States they amount to only 5 per cent. for beef and 11 per cent. for lamb. In the United Kingdom we import 20 per cent. of our beef as well as store cattle from the Irish Republic. In addition we import 60 per cent. of our lamb supplies.
  We therefore cannot divorce ourselves from world conditions. This is a fact which hon. Gentlemen opposite either will not or cannot recognise. This is why it would be wholly inappropriate for us to follow that policy. A freeze on meat prices would not be appropriate in this situation. It is true that both fat cattle and retail beef prices have been falling recently. If the Government had imposed a ceiling in January, as was proposed, I am certain that housewives would not have got the benefit—which they have been getting in the past few weeks—from the somewhat lower meat prices. There is this factor which has been seen to operate in the past, namely that if one imposes a ceiling on prices it automatically becomes the floor price, too. That would not have been helpful here.
  The Government recognise the seriousness of the situation. Wherever we can we have taken effective action. The
  250
  abolition of SET and purchase tax— [Laughter.] It is easy to laugh. Hon. Members opposite who began some of these taxes may think it funny when we take them off. I do not think that the housewife shares that view. There is also the zero-rating of food. These measures are expected to take 1½ per cent. off the food index. This is a £120 million project in that respect alone. This gives some indication of the size of the problem. If we adopted the policy put forward by the Opposition from time to time, namely that of subsidising food prices, there would be a very high figure involved. This one section, which has removed £120 million from the housewives' costs has taken 1½ per cent. off the food index.
  We have acted in other areas. Our food prices unit has been working during the standstill and has secured over 1,000 reductions in prices following consumer complaints. We have banned exports of potatoes and freed imports. We have sustained the tariff on beef and food imports. We have frozen any price increase on breakfast cereal in the light of the Monopolies Commission Report. All these things have a cumulative effect. The right hon. Gentleman refers specifically to what was said by the President of the Food Manufacturers' Association yesterday, recorded in today's Press. The House might be interested in what I understand Mr. Beresford said today when commenting on what he said yesterday:
  "I spoke not only of some price increases which have yet to go through the pipeline but of decreases which have recently been made. I have seen quoted 400 to 500 decreases as-a result of Government action in removing VAT from certain food products."
  Mr. Thomas Torney: Such as ice-cream.
  Mr. Godber: Why not ice-cream? There are many mothers who are very glad there has been a reduction in the cost of ice-cream.
  He ended in this way:
  "To summarise, what I and the Minister have been saying is that the period up to the autumn—namely, Phase 2—will have its difficulties in food prices, but as far as the future— that is, the end of this year and onward—is concerned, it is relevant to note that the rate of inflation, as a result of Government policy, is decreasing and there is no reason to believe that it will not be further stabilised in Phase 2 on a broad economic front."

  251
  That is what I understand Mr. Beresford has said since lunch today. This puts in balance what has appeared previously, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen who seized so avidly on those remarks yesterday will seize just as avidly on what the same gentleman said today.
  We do not regard our policy in the Community and our national policy as two separate things. In all our policies we are aiming to control the rate of inflation, but in all spheres we must act in the way most likely to achieve our goals in the best interests of all concerned. We have a total commitment to this policy, but equally we have a total commitment to the European Community and we propose to work fully through its institutions in a spirit of co-operation, with a recognition of the way it has developed and with the aim of promoting the well-being of its citizens.
  Mr. Neil Marten: I have listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend's speech. Can he say, therefore, why he cannot accept the Opposition motion? It seems odd.
  Mr. Godber: I am sorry that my hon. Friend feels it odd. I have explained precisely the position in regard to it and in regard to a matter which is still subject to discussion in Brussels, and I am not prepared to go further in this regard. I have explained the position precisely, and I think the House fully understands that position.
  4.32 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I noticed that when the right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech made by Mr. Beresford today he did not attempt to contradict the figures that were given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) as to the price increases that were forecast by Mr. Beresford yesterday. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether he accepts the forecasts of the increases in the prices of butter, sugar, dried egg, meat and fish to which my right hon. Friend referred. If he does not contradict them, it can only be assumed that the Minister accepts that these increases in price will take place.
  It is a ludicrous situation for a Minister of this Government to come to the
  252
  House and repeat the argument that there will be ½p in the pound increase in the cost of living as the result of our entry into the Common Market. What has been happening in the past six months? Prices have gone up. I am convinced that it has been the deliberate policy of this Government to ensure that prices have been allowed to rise to soften the impact of our entry into the Common Market before we really get into it. I cannot see from the statement made this afternoon by the Minister how we could possibly begin to imagine that there would be a reduction in the cost of living in consequence of our going into the Common Market, a lessening of the increase in the cost of foodstuffs, because he made it clear that this Government accept in toto the common agricultural policy of the Common Market.
  It is no good the Minister or any other right hon. or hon. Member of this House talking about how the cost of living has been stabilised. I wonder where they shop. All I know is that in my constituency, which is a fair cross-section of the community, wherever I go I find the housewife in particular complaining constantly of the ever-escalating prices of food. I go shopping with my wife and I know that the cost of foodstuffs goes up weekly. It is no good talking about the decrease in the price of ice-cream and chocolate. It would have been far better to give the £103 million which that cost to sections of the community which do not get the chance of eating ice-cream and chocolate. If one tries to say to old-age pensioners and lower-paid workers—for instance, the people in industrial dispute at the moment, the ancillary workers in the hospital service—that they benefit in consequence of the cheapening of ice-cream and chocolate, the whole thing seems absolutely ridiculous to them with their take-home pay of £15 a week.
  Apart from the increase in food prices, taking the increases that have taken place so far and coupling them with the increase in the cost of housing, which represents 50 per cent. of the total income of the lower-paid workers of this country, how can the Government think it offers any hope at all by saying that they accept in toto the common agricultural policy of the Common Market? Everyone knows that it is the craziest

  253
  decision ever taken by a British Government, recognising that we are a major importer of food, to sacrifice all our traditional suppliers, the people in the Commonwealth, and our system of subsidy to our farming community, the two factors by virtue of which we were able to ensure that our people could get cheap food, to an agricultural policy which means in effect the supplying to Britain of dear food. It is crazy in the extreme. It is almost impossible to imagine that any Government could sacrifice our whole cheap food policy, which has stood us in good stead since the end of the last war in particular, in favour of a dear food policy, by accepting the common agricultural policy.
  All I want to say in conclusion is that it is no good this Government or any Government imagining that they can impose on shopworkers who are low paid, ancillary hospital workers who are low paid, agricultural workers who are low paid, and all the other low-paid workers of this country a freeze in the first instance, a miserable increase in the second instance and no hope in the third instance, and at the same time pursue a policy as a partner within the EEC which means imposing on those people additional burdens because of the increase in the cost of living.
  We have argued that the Government should subsidise basic foodstuffs, although that might be a contravention of the CAP. But the Government have refused to do that. At the same time as the Government say that it is impossible to subsidise basic foodstuffs for the British people, they are prepared substantially to subsidise the 400,000 tons of butter that is being sold to Russia at a reduced price. The Government's policy seems to be that the British people cannot have food subsidies for themselves but will have to bear the cost of food subsidies for the people of Russia.
  4.41 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean—
  Mr. Loughlin: Not the Forest of Dean; get the facts right.
  Mr. Morrison: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me?
  Mr. Loughlin: Gloucestershire, West.
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)
  254
  asked what had been happening in the last six months. He said that prices had been rising and claimed that they had done so as a result of a deliberate policy of the Government. Clearly, what the hon. Gentleman said is demon-strably rubbish. My right hon. Friend told the House what the Government had been doing to control prices in recent months, and I shall refer to this later in my speech.
  My right hon. Friend was right to remind the House that in joining the Common Market we had accepted the common agricultural policy in principle, just as the previous Labour Government did when they entered into negotiations for joining the Common Market. In consequence, my right hon. Friend was right to state that it is our policy not to undermine the CAP but rather to evolve it. I believe that a great deal of evolution is necessary.
  The troubles of the CAP stem from two sources. First, it has too many objectives, and, secondly, it was designed for a Community of Six and not for a Community of Nine. So far as its objectives are concerned it may be called a common agricultural policy, but in reality it is a policy aimed at the production of food, a regional development policy and a policy for social purposes. It is that last aspect that makes the CAP so expensive, that is the cause of calls within Europe for a far higher price level and that produces surpluses of some commodities and shortages of others.
  It is this social purpose aspect that ensures that prices must be set at a level which will provide a reasonable standard of living for the most inefficient and the smallest farmers in Europe. This means that a high proportion of the CAP expenditure goes in what amounts to direct or indirect guarantee payments, and that the marrying of the supply of individual commodities with demand is decidedly haphazard. This means in turn that inadequate money is available for a successful regional agricultural development policy to improve the structure of European agriculture, whilst ensuring that a much greater proportion of the money available for agriculture is spent on the encouragement of the production of commodities in short supply—for example, mutton and lamb.

  255
  The Commission has recently published a long report on sheep production which stated that the 1970 deficit in the Six was 56,000 tons and that that would rise in 1980 in the Nine to 140,000 tons and by 1985 to 160,000 tons. What has happened in the Six is that since 1962 production has remained fairly stable whereas consumption has increased considerably. That one example emphasises the need to make the CAP a more precise instrument for ensuring that supply and demand are kept level.
  It is necessary for a greater proportion of the money available for agriculture to be spent, secondly, to the benefit of farmers who are already operating on holdings that are economically viable or could be made economically viable with a greater capital injection. In my right hon. Friend's efforts to stabilise European prices, I hope that he will press the Commission to speed up the development of regional and social policies which are complementary to the evolution of the CAP.
  I come back to my second point, that the CAP is designed for the Six and not for the Nine. That being so, now that there are three new members there is no time like the present to get on with a major reappraisal of the CAP both in the light of what I have just said and because it seems likely that the trend will be for efficient farmers to develop their production according to the demands of the Common Market countries as a whole and not just according to their national needs. This will tend to lead to a more regionalised production pattern, and it is important that the consequences and effects of this regionalisation of production should be studied.
  Therefore, I hope that when my right hon. Friend returns to Brussels he will bear in mind in his negotiations the last sentence of the first leader in The Times of last Saturday:
  "The answer to current problems lies not in unworkable policies to 'freeze' prices, but in radical revisions of the processes by which unrealistic support prices are established, contrary to the interests of the consumer and the Government's fight against inflation."
  In considering the all-important and daily topic of food prices at home it is important to look at the realities. No one wants or likes food price increases, but
  256
  Lord Walston—who I think, was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in the previous Labour Government—reminded us in a letter to The Times on Friday of last week that the cost of farm inputs increased by £162 million in the past 12 months. Secondly, he stated: "The farm gate price of food accounts for less than half the price the housewife pays."
  Therefore, in relation to farm inputs and to consumer prices, the Opposition's words today might carry a little more weight if they gave the Government more help with their anti-inflation policies instead of supporting such incredible events as the proposed May Day strike.
  The Government have already made it crystal-clear they wish to hold prices down. By their actions the Opposition are doing all they can to frustrate the Government's intentions.
  What is true of the Government is to some extent true of the EEC in relation to food prices within the limitations of the CAP. The EEC has shown reluctance to increase food prices, and there has, therefore, been a considerable record of increased productivity within Europe and of cost absorption. Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend has already reminded the House, the EEC cannot take the blame for present United Kingdom food prices because the bulk of the current increase in prices occurred before we joined Europe and was due largely to the world price situation coupled with inflation.
  No one will deny that food price increases cause problems, but, equally, no one can deny that the Government are doing their best to alleviate those problems for those who are hardest hit. Reference has already been made to the removal of the remaining food items from VAT. I believe no reference has yet been made to the introduction of the Family Income Supplement, which did not exist under the last Labour Government. Come next October, pensions will have increased by 55 per cent. since June 1970. In addition, earnings and pensions have already increased ahead of food prices and retail prices in general. Furthermore, if the pessimistic forecasts made yesterday by Mr. Beresford, which I was glad he partially contradicted today —that was repeated by my right hon.

  257
  Friend—shouldy prove partially correct, we are now at the end of the standstill period, and, therefore, there will be an opportunity for wages increases which will help housewives to cope.
  Finally, the action of the Government in stimulating home agricultural production, an action of which the home farmers have made good use, has helped to produce a better supply of home-grown food. This is demonstrated by the marked improvement in the index of agricultural production between 1969–70 and 1972–73, when it went up from 105 to 117. May this trend continue.
  I believe that if the Government wish to stabilise food prices, as I know they do, they should continue to aim towards three objectives: firstly, the expansion of home agricultural production; secondly, containing inflation, as they are beginning to do; and thirdly, working for the revision of the common agricultural policy. Because the Government are pursuing those three objectives, they should receive the full support of the House in the Lobby tonight.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Torney: I wish to talk for a few moments about the orange which I am holding in my hand, a very common product available on all our stalls and in our supermarkets today, packed full of very necessary vitamin C which in itself is a defence against the common cold and many other ills, particularly for the children. As I have said, it is common and very reasonably priced today, but because of entry into the Common Market it will become far less common on the fruit dishes of the nation and will cost a great deal more. In the short time at my disposal, I propose to tell the House why.
  Almost all the oranges we eat in this country and, indeed, almost all the oranges eaten in all the Common Market countries are imported from outside the Common Market. Four out of every ten oranges sold in Britain come from Israel. The remainder come from Spain, South Africa, Cyprus and Morocco. Less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of the oranges imported in 1971 came from Italy. This is the crux of the argument I will advance to show that our plentiful and cheap supply of oranges, particularly in the
  258
  winter months, will be stopped because of entry into the Common Market.
  The Common Market is operating a protection racket for the Mafia-controlled orange industry of Italy. The House should know that the only place where oranges are produced within the Common Market is Sicily—in Palermo, Catania and Syracuse. The industry in Italy is inefficient and backward. Indeed the water so vitally needed to make the oranges grow is sold to the small farmers by the Mafia who, as everyone surely knows, are very much in control in that country.
  The prices of the vast majority of imports are governed by the prices of a tiny majority of imports from Italy. Before entry, only 3 per cent. of the oranges in the Common Market countries other than Britain came from Italy. Hon. Members can surely understand the situation that will prevail if the Government do not take some action to stop this racket.
  I hope the Minister has had an opportunity to read the Sunday Times from which I propose to make one or two quotations. If the Minister has not seen that paper, no doubt he can hasten to read it. The Sunday Times said of this racket:
  "But the discovery is unlikely to lead to any outraged cries in Whitehall. Among the partners in the Common Agricultural Policy are a series of elaborate alliances, and Britain's closest allies are the Italians.
  It is not a collaboration the Government will want to upset by appearing churlish about the unusual relationship between the Mafia and Britain's consumption of vitamin C. The story is not without value, however, for it shows how the system that now controls the prices of food in Britain really works, and it illustrates just how ludicrous the more obscure reaches of the Common Agricultural Policy can be."
  I quote further from the same newspaper which I hope the Minister will read and about which I hope he will give some explanation when replying:
  "…the EEC's policy has its origins in the vital negotiations of 1964 when the French especially were carving up the Common Agricultural Policy to their own advantage. The way it was done offered few advantages to the Italians, so when they asked for particularly rigorous protection for Sicilian oranges the five readily agreed. The result was a unique combination of protective barriers which is remarkable even by the standards of the Common Agricultural Policy."
  I hope that what the Minister said about the Government's total commitment to the CAP—and in fact to all the EEC

  259
  policies—will not commit us completely to this Mafia-backed Italian orange industry, because that will mean that the prices of oranges which we must import and sell here will rise. It will mean that far fewer oranges will be available, and possibly it will also mean that the present suppliers of our oranges will find new markets for their products. Therefore, quite apart from the fact that oranges will be more expensive for the consumer to buy, it is likely that oranges will be in much shorter supply.
  The story which appears in the Sunday Times on this subject is a story of exploitation. The Mafia's exploitation of Sicilian farmers has led to the exploitation of Common Market countries. And the British people will now be exploited, unless the Government are prepared to take some resolute action to ensure that this commodity will still appear on the fruit dishes of the nation in good and plentiful supply and at a price which people can afford to pay.
  5.2 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Marten: I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) will forgive me if I do not take up his line or argument on the Mafia, because it is a subject about which I know very little. It makes me wonder, though, whether the Sicilian Mafia have a godfather in Brussels.
  Mr. Torney: They have certainly got one in Bradford.
  Mr. Marten: I do not want to speak for long and I wish to take up two points made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in his speech today. He said one thing which disturbed me. He said that it was essential to this country to belong to the Common Market. If we look back at the debates which led up to our entry into the Community, we see that we were told that we were joining the Common Market because it was essential that we should reach a wider market, that this would increase our growth rate and raise our standard of living. It was emphasised during those debates that it was necessary to join the EEC otherwise we should fall far behind the standards in the Common Market.
  What has happened now that we are able to look at the facts? Last year,
  260
  before we entered the Common Market, our growth rate was running at 5 per cent.—higher than that in most of the Common Market countries. That was when we were on our own. We pulled ourselves up by our boot straps, and that is what we should have continued to do. We were told that our standard of living had fallen grossly behind that of the Common Market countries. But quite recently my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that in 1972—again before we got into the Common Market— Britain's standard of living rose by 8 per cent.
  Therefore, the two main economic reasons for Britain's going into the Common Market have disappeared— indeed, they never existed. We have known this for a long time, but the Government would not accept it when we pursued the point during the Common Market debates.
  I was also disappointed by the Minister's mild attitude towards reforming the common agricultural policy. Looking back at what has been said over the past two or three years, the impression we were given during many debates and discussions—I am not saying that this was said by the present Minister of Agriculture because he was not then in that office—was that the Government would take a much tougher line and would seek to reorganise, and even to scrap the CAP. We were assured that if we voted to go in, then after we got into the Community CAP would not last very much longer. That was my firm impression—and I say that subject to correction because I cannot produce the quotations as I have not come into the Chamber with them.
  Mr. Shore: Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. During the recent exchanges in 28th March, I asked the Minister about changing the CAP from within and he replied:
  "If we had not gone inside the EEC we would have had no opportunity to influence the price structure within the EEC."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1309.]
  Clearly, the Minister was giving the impression that one of the great advantages of our being inside the Community was that we would be able to change the CAP.
  Mr. Marten: The right hon. Gentleman may recollect that I then intervened

  261
  and said that if we had not gone in we would have had no need to change it anyhow. I am grateful for that intervention.
  Returning to the debate, I must say to my right hon. Friend that the Government's amendment on which we shall have to vote a little late avoids the whole issue with which this debate is concerned. I find the Opposition motion—and this is a rare thing for me—totally acceptable, and I am surprised, indeed deeply distressed, that the Government cannot accept it as it stands.
  On 15th February the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture,
  "Is not the Minister aware that until the Government take measures to control food prices their efforts to control inflation will come to naught?"
  Whether one agrees with that point or not, the Minister's reply was,
  "I recognise that there is a substantial and serious rise"—
  that is, in food prices—
  "and I have never sought to deny that. But these rises, as the hon. Gentleman knows, arc due to conditions outside the control of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1973; Vol. 850, c. 1419.]
  I accept that a large part of the rise is due to conditions outside the Government's control; but in these EEC discussions—and that is what this debate is all about—the Government have a wonderful opportunity within the Common Market to exercise control of prices of food from overseas. If they fail to do so, they must recognise that their credibility to use that argument again will have totally disappeared. I hope that they will take that as a warning.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture when making his statement on 28th March said:
  "In putting the British point of view, I stressed the importance of avoiding anything that could lead to higher food prices for consumers …".
  But surely that is virtually what the Opposition motion says. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Government did not gracefully accept it. We know that prices will rise if the Common Market gets its way.
  My right hon. Friend also said in that statement:
  262
  "Although the immediate effect of these proposals on United Kingdom consumer prices will be very limited, the longer-term effect on our prices could be more serious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1307.]
  My right hon. Friend reaffirmed that statement this afternoon.
  We know that prices will rise—for we have already experienced price rises in both sugar and bacon due exclusively to the Common Market. We also know that butter will increase in price from £377 a ton to £837 a ton simply because of the Common Market. If only we were Russians, we would get it at half the price. I only wish that the Government would make a bid for us to be treated just like the Russians.
  We have just heard about the oranges. That was new to me. I took the Sunday Times but did not have an opportunity to read that article. Then there are the absurdities of the Intervention Board. If there is in this country or on the market a glut of cauliflowers, the price of cauliflowers drops. This would be pleasant for our housewives. But then the Intervention Board does its job by going on to the market and buying, say, 20,000 tons of cauliflowers in order to force the prices up again for the housewife. The board then says that the cauliflowers can be given away to hospitals. But hospitals, in the meantime, will have bought a lot of cauliflowers when prices were low and will not want those cauliflowers which have been bought up by the board. So the cauliflowers are then sprayed with purple oil, or whatever it may be, and dumped to rot away. Thus the housewife will have to pay more for cauliflowers. This is the idiocy of accepting the common agricultural policy on going into the Common Market.
  My Early Day Motion No. 265, which was put down several days before this debate had even been thought of, was intended to support the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that those who joined me in signing the motion will consider it right to abstain from voting in the Division tonight. The Government amendment does not deal with the issue which we are discussing.
  If we can reduce the Government majority tonight, perhaps even to single figures, it will be a great help, because the Minister of Agriculture, when he goes

  263
  to Brussels, will be able to say that he cannot agree to any increases in prices because his majority here has been so small. He can also say that, if he has to go back with an increase, his majority might be even smaller, and he might have to resign.
  We should support the Minister prior to his next visit to Brussels. This is precisely what this sovereign Parliament of ours should do. We have already taken action in this way on heavy lorries and we should do it again and again and so assert the sovereignty of this Parliament. Ministers should be given instructions on how far we wish them to go on certain matters in the Common Market. If they want to go further they should come back and beg for our permission, and we can agree or not depending on the circumstances.
  This amendment by the Government virtually side-tracks the issue. It shows that the Government do not wish Parliament to exercise control or, alternatively, that the Government are prepared to compromise on the negotiations on food prices. It is either one or the other—or, perhaps, both. The Minister of Agriculture cannot compromise on food prices, after what he has already said, without compromising himself. That is the personal difficulty in which he finds himself. It comes back to the question of sovereignty. The Opposition motion asserts the sovereignty which we ought to assert, while the Government amendment avoids asserting that sovereignty. This is the issue in which I am most interested.
  I will not repeat the quotation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment, about how we could treat something as a matter of national interest and use the veto. This is clearly one occasion when we could, should and must use the veto. If Common Market food prices are allowed to rise and the veto is not used by Britain, there can be only one conclusion, and it is a harsh conclusion. The conclusion will be that the Government have put their Common Market policy not only above the need of their counter-inflation policy but also above the needs and interests of the British people. I sincerely hope that we have
  264
  not reached that tragic stage. Unless I can get a satisfactory assurance by the end of the debate, I cannot support the amendment for, in my view, it avoids the fundamental issue at stake—the national well-being of the citizens of this country.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. E. Femyhough: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) intervened when the Minister was speaking and he has subsequently made more penetrating observations. I want to point out to him that he will not get the answers he is seeking. He has demonstrated quite clearly that the Government, in their pledge to fight inflation, speak to the workers of this country with one voice but, in discussions in the Common Market, speak with another voice. When the European Communities Bill was going through this House, we were told that the Government would have the right of veto and that, whenever they thought the interests of this country were in peril, they would not hesitate to use that veto.
  However, it seems that they have not used it in the EEC discussions as often as another veto has been used by the Minister responsible for intervening in wage negotiations with the workers in this country. It seems fantastic that a Government should say, as this Government said last November, that if 100,000 workers get an increase of £1 a week the effect on this country will be disastrous and thus the Government will use a veto, yet, at the same time, one Minister after another returns from Brussels, having taken part in discussions and arrived at decisions which inevitably raise the cost of living in this country.
  Let us look at the position we have got into as a result of our membership of the Common Market. We heard the gramophone record again from the Minister this afternoon about how the price of meat was due to world shortages. We were told that there was a drought in one place and floods in another. There is always the explanation that world conditions have put the price up. Does that apply to butter? Are world conditions to blame for putting up the price of butter in this country?
  Everyone knows what the French did last year. They paid £100 per head above the normal price for the French farmers

  265
  to destroy their cattle. This was because there was a surplus of 400,000 tons of butter. The only answer to that problem was to turn the butter into cattle food to feed to the cows so that they would then again produce more milk which would then be turned into butter to be turned again into cattle food. That was the stupid situation which obtained in France last year.
  We have these 400,000 tons of butter, but the price is going up. Can anyone explain to me how, if the Government have a concrete argument in relation to the meat situation, the reverse does not apply in relation to butter? The Government say that, beause there is a shortage of meat, the price inevitably goes up. But there is a terrific surplus of butter and prices are still going up. The Minister tried to be clever this afternoon when I intervened. I asked whether what he said would mean that the price of butter would come down by 2p or go up by 2p less than it would have done. The Minister had to admit that it only meant that the price would go up 2p less than it would otherwise have done. By how many pence will it rise? We know that the price in the EEC is more than double our price. If we are to have harmonisation, some day we shall have to reach that price and the British people will have to pay it.
  On the basis of the rough figure of £400 a ton difference between the CAP price and our price, will the Minister say how long it will be before the British housewife is paying what is being paid in the Continental EEC countries? The right hon. Gentleman knows the price of their butter, and he knows the price of their meat. I hope that he will tell me how long it will be before our people, unless he and his colleagues use the veto as they said they would, are paying the same prices as consumers and housewives in the rest of the EEC.
  There is no purpose in having this power of veto unless one uses it. I want the Minister of Agriculture to use his powers of veto in relation to the common agricultural policy with the same courage and determination as the Secretary of State for Employment used his power against the low-paid workers when he stopped them getting even Wages Council rates. I want the Minister of
  266
  Agriculture to exercise the same courage and determination.
  It is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to ask workers to exercise restraint when at the same time they are deliberately subscribing to policies which not only defeat their counter-inflationary measures but add to the burdens and the problems of the workers whom they are asking to exercise restraint.
  These increases will not be necessary if the Minister is prepared to use his powers. But if he wants to be a very-much-loved man on the Continent and acknowledged there as a statesman but detested by ordinary workers here, that is what will happen.
  As the hon. Member for Banbury said, we were sold a lot of pups when the legislation was going through the House. I can remember how we were told that EEC capital would rush to Britain. One would have thought that the capitalists of Europe were lining up to break into Britain but that there was a wall between us which only the EEC and our membership could smash. The wall is not there now. Far from them rushing to invest here, the contrary has occurred. Our people have rushed to invest there.
  I asked for the figures on this matter last week. The EEC has invested £100 million in Britain—excluding oil. From a population of 200 million has come £100 million. But the investors of Britain, a country with a population of just over 50 million, have invested £300 million in the EEC. In other words, we are sending our money to them for investment purposes three times faster than they are sending theirs here. This is in complete contradiction to what we were led to believe. It is an entirely different story.
  When shall we see those beautiful pictures which were painted when the legislation was going through Parliament? When will they become reality? When shall we get this investment? When shall we start to make inroads concerning our exports as distinct from the inroads which the EEC is making into our markets?
  I have heard the Minister of Agriculture on many occasions, but I do not remember an occasion when he has seemed more uncomfortable and less enthusiastic than this afternoon. He knows

  267
  full well that his heart is not in the case that he was making. Things are not working out as the Government expected. Unless the Minister is prepared to assert the authority of this House by saying that, at a time when we are imposing on our people hardships that they dislike to counter inflation, he will not endorse any policy which aggravates the position of our people, he is asking for and will deserve all the trouble that he will get from both the British housewife and workers in general.
  5.26 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: There is a tendency on the part of those who opposed our entry into Europe, on both sides of the House, to blame the present rise in food prices on Europe. I dare say that this is natural on their part because they want to tell those of us who voted for British entry into Europe "We told you so." But if they raise their eyes above the horizon of Britain and of the EEC, they will see that there is a food price crisis in many other parts of the world which have nothing to do with the EEC.
  Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend has made an aspersion against me, as I am the only anti-Marketeer, a person who opposed Britain's entry, on the Government side of the House to have spoken in this debate. I have never said what he suggested I had said. I admitted and agreed with the Minister that the rise in prices was very largely international. I went on to say that now the Minister has to use his influence to stop any further rises in prices in the Common Market area of food prices. That is very different from what my hon. Friend said.
  Mr. Roberts: I accept my hon. Friend's statement. I am sure that I have learned that generalisations do not always cover everyone.
  I was about to refer to the general furore in the United States at present, where food prices rose by no less than 2·4 per cent. in February alone. That figure is comparable with our February increase of 1·8 per cent. The American 2·4 per cent. increase accounted for two-thirds of the month's rise of 8 per cent. in the consumer price index, the highest monthly rise for 22 years. Perhaps there is a warning for us here. The increase
  268
  in the United States has obviously come at the end of their phase 2 period, when there was possibly too much relaxation of the reins. There may be a warning for us as we approach phase 3.
  The causes of the food price rises in the United States appear to be much the same as those operative here. The American Cost of Living Council Committee on Food, which is chaired by the American Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. George Shultz, published its White Paper on 20th March. It put as the first cause the increase in consumer demand as a result of advancing consumer purchasing power. The same cause is bound to operate in Britain. As wages rise, as unemployment falls and as pensions and benefits are increased, part of the general upsurge in demand must direct itself towards food purchasing. That primary reason, which was given in the United States for their food price increases, must also apply to this country.
  The second cause of food price increases given by the Americans was the increased demand of other industrial countries, such as ourselves, which led in turn to expanded American exports of foodstuffs which went up by nearly 40 per cent. in value from the previous fiscal year to 1972. Much of this increase in exports was undoubtedly attributable to the grain needs of Eastern Europe, Russia, India, China, Australia and Argentina as a result of their poor harvests last year. That meant that the world crop of cereals fell by no less than 4 per cent. compared with 1971. We cannot imagine, if the world crop of cereals falls by 4 per cent., that that will not have an effect upon grain prices in this country. Grain prices the world over doubled within six months. It is as well to remember that we imported just over 11 per cent. in value of our foodstuffs from North America last year. If we import from an area of rising prices, it is clear that we import the rising prices as well.
  The third reason given for the food price rise in America is last year's general decline in domestic food production. As a result, the Americans suspended meat import quotas in June last year and their meat imports increased by 15 per cent. This year their meat imports are already up 20 per cent. on the similar period last year. We know what effect this has had

  269
  on the Australian meat market, because the Americans are now their biggest importers and take in about 250,000 tons of Australian meat per annum.
  I understand that the Americans are also considering raising their cheese quotas. They have already raised their quota of non-fat dried milk. All this is bound to have an effect on world prices and on the prices of foodstuffs that we import.
  The American answer to the problem is expansion of food supplies. It is expected, as a result of their measures, that farm prices will fall and be no higher at the end of 1973 than they were at the beginning. The consumer, because of the lag, is expected to benefit early in 1974.
  My major point is that our answer, too, must be to expand production as much as possible. I believe that the Government are doing this inside the United Kingdom.
  We have been importing about 30 per cent. in value of our food from Western Europe compared with about 46 per cent. from the sterling area. Between December 1971 and December 1972 food prices in EEC countries rose rather higher than here: France 8·7 per cent., Germany 8 per cent., and Italy 8·4 per cent., compared with our 7·9 per cent. Admittedly, the figure for the United Kingdom, for lack of a better, is between November 1971 and November 1972, whereas the other figures are between December 1971 and December 1972. Food prices in Canada rose by 7·7 per cent.—only ·2 per cent. below our figure.
  We have heard and read about pressure in the EEC for further increases in prices. This has not been agreed. I understand that my right hon. Friend has been arguing for some form of subsidy for farmers on similar lines to our deficiency payments system. But in Europe, as elsewhere, the answer must lie in expanded production without greatly increasing surpluses. We must expect that as real wages increase the demand for food will increase as well as the demand for other products.
  We must also be prepared to spend a greater proportion of our household income on food. It appears that the percentage of household income spent on food between 1968 and 1971 has fallen from 26·4 per cent. to 25·9 per cent. I do not know whether this is a continuing
  270
  trend. However, I believe that we should expect to spend more on food.
  Finally, when we give increases in wages we do not necessarily give more money to the housewife. Yet the pressure is really falling upon her. We would be well advised to be aware that money given in wage increases does not necessarily find its way into the housewife's purse, and she is the one who is under pressure.
  I appreciate the position of and statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury.
  The motion urges Her Majesty's Government
  "not to accept any further general increase in EEC prices."
  This is not a constitutional matter; it is a matter of negotiation. If the motion urged the Government to resist, I might be able to support it; but "not to accept", I cannot accept.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Con-way (Mr. Wyn Roberts) is in for a considerable disappointment if he expects the problem of agricultural surpluses in Europe to be dealt with by a greater elasticity of demand for food than there has been in the past. The problem goes a great deal deeper than that.
  I should like to express my satisfaction that the Opposition have initiated this important debate prior to the meeting which is to take place in Luxembourg on 9th and 10th of this month. I express mild surprise only that the Government left this initiative to my right hon. Friends. I think that there would have been some advantage to the Government in having their negotiating position strengthened by a resolution of this House on a matter on which frankly there is a surprising degree of unanimity about not only objectives but methods.
  The Minister's speech revealed a number of extremely disquieting aspects of the Government's approach to these negotiations. First, the Minister reasserted with great strength what he has said before, that the Government accepted the common agricultural policy. That will come as no surprise to anyone in the House. But what must have come as a surprise, even to those of us who recognised that there was an inevitability about

  271
  accepting the CAP in principle, was the extremely static view of the policy to which the Minister gave support. It is remarkable how the right hon. Gentleman's approach to the problem of prices and the development of the CAP appears to be that of a man sitting on a kettle of steam. His approach appears to be that the only way to deal with the situation is to try by whatever means he can put forward—of hectoring or persuading —to prevent prices rising. By taking this wholly negative approach to the CAP the right hon. Gentleman almost seeing to be unaware of the underlying reasons for the resistance to the policy of Her Majesty's Government of the other members of the Community with whom he has to negotiate.
  The problem is not one solely of prices. It is one of farm incomes in the Community. It was strange that the Minister gave so little attention to it. In many ways the Community has been considerably more flexible in its approach to the problem than the Minister. He said in one passage of his speech to which I listened with some care that he thought it would be wrong to seek to rely upon an incomes supplement for farmers as an alternative to a continual boosting of farm gate prices because it would have some effect in undermining the structural changes which are required in the Community.
  If that is the right hon. Gentleman's approach, one must be profoundly pessimistic about the prospects for changing the CAP not only to our advantage but to that of the Community itself. I suggest that the Minister's emphasis in this is considerably more conservative than that of the Commission which, in its proposals put forward for the Ministers to discuss last week, referred specifically to this as a means of moderating the problem of increased prices.
  I refer to paragraph 15 of the Commission's document which says:
  "The Commission is still convinced that the problem of low incomes in agriculture must be resolved principally by effective measures of structural policy and by specific measures for supporting incomes in the most underprivileged areas."
  We had not a word of this from the Minister in his announcement to the
  272
  House last week or in his speech today. We have had nothing about draft proposals for mountainous and other difficult areas of agriculture which seem to mark a new departure of significance in the thinking of the Commission, not unrelated to the fact that there are new commissioners dealing with these matters and to the fact that the Community itself is now much more flexible on this matter than Her Majesty's Government appear to be.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) drew attention, quite rightly in my view, to the chronic tendency of the Community to over-production. Again it is remarkable how little attention the Minister gave to this problem in his speech. It is one which has enormously exercised other members of the Community. However the right hon. Gentleman felt it unnecessary to refer to it save briefly and in passing.
  No solution to the problem which depends upon managing prices will be wholly adequate, and it is time that the Minister stopped repeating the speeches made by his right hon. Friends during the passage through this House of the European Communities Bill about the sacrosanct nature of the CAP. It is not sacrosanct. It is not regarded as sacrosanct by other members of the Community.
  I support that general proposition by reference to a number of proposals made by the Commission to the Ministers themselves to which again the right hon. Gentleman made very little reference. I have referred already to their proposals on income support and to the draft proposals for the directive on farming and modernisation. But there is also the encouraging recognition that the biggest problem of surpluses for the Community has been the over-production of milk and milk products and the interesting and very welcome suggestion that special beef premia should be paid which, I understand, would not affect the price of beef to the housewife but which would secure the income of the fanner and encourage a switch out of milk into fatstock production. That is an example of the kind of flexibility which the Community is showing but which Her Majesty's Government seem much less ready to demonstrate.

  273
  The most remarkable omission of all from the right hon. Gentleman's speech —and it is one which should not go unnoticed in this House—was his failure to refer to the fact that the Commission itself has proposed a fundamental review of the common agricultural policy and that there should be discussion on the Commission's proposals in meetings to take place in October.
  Why have not we heard from the Minister about it? Why did he make no reference to it in his announcement to the House last week? Why have not we been given any indication today of the Government's thinking about the techniques for adjusting the CAP in our interests and in those of the Community? It deserves to be put on record that paragraph 24 of the document which the Commission put forward for the Council's consideration last week says:
  "In drawing up these proposals for the 1973– 74 marketing year, the Commission has noted that the agricultural price policy is being increasingly conditioned through the limits imposed by the requirements of the genera] economic policy. It has also found that the agricultural price policy, though helping to raise agricultural incomes generally, cannot settle all the problems that arise as a result of disparities within the agricultural sector itself. The Commission is therefore making known to the Council its intention to carry out an in-depth examination of the problems to decide whether it is expedient to introduce supplementary measures which would allow a reasonable and appropriate increase in agricultural incomes without causing the market situation to deteriorate."
  That is a call for a fundamental review of the CAP. We have not had a single reference to it from the Government.
  What does this mean? As I see it, it means that the Government are quite unprepared to contribute their own new thinking on this matter and are simply playing the old gramophone record about the sacrosanct nature of the CAP. The Government have some quick thinking to do if they are to make any significant contribution to the discussions in October which will be so vital to the country at large, especially to the farming community and to the housewife.
  I conclude on a more immediate note. Plainly in the discussions next week there can be little major departure from the general outlines of the CAP. But there is one matter on which there must be the firmest possible stand by the Government.
  274
  It is on the question of the across-the-board price increase of 2·76 per cent. The Government have indicated that they are strongly opposed to it, and I believe that this House will regard it as wholly unacceptable if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not stand firm on this one. That is a nonsense. It is bringing together what clearly should be disjoined. It cannot solve the Community's problems, or the CAP's difficulties. That is because the monetary problems which the Community now faces are by no means solved, and the continuing float in this country and in Italy will create further strains for the existing agricultural policy.
  It is entirely rational, both from the point of view of our domestic interests and from the point of view of the Community's development of its policies, to make known our position. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that he has our support at least on this matter. In the concluding speeches I hope that a Government spokesman will give some indication of their forward thinking. It is a disgrace that we have not yet had such an indication.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. J. R. Kinsey: By now there is almost no need to comment on Socialist Common Market hypocrisy. That was most firmly and definitely stated when the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) took his stand. It is remarkble that under the circumstances the Opposition keep coming back in this direction.
  Their hypocrisy has now transferred itself to their attitude on prices which are affected by Common Market policy. We all know that the Socialist Government, in their pre-election negotiation for entry into the Common Market, accepted the common agricultural policy. All the criticism which has been made since then in the House by the Opposition, in the light of their pre-election attitude, is directly misleading to the British housewife.
  The trouble is that the major sector of the Opposition suffer from anti-Common Market blindness. That blinds them to the true position of the world situation. It is something of a surprise to me to hear the laissez-faire arguments that the Opposition put forward. An attempt is being made to plan production. That is

  275
  exactly what Common Mrket policy is all about.
  Mr. Deakins: It is unplanned.
  Mr. Kinsey: The aim of Common Market policy is to take away the element of chance, as much as man can take away that element, from food production. It is an attempt to achieve an ordered supply.
  Mr. Deakins Mr. Deakins indicated dissent.
  Mr. Kinsey: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) may well laugh, but that is the plan. I am rather surprised that Socialists should decry that attempt. It makes a nonsense of their attitude to life. The policy of the Common Market will not and cannot be entirely successful because nature will always take a hand in all circumstances. The other incontrovertible law is that of supply and demand, which takes over with its consequent effect.
  I am a city man and I represent city dwellers. Nevertheless I recognise the right of the agricultural producers to get an adequate return both from capital and labour. However, I do not intend to see the farmer feather-bedded. It is in the interests of the consumer that the farming community should get an adequate return otherwise that community will turn away from its productive efforts. That would create a shortage of commodities and would have consequent effect on prices, militating against the consumer, the shopper and the housewife.
  The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) recognised that factor and commented on it. He referred to the butter situation and the great rush away from production which took place. It was not only in the Common Market that that happened. The reduction of herds went worldwide. However, there was no real encouragement, not even from the Labour Government of the day, to increase production. That is one of the factors from which we are now suffering.
  The House is in danger if it looks only at the Common Market's effect on prices. The situation applies throughout the world. The Minister has put that point to us, but he need not have done so. We read about the situation in the papers. We know about the position in Russia. We know the position in America, and in Japan, as well as in the Common Market.
  276
  Diverse economies have been affected. Financially successful countries and those experiencing financial difficulties have been affected.
  The circumstances that apply in the United States are similar to those applying in the Community. They have a wages policy and yet the cost of food still rises. That is perhaps contradictory and is not understood by the public, particularly the housewife. When the housewife marches into a shop and stands at the counter she sees immediately in front of her that prices are rising, and she cannot understand it.
  An interesting statistic appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, which is circulated in this country, and which is independent. In the issue of 21st March it said,
  "The American housewife spends less on food than housewives in France and West Germany. Last year consumer food prices rose 87 per cent. in France and 8 per cent. in Germany, against 4·8 per cent. in the United States."
  The interesting fact is that in France and West Germany there are rising prices and yet their people are consuming more than American families. Is there not a lesson? I believe that reveals the prosperity of the Community. Does it not mean that prosperous people can better afford rising food costs? Is that not a thought to take forward with us?
  What is the effect of such prosperity on the world market? The editorial of the Christian Science Monitor of 31st March talks about the demand for meat. It also mentions that the United States' negotiators, in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, are bidding for better access for American farm products to Common Market countries. The editorial reads,
  "In 1973 alone the United States expects to sell 3·5 billion dollars more in farm products abroad than it will import."
  The common agricultural policy that is being condemned today is something that the world is looking to.
  We must consider meat prices throughout the world. The Christian Science Monitor refers to the fact that in Japan one cannot buy any beef or pork for less than 5 American dollars for a 1b. I cannot translate that immediately into English pounds. Consumers in Japan pay 7 dollars to 10 dollars a 1b. for beef.

  277
  That shows that world prices are met by nations that can afford them. Of course, those are the prosperous nations, and that has a bearing on world prices.
  If we had acted on meat price rises in this country in the same way as America, by trying to impose a ceiling, we should be experiencing the fear felt by American producers that the policy will create a shortage which will mean continuing high prices for the American housewife. For that reason, and for other reasons, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the other day that a world conference on food should be convened to examine the problem. The matter must be examined. I still believe that the need is for an expanding production of food. If we can utilise the agricultural potential of developing nations we shall be doing a useful service to the whole world.
  The Government have done their job in keeping down food prices by reducing taxes. That is the only sector in which they can work effectively. We must acknowledge the inflationary effect of taxation. The Government have reduced personal taxes, abolished SET and reduced taxation on purchases. The Socialist taxation of food has been removed. If those pressures had not been taken away by the Government, prices would have been higher.
  The Opposition have scoffed at the removal of tax on ice-cream and chocolates, which are an essential element of family food costs. I wish that we could have removed the other Socialist food tax on pet foods—
  Mr. Deakins: Who eats pet foods?
  Mr. Kinsey: The tax hit pensioners in particular. The old people make an important point of looking after their pets.
  I reject the Opposition's motion, because the Common Market has an effect on world food prices, and now we are in a position to influence its decisions. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has taken a stand in Brussels on these important issues.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Kinsey) has more
  278
  confidence in the Minister's intentions than I or my right hon. Friends have.
  I want to begin by taking up the hon. Gentleman's point about hypocrisy. If there has been any hypocrisy in the debate, it has come from the Government Front Bench—the hypocrisy of opposing further price rises under the common agricultural policy yet saying almost in the same breath, "We fully accept the common agricultural policy, and rising prices are an element in it". It is almost as if the Minister has been telling us that he is in favour of sin, but on this occasion is against adultery, at least in the first few months of marriage. I do not think that we shall hear the same story next year.
  The Government accept all the mechanisms of the common agricultural policy for keeping up prices—levies, intervention buying and export subsidies, which cost a great deal. They must also accept—this is what they are reluctant to admit—that under the present common agricultural policy if agricultural incomes are to keep pace with incomes in the non-agricultural sector they must rise each year. Otherwise, as has been happening since 1962 in the Common Market under the common agricultural policy, the gap between those incomes grows wider and wider.
  There is no point in the Minister's telling us that he does not like what is happening, as it was inevitable in acceptance of the common agricultural policy as it is now. Those higher food prices year by year must inevitably mean higher prices for the British housewife.
  The Minister has been telling us in particular that he will resist higher food prices, but he will not resist so strongly that he will dare use the veto. The situation reminds me of the passage in an 18th century French court drama where a young courtesan, a lady of easy virtue, is being carried off by a nobleman to his bedroom. As she is carried, screaming and kicking, she cries, "Rape! Rape!", loud enough to satisfy the demands of honour but not so loud as to attract attention from anyone who might help her.
  Mr. Marten: In defence of my right hon. Friend, may I say that he has not exactly said that he will not use the veto. He has said that he might or might not.
  Mr. Deakins: The Minister cried for help last week and this week, and the Opposition have come to his assistance. Having cried for help merely to satisfy the demands of honour, the Minister is now reluctant to accept the motion, because he knows jolly well that he does not really need our help. He is reluctant to use the veto, and will not do so. I confidently predict that if our motion is rejected the Minister will next week submit to the pressures of his agricultural colleagues and accept higher prices for many commodities if not necessarily across the board.
  What can be done to help the housewife if the Government should give in next week? The dread word "subsidies" has been mentioned. Why not? The Government's attitude is that we cannot have subsidies without rationing. That is a load of rubbish. We have bacon and sugar subsidies. Can anyone put his hand on his heart and say that there is rationing of bacon or sugar, except by price, a form of rationing that applies to many other commodities? It is a nonsense to link subsidies and rationing.
  Perhaps the Government will claim that those subsidies are not subsidies That raises the question, "When is a subsidy not a subsidy?" Perhaps the answer is, "When it is a distribution payment on sugar or a stabilisation payment on bacon". But, to misquote the Bard, that which we a call a subsidy would be equally welcome to the British housewife if the Government did not choose to call it a subsidy. It does not matter as long as we have some price stabilisation and support for the housewife.
  My party accepts the need for consumer subsidies. The Government oppose them because their use would mean a transfer of resources from rich to poor, and that would never do from the present Government. They could have subsidised food since the start of the freeze on 6th November. It would have cost money, but they have saved over £100 million on the agricultural support system in the current year—1972–73. The Government's refusal to subsidise food was a failure of political will, and was not a result of the complexities of the operation. They would have been as nothing compared with the complexities of value added tax.
  280
  Several Conservative Members have made a point about world shortages. Is there any world shortage of bacon, sugar, butter, cheese or milk? There are to be increases in the prices of all those commodities in the next 12 months as a direct result of the common agricultural policy of the Common Market. It is nothing to do with world shortages. Butter is certain to go up in May, as are sugar and bacon, and milk will probably go up later this year.
  What excuse will the Government offer then? They do not like accepting the responsibility. What will they tell the House and the housewife when the Intervention Board operates to keep up the price of butter and meat? What will they say to the housewife when world cereal prices fall later this year and she cannot receive the benefit? They will have to tell her and the House that in accepting the common agricultural policy they have willingly accepted a dear food policy.
  The fact is that the common agricultural policy needs to be scrapped. There is no point in tinkering with it. If the Minister will accept that message from the House tonight, he will go forewarned and forearmed into his battle in Brussels or Luxembourg next week, and will be encouraged to take the first steps in that direction. That is what the debate is all about. Therefore, I hope the House will accept the motion.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: I followed the start of the argument of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), when he said that agricultural incomes will have to rise every year within the Community, but I thought that his conclusion was entirely wrong. The only way to increase agricultural incomes is to reduce the number of people in agriculture, and that has already started on the Continent. In 1952, 25 per cent. of the population in the Six— the original members of the Common Market—were in agriculture. Over the past few years great steps have been taken in reducing the number in agriculture and thus increasing the farm income of those who remain in the industry.
  In 1972 the proportion of the total population employed in agriculture was 15 per cent. It really ought to be as low as 7 per cent. As the hon. Member for

  281
  Walthamstow, West knows, agriculture in the United Kingdom is really prosperous and flourishing at the moment—a situation in which 3 per cent. of the United Kingdom population produces 3 per cent. of our gross national product which comes from agriculture. On the Continent, 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. of the gross national product attributable to agriculture is produced by 14 per cent. of the population. The hon. Gentleman was not very honest with himself—and he is very knowledgeable on agricultural subjects—when he argued that the only way to increase farm incomes in Europe is to go on increasing farm gate prices. The way to increase farm incomes is to reduce the number of people in agriculture; and that is not happening in Europe. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend goes to Brussels he will be telling himself that it is in the interest of everybody in the United Kingdom to try to reduce farm gate prices on the Continent.
  I could not follow all the arguments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He said we must look for ways of making continental farmers more efficient, and that he did not think the Government had any new thoughts. He went on to explain the special scheme on the Continent to encourage beef breeds against dairy breeds. Surely, he was there telling my right hon. Friend what my right hon. Friend was saying in this House last week—that the proper way for CAP to go was just with schemes such as the calf-rearing scheme and the calf subsidies that we have in this country and which they have not got in Europe. In this way, with production grants, we can increase farm incomes, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West wants, enabling us at the same time to negotiate sincerely for lower farm gate prices.
  On the Continent we are really facing not an agricultural but a social problem. We have solved our agricultural problem in this country. We are able to reduce the taxpayers' liability to the agriculture industry, and the agriculture industry becomes more and more profitable each year. As the House knows, we are the largest food importers in the world, and even if we were outside the European Community we should be paying a great deal more for many of the commodities
  282
  we now import, simply because they are in such short supply. So we have the problem of expanding home production, and there are already very encouraging signs of success in this sphere.
  The most encouraging sign in our countryside this winter has been the heavy stocking to be seen on all our farms. How the farmers have managed to do it with the price of livestock I do not know. The cereal acreage remains the same, but the amount of livestock to be seen in the fields throughout the winter months seems greater than ever before. I hope this will show up in the half-yearly agricultural returns. There are concrete signs, for anyone to see, of a major increase in agricultural production, particularly in livestock and cereal yield. On prices, the problem is surely the price of fresh meat, especially beef. We know that there is a world shortage of beef and an increased demand from the United States which, for the first time, is importing from Australia. Years ago we used to argue that Japan should take more old ewe mutton from Australia and New Zealand. Japan is now doing that, but the Japanese taste for mutton has increased so much that they are now taking New Zealand lamb, which I do not welcome. The very trends that we have wanted and for which we have argued for years are now going ahead.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West did not live up to his normal knowledge of agriculture when, yesterday, he predicted a good harvest and falling cereal prices. He is a very brave man. I know that everyone is well on with cultivation, but the acreage is not up and we do not know what the climatic conditions will be. Are we really to see falling grain prices in the coming year? I believe the hon. Gentleman is quite unrealistic. I know that the Americans are bringing many acres into production and getting rid of the fertility bank. That will help, but it will take some time before it gets through to the rest of the world.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, this year Russia has bought 80 million tons of grain and China has come into the market, buying 6 million tons. These are not signs of falling cereal prices. For the first time in history, all the people of China are adequately fed and they are going to have to continue to buy if they are to keep up their standard of living.

  283
  So, again the hon. Gentleman is being unrealistic.
  One of the great problems that we have to face over the next few years is very high world cereal prices—a problem which is bound to be reflected, through no fault of the Government, in the price of bread in this country. This debate has had a slightly unrealistic air about it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have argued that CAP is causing higher prices in this country. That simply is not true. Higher prices in this country have been caused by prices in the world, which are far higher than the farm gate prices already agreed under CAP.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Some Government speakers believe it is sufficient answer to the motion to say that a Labour Government would have accepted the common agricultural policy. That may well have been the case; I understand it is arguable. But even if it is accepted it simply proves to me that there are deluded hon. Members on both sides of the House. The abandonment of a cheap food policy on entry into the Common Market was a self-inflicted wound of appalling magnitude, which may eventually prove fatal to this country. Because of the population of the United Kingdom, principally that of England, we have a heavy bill for imports, due to our farming production being insufficient to feed our people. As a result, we have always to look for food imports. With the adoption of CAP this situation has been aggravated.
  In the Common Market the bills will be astronomical. Forecasts made confidently from the Government Front Bench during the EEC debates have already been exposed as wishful thinking, if not outright deception. The fact that the fishery resources of this country were sold out in negotiations will aggravate the food position in due course and—an important point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney)—oranges will become a rare and expensive fruit, which will have a deleterious effect on our children.
  Hon. Members whom I support have referred to the destruction of food which takes place within the EEC—a practice
  284
  which is sinful and will bring retribution. The President of the Food Manufacturers Federation has had a very quick conversion—within 24 hours. It was almost as fast as that which happened to St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Yesterday he was definite that on five main foods there would be price increases of between 10 per cent. and 24 per cent. by the end of the year. I do not think it is possible to read that forecast out of context, no matter what the Minister of Agriculture may have expressed today as that man's present views.
  The Minister is in default in not accepting this motion, for he would go to the EEC with a much stiffer spine if he did so. It is unbelievable that the motion should be seen as in any way exceptionable, and I shall support it in the Lobby tonight.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Milne: This debate has been remarkable for two or three things, particularly the absence of the Liberal Party which claims to have campaigned so actively for our entry into Europe and also for the fact that we are dealing with a Government amendment which speaks of giving the highest priority to combating inflation in the European Economic Community. If, as the debate has shown, the Government are really keen on doing this, the obvious thing is for them to accept the motion and resist food price increases within the framework of the CAP.
  The vital factor is that the CAP, despite what was said earlier by my hon. Friend about the re-examination of that policy which is supposedly taking place in Europe, is the linch-pin of our entry into Europe and of the Community's policy on agriculture and food prices.
  We should consider the question of prices more realistically than we have been prepared to do thus far. It is not just a question of cheap food prices being demanded from Europe; by our entry into the Common Market we turned our backs on the opportunity of world trade and the advantages that we had in terms of the price of foodstuffs. It is not simply an element of bargaining that is at stake in this debate; it is the whole policy of our entry into Europe.
  It is no use talking about renegotiating the common agricultural policy when we

  285
  deserted the Commonwealth on 28th October 1971. The people who should have been dominating the debate are those who told us, in the heady days prior to our entry, that the solution of our economic, industrial and agricultural problems lay in membership of the Community.
  That is the kernel not only of our discussion today but of all the policies that have flowed from that decision to enter. The Government would never have been able to impose on the British people the price increases and the policies that they have imposed in the last three or four months if we had not handed over to them the instrument by which they could do it, namely, entry into the Community.
  Therefore, we demand satisfaction from the Minister on two or three key issues. In some ways we cannot really demand it from him, because he is not capable of giving it. The main answer that we want is to the question: how far are we prepared, as a Parliament and a Government, to withdraw from Europe if the demands of the House and the demands of the nation are not met? Some might argue that this is now impossible, but whether the people who voted for entry or not are prepared to accept it, the Labour Party is committed to the renegotiation of our entry into Europe, within not only the limited framework and confines of this debate but the wider issues and aspects of our membership.
  The Opposition are demanding from the Government, week after week and month after month in the period that lies ahead, a wide debate on regional policy, industrial policy, fuel and power and steel. This is not a debate solely on agriculture. It is the start of a wide, searching examination of the folly committed by the House in allowing the Government to enter the Community on 28th October 1971.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: The excuses we have heard from the Government side for the increases in food prices have tended to show that everybody is responsible for the increases except the Government. The excuses would have made Machiavelli look like a fifth-rate performer and an amateur.
  286
  The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) added a new dimension to the debate by concentrating on dividing the nation. His contribution was to try to divide families. He said the real problem was that the working man was not giving his wife a sufficient proportion of his wages. That is a new and remarkable dimension in the excuses which have been put forward.
  We were told that a special Minister had been appointed to keep an eye on prices. She was to be the watchdog to ensure that they did not rise. If nothing can be done to control prices, when is she to be given the sack? That would be the logical consequence of the situation.
  All this need not have happened if we had not been so silly as to go into the Common Market. If we had shown a little more faith and confidence in those who expressed their faith and confidence in us in trying times—the Australians, New Zealanders and people of the other countries of the Commonwealth—we could still be purchasing cheaper food from them than anything we could get from the Common Market. The situation is probably best outlined in the Government amendment, which says that the Government are:
  "to give the highest priority to combating inflation"—
  not in the interest of Great Britain but
  "in the European Economic Community's overall interest".
  If any Conservative Member believes that Britain's interests should be put first he will come with the Opposition into the Lobby tonight against the Government who are selling the nation down the drain.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Everyone in the House, and certainly millions of people throughout the country, will think it right that we should now have a debate on a matter of such supreme importance as food prices. I would have thought that whatever views people took about the Common Market everyone would agree about that.
  I must make an exception, however, in the case of the Liberal Party, which has been most notable for its complete absence from the Chamber on the first occasion that the House has discussed the increase

  287
  in food prices resulting from British entry into the Common Market. The country should take note that the Liberal Party is so little interested in rocketing food prices that it cannot even take the trouble to attend the debate. Heaven alone knows how it will vote. I suppose that it will line up with the Government, and that we should attempt to draw as slight a distinction between the Government and the Liberals on this matter as we should attempt to draw between, say, Sutton and Cheam.
  I first recall to the House what the Minister of Agriculture said in his famous speech in Brussels. This should have been superfluous but, unfortunately, it has proved necessary because, in the House, the right hon. Gentleman did not repeat his strong words. Hon. Members who had heard him speak only here, this afternoon, might completely misapprehend what he said in Brussels. I should like to put his words there on the record. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not object if I quote him. The headline in the Daily Telegraph of 28th March 1973, following the right hon. Gentleman's protest in Brussels, was:
  "Food Price Revolt by Britain
  Godber leads fight against inflation"
  Then it went on:
  "Mr. Godber, Minister of Agriculture, said that a general freeze of EEC farm prices was vitally needed to prove that member states really meant to fight inflation."
  A little later it said
  "'This is a matter of crucial importance to us in Britain,' he declared."
  Later still it said:
  "Mr. Godber said: 'The cost of the present system is already high and all the signs are that it will increase on the basis of present price levels'".
  and, later still, that
  "'some increases in food prices are due to world conditions and will occur whatever decisions we take in the Council'".
  True enough.
  He went on:
  "We must not endanger our …battle against inflation by adding to food prices unnecessarily."
  Those are very strong words.
  Mr. Godber Mr. Godber indicated assent.
  Mr. Foot: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding his head. I can-
  288
  not understand why he does not nod his head to our motion, because it uses several of the words which he used in Brussels. Our motion refers to a
  "general increase in EEC prices."
  That is a direct quotation from what the right hon. Gentleman said in Brussels. The motion also refers to
  "a matter of vital national interest"
  which are the words that he used in Brussels, although he may not have used the term "vital national interest" in the technical sense that we are employing.
  We put down the motion in the hope of assisting the Government. If they had been prepared to let it go through, I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House and on both sides of the argument—including my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who takes a different view from some of us on the general question of the EEC—that the Government could then have gone back to Brussels with the backing of the motion and would therefore have been in a stronger position.
  The debate is of some importance, in the sense that it may set a precedent for future debates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) has said, we shall have debate after debate initiated by those right hon. and hon. Members who wish to assert the authority of the House of Commons. If the House abandons its authority at this first test—that is the meaning of the Government's amendment—it will be all the more difficult to assert it in future.
  One of the things we must extract from the debate is exactly what is the position of the Minister of Agriculture now. No one listening to his speech today could doubt that he had greatly weakened the force of the words which he used in Brussels. We do not know in which character he was appearing. When he was in Brussels he gave the impression that he was Horatius holding the bridge. Today, in the House, he looked more like Sextus selling the pass—Sextus, who wrought the dead of shame.
  This is a matter of great importance, because the right hon. Gentleman, on the contrary, could have gone back to Europe reinforced by a decision of the House of Commons against this further

  289
  general increase in prices, which he himself deplores, denounces and says is unnecessary, even to the maintenance of this contraption, the common agricultural policy. Instead, he will go back to Europe gravely weakened.
  What has brought this about? The Prime Minister may have brought pressure to bear. After all, at the most critical moments in our lengthy debates on this subject he sought to persuade the country that there was no question of great food price increases threatening us if we entered the EEC. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that it was a great question. He did not say that the food price level in the Common Market might threaten the whole of the Government's counter-inflation policy—which is what the Minister of Agriculture said in Brussels. On the contrary, what the Prime Minister said to the Tory Central Council at Central Hall, Westminster, on 14th July—and this is the basis on which we went into the EEC—was:
  "Joining the European Community will have only a marginal effect on prices. In the first six years of our membership, while we change over to the new system of food prices, the increase in the cost of living as a result of entry will be half a new penny in the £ each year."
  Mr. Godber Mr. Godber indicated assent.
  Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman nods his head, let him go to Brussels and quote that passage. But what force will his argument have? They will laugh at him over there. They will say to him, "But if the margin is so narrow as that, why are you so worried? Why are you engaged in revolt by Britain?"
  Is the Prime Minister so insistent in this matter because of the undertakings he gave to President Pompidou on the question of the Common Market? We have heard some statements made about the agreements or understandings of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the question of the common agricultural policy. What about the Prime Minister's position? After all, he is the man who is answerable. Apparently, it is the view of the Prime Minister that it is impossible for us to depart, in essentials, from the common agricultural policy because that was the agreement made with President Pompidou. But why should the Prime Minister be such a stickler about his
  290
  promises to Pompidou when he breaks them to everyone else?
  Why should the Prime Minister say, "I must stick to the absolute letter of what I agreed with the French President on the subject of the common agricultural policy even though I abandon all my views on a compulsory wages policy, price controls, 'lame ducks' and everything else"? Of course, he may say that there was no such detailed agreement between the two men. That may be the defence. Very well! If they did not get down to such details, and if our rights over these matters were not signed away, what is the objection to our motion? What is the objection to the Government's exerting their power to the very limit to ensure that we are not bound by the food price increases which our own Minister of Agriculture says are superfluous and unnecessary even to the common agricultural policy itself.
  There is no reason for the Government's objection to the motion, except an abject surrender. But why should the Minister of Agriculture want to go to Brussels so disarmed? We thought that he was going to fight for the housewives of Britain. That is what was said on the radio. Now we discover that he is going into the ring with all the ferocity of Ferdinand the bull.
  The right hon. Gentleman may say that the motion is carrying things too far —that it is making things too difficult for him. It is not. He can remedy the matter perfectly well. He can, first, call on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to tell us why the Government object to the motion. Is it because they consider that the British House of Commons has no right to insist, in advance, when the veto should be invoked? If the Government say that, they are also claiming that the decision when the veto is to be employed—when this essential instrument is to be drawn from its scabbard—must rest solely with the Government and not with the House of Commons. That is not what we were told in the lengthy debates on entry into the EEC.
  The responsibility in this debate rests not only on members of the Government and not only on the absent Liberal Party; it rests on every Member of the House of Commons, because we shall all

  291
  be answerable to the British housewives who are, as it happens, very much concerned about the question of food prices.
  So I say that every Member of the House who wishes to send the Minister to Brussels to fight against food price increases, which the right hon. Gentleman says are unnecessary, has the power to do it in the Lobby at about 7 o'clock. But every Member who refuses to go into the Lobby and fight against price increases in this way should not prate around the country that he is fighting rising food prices and inflation. Let those hon. Members be silent from now on. This is the test whether the British House of Commons is to assert its right, dignity and claims on the supreme question of the food of the British people.
  6.42 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) asks me to explain why the Opposition motion is unacceptable. I will explain it in this way. It stems from an ignorance of the processes of the Common Market to which the Opposition have quite willingly condemned themselves by standing clear during the whole of the time when they could have made themselves heard. If they understood for a moment how things can be influenced in the Common Market they would have not have tabled such a motion.
  They do not understand because they will not participate—because they fear to show the weaknesses of their own divisions. The motion deliberately seeks to pinion the Minister—to prick him on a pin so that he cannot move, and his wings are clipped. One realises perfectly well that it suits hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to do this. But it does not suit the interests of the country, through its membership of the Community. Far from it.
  Mr. Shore Mr. Shore rose—
  Mr. Davies: I will give way in a moment. The motion seeks to pinion the Minister because it suits the Opposition so to do. In defending the interests of the country to the best of his ability in the councils of the Community the Minister needs to be in a flexible position to negotiate. Flexibility for negotiat-
  292
  ing is essential. Far from supporting the Minister, the motion would compress his capacity to attempt to obtain those things which many hon. Gentlemen opposite have been seeking. It requires him to state now ultimata which would effectively debar him from taking part in negotiations thereafter.
  Mr. Shore: When the right hon. Gentleman thinks about it he may realise that he has made a statement of great constitutional importance. He is telling the House that if it seeks to intervene— to express a point of view on behalf of the British people—in the process of policy-making or law-making in the Community between the time of the formulation of a proposal by the bureaucrats in Brussels and the final enforcement by the Council of Ministers, that inevitably limits the Minister and is contrary to the interests of the country. We cannot accept such a view.
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is making a travesty of what I said. My point was that to enable the Minister to take account of the many representations that have been made during the debate it is essential that he should get into a negotiating posture. The terms of the motion are designed to prevent that from happening. I went on to say that that would be clear to hon. Gentlemen opposite were they more deeply involved in the considerations affecting the Community.
  Mr. Molloy: Get on with your clipping.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is seeking to play on both sides of this instrument. He says that the effect of the common agricultural policy on food prices in this country is too small, according to the Minister, to warrant my right hon. Friend being active in the defence of the British housewife. On the other hand he says that the common agricultural policy is the biggest single menace to this country's food costs. He must decide on which side of the instrument he proposes to play.
  My right hon. Friend made it abundantly clear that if he were to accept the total package now proposed by the Commission, against which he has most vigorously and vehemently argued in negotiations, it would have an extraordinarily

  293
  small effect on our food costs. He gave the figures, and I will requote them because they seemed to be striking. If the total package were accepted it would have the effect in the year beginning 1st May of adding 0·2 per cent. on food costs which, looked at in terms of the retail price index, would be of the order of 0·05 per cent.
  Why despite that—and here I answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—does my right hon. Friend give vent to expressions of great concern, which he repeated clearly today, about the crucial importance of the battle against inflation, on which I know him to feel strongly? It is because within this framework there are many things which need to be adjusted. Even if the effect on food prices at the moment is small, and it is, the policy as it stands needs adjustment in the way which has been so fully discussed today. He, there-force considers, quite rightly, that when he is in Brussels discussing these matters with his colleagues he is dealing with something that is of critical importance not only to consumers but to our farmers and the farming community generally.
  It would be wrong to try to say that because the effect of the proposed increase is small, from our point of view, which it is, it has no real importance and he should not pursue it in his negotiations in Brussels. Quite the contrary; it is of extreme importance.
  Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Why not accept our motion then?
  Mr Davies: I have already described the extraordinary limiting effect of the motion and the need to allow the Minister to discuss these things flexibly and to reach the conclusions which the whole House seems to want.
  Mr. Marten: If a conclusion is reached, that is that. Can this House reverse that conclusion?
  Mr. Davies: If at the end of my right hon. Friend's negotiations there is a conclusion in Brussels it will be a conclusion of the Council of Ministers and it is, at that point, not reversible although by that time it will have taken careful account of the many representations that have been made.
  294
  I think it only right to point out to the hon. Gentlemen who have called upon my right hon. Friend to defend innumerable different points of view during the course of this debate that in order to do so he must get into the negotiations and negotiate. To try to stop him doing that at the outset is to frustrate the attainment of the objectives to which so many hon. Gentlemen have declared their support.
  There has been constant reference— indeed the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) made reference to it— to the need to impose the veto. I have heard this expression frequently in the House and I know it has been very fully discussed, but in the light of my experience of the Community I would say that it is an expression which does not correctly represent the actual performance of the Community. The actual performance of the Community is to strive, through great discussion and argument, to reach a point of consensus. That consensus is reached at times with the utmost difficulty, and at times not at all. There are issues which have been outstanding in the Community literally for years for want of a consensus. But it is wrong to imagine that this starts by an individual country lodging at the outset an objection which it will in no circumstances discuss. This is not the manner of working in the Community. Were it so the Community would find it virtually impossible to conduct the enormously wide range of business it does.
  Mr. Fernyhough: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this was the one power that, when the Bill was being pushed through, we were told we had. We were told that if we did not like something we should be able to veto it. In all the arguments and the debates I have heard, that has always been the strong argument—that in the last analysis we could say "No".
  Mr. Davies: I am still saying that that precise position obtains today as it did when the right hon. Gentleman had that assurance. The difference lies in the attitude that is explicit in the motion —that a veto is lodged at the outset before discussion. This is not the manner of performance in the Community. Were it so, the Community would become entirely incompetent to discharge all the

  295
  business that in fact it does, business much of which is of undoubted benefit to us. I want to assure hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House that the provisions for the absolutely major national interest of any country being protected to the final point of agreement—
  Mr. Molloy: What about our country? Talk about Britain. The right hon. Gentleman is not an EEC Minister.
  Mr. Davies: I am talking about Britain. This country is a member of the Community, and I referred to it as such.
  To revert to the question which the right hon. Gentleman put, let there be no doubt that in the last resort the vital interests of this country can be defended by the refusal to agree to something which is passing through the Council. But to assume that such action should be taken before discussion, before negotiation, is to assume something which seems to me to be basically unsound. This was the precise position that the right hon. Gentleman's motion sought to put to my right hon. Friend.
  I will deal now with another matter to which a great deal of reference was made in the course of the debate, and that is the future of the common agricultural policy. This matter was raised constantly in the course of the discussion, and it is of vital interest. The truth is that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) did my right hon. Friend less than justice. My right hon. Friend referred to many of the points to which the hon. Gentleman said subsequently that no reference had been made.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister made absolutely no reference at all either in his statement last week or today to the fact that the Commission had proposed a fundamental review of agricultural policy, and that was the major burden of my criticism.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman in fact referred to several items to which he complained that the Minister had made no reference, and that was not correct. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture freely agrees that he did not make reference to this today
  296
  because the survey is directed at the longer-term working of the common agricultural policy and not the price determinations with which we are currently concerned. But neither my right hon. Friend nor I consider the survey as anything other than of the utmost importance. It is vitally important that the Commission should—and will now—review in depth the working of the common agricultural policy, having regard to the very evolutionary nature of that policy. Nobody can doubt that in the years that have already gone by the common agricultural policy has not been static. It has been evolving, and its basis has been moving. The numbers of people employed in the industry, the size of farms, the number of farms, the nature of farms, the technology of the industry—all have been in a constant state of evolution.
  It is only right that, as the Community —and I think this is very evident at the moment—becomes more and more preoccupied with the effect of food prices on the living standards and the cost of living of its people and its own inflationary problems, it, too, should consider this to be a moment at which it needs to look in depth at the nature of the agricultural policy. I detect among those I meet in the Community and the Council a universal feeling of anxiety about the impact of inflation on food prices, and I have absolutely no doubt that this feeling will continue to be one which will strengthen and not weaken. Let me say that the intention of the Commission to conduct this survey now is one which we certainly applaud and which I think will prove to be of the greatest value.
  It is also important to point out that there has been a great deal of comment about butter. I realise perfectly well that it is a particular case, but it is certainly equally true that, basing oneself upon the inevitable results of pursuing the motion which has been put forward, my right hon. Friend would be debarred from conducting just that kind of discussion which is necessary.
  My right hon. Friend would undoubtedly be able now to take part in a major discussion about the whole shift of the balance of structure within milk production and livestock production.

  297
  The fact of the matter is that the amendment which the Government have put down to this motion allows the Minister to have the means of achieving this purpose. I would stress that there has already been a quite positive suggestion put forward about butter by the Commission. It is suggested that a reduction in price of the order of £100 a ton should be envisaged for butter. It is also suggested that there should be a consumer subsidy of the level of 2p per pound. So it would be quite wrong
  to assume that the Commission is not constructive.
  Let there be no doubt that the terms of the motion would be a means of stopping the Minister achieving the very purpose which the House has in mind. The terms of the amendment give him that liberty of action. I hope the House will support him most strongly in the action he now takes.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 261.

  Division No. 96.]

  AYES

  [7.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Heseltine, Michael

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

  Hicks, Robert

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Dean, Paul

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Digby, Simon Wlngfield

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Astor, John

  Dixon, Piers

  Holland, Philip

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Hott, Miss Mary

  Awdry, Daniel

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hordern, Peter

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hornby, Richard

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Dykes, Hugh.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Howe, Rt. Hn. sir Geoffery

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Batsford, Brian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Emery, peter

  Hunt, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Farr, John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Benyon, W.

  Fell, Anthony

  James, David

  Biffen, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Blaker, Peter

  Finsberg Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Joplling, Micheal

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kaberry, Sir Doanld

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Foster, Sir John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Bray, Ronald

  Fowler, Norman

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Brewis, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Kimball, Marcus

  Brlnton, Sir Tatton

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

  King, Evelyn (Dorse, S.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fry, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gardner, Edward

  Kirk, Peter

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Knight, Mrs.Jill

  Buck, Antony

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Knox, David

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Lambton, Lord

  Burden, F. A.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Lamont. Norman

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lane, David

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

  Gorst, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gower, Raymond

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Grant, Anthony(Harrow, C.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gray, Hamish

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

  Channon, Paul

  Green, Alan

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grieve, Percy

  Loveridge, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Luce, R. N.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Grylls, Michael

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  MacArthur, Ian

  Gurden, Harold

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  McLaren, Martin

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hall, John (wycombe)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Clegg, Walter

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice(Farnham)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Maddan, Martin

  Coombs, Derek

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Madel, David

  Cooper, A. E.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Costain, A. P.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mather, Carol

  Crouch, David

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Maude, Angus

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hay, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Maxwell-Hyslo, R. J.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Redmond, Robert

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  MitchelI, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Temple, John M.

  Moate, Roger

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Molyneaux, James

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Money, Ernle

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tilney, John

  Monro, Hector

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rost, Peter

  Trew, Peter

  More, Jasper

  Royle, Anthony

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Morrison, Charles

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mudd, David

  Sandys, Rt. Hn D.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Scott, Nicholas

  Waddington, David

  Neave, Airey

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Nott, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wall, Patrick

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Simeons, Charles

  Ward, Dame lrene

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Owen, Idris (Stockpart, N.)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Soref, Harold

  Wilkinson John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Speed, Keith

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Percival, Ian

  Spence, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Sproat, Iain

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stainton, Keith

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stokes, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Raison, Timothy

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Sutcliffe, John

  Mr. Oscar Murton.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Tapsell, Peter

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Ashley, Jack

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davies, lfor (Gower)

  Hamling, William

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Barnes, Michael

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Hardy, Peter

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Deakins, Eric

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dempsey, James

  Hattersley, Roy

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Doig, Peter

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Bishop, E.S.

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Horam, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Driberg, Tom

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Booth, Albert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Bradley, Tom

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hunter, Adam

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Ellies, Tom

  Janner, Greville

  Buchan, Norman

  English, Michael

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Evans, Fred

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Ewing, Harry

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Faulds, Andrew

  John, Brynmor

  Cant, R. B.

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Foot, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Ford, Ben

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Forrester, John

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

  Coleman, Donald

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Conian, Bernard

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Judd, Frank

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Garrett, W. E.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Kelley, Richard

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Kerr, Russell

  Cronin, John

  Golding, John

  Kinnock, Neil

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lambie, David

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lamond, James

  300

  301

  Latham, Arthur

  Oakes, Gordon

  Sillars, James

  Lawson, George

  Ogden, Eric

  Siiverman, Julius

  Leadbitter, Ted

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  O'Malley, Brian

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Leonard, Dick

  Oram, Bert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Orbach, Maurice

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Orme, Stanley

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Steel, David

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Padley, Walter

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Loughlin Charles

  Paget, R. T.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lyons Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Strang, Gavin

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pardoe, John

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  McBride, Nei

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  McCartney Hugh

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)

  McElhone, Frank

  Pavltt, Laurie

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  McGuire, Michael

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Tinn, James

  Machin, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Torney, Tom

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mackie, John

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Prescott, John

  Varley, Eric G

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wainwnght, Edwin

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Probert, Arthur

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Salnts)

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

  Radice, Giles

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rankin, John

  Wallace, George

  Marquand, David

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Watkins, David

  Marsden F.

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Weitzman, David

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Richard, Ivor

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mendelson, John

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Whitlock, William

  Mikardo, Ian

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Millan, Bruce

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Milne, Edward

  Roper, John

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Molloy, William

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Sondelson, Neville

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Morris, Charies R. (Openshaw)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Woof, Robert

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

  Moyle, Roland

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Murray, Ronald King

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 261.

  Division No. 97.]

  AYES

  [7.12 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Crowder, F. P.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

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

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. Gen. Jack

  Astor, John

  Buck, Antony

  Dean, Paul

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Burden, F. A.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dixon, Piers

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Carlisle, Mark

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Drayson, G. B.

  Batsford, Brian

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bell, Ronald

  Channon, Paul

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Benyon, W.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Emery, Peter

  Biffen, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Farr, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fell, Anthony

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Clegg, Walter

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fidler, Michael

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cooke, Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Coombs, Derek

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bray, Ronald

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Brewis, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Crouch, David

  Foster, Sir John

  302

  303

  Fowler, Norman

  Lambton, Lord

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Fox, Marcus

  Lamont, Norman

  Ridsdale, Julian

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

  Lane, David

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Fry, Peter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff. N.)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G D.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Gardner, Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Gibson-Watt, David

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

  Rost, Peter

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Royle Anthony

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Loveridge, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Luce, R. N.

  St. John-Steves, Norman

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Spndys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Goodhart, Philip

  MacArthur, lap

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  McCrindle, R. A

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gower, Raymond

  McLaren, Martin

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'bgh & Whitby)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Shersby, Michael

  Gray, Hamish

  Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)

  Simeons, Charles

  Green, Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Grieve, Percy

  Maddan Martin

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Madel, David

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

  Grylls, Michael

  Maginnis, John E.

  Soref, Harold

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Speed, Keith

  Gurden, Harold

  Mather Caro,

  Spence, John

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maude Angus

  Sproat, Iain

  Hall John (Wycombe)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  stainton, Keith

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mawby Ray

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper,

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M.

  Harrison Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills Peter (Torrington)

  Stokes, John

  Haselhurst Alan

  Mlscampbell, Norman

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hasting, Stephen

  Mltchell, Lt.-Co,.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Havers, Sir Micheal

  Mitchell, David (Basinstoke)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hawkings, Paul

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, sir charles (Eastbourne)

  Hay, John

  Molyneaux, James

  Charles (Eastbourne,

  Hayhoe Barney

  Money, Ernie

  Taylor, Frank (moss side)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.,

  Hicks, Robert

  Monro, Hector

  Tebbit, Norman

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Montgomery, Fernus

  Temple, John M.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth,

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  More, Jasper

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Holland, Philip

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Morrison, Charles

  Tilney, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hornby, Richard

  Nabarro Sir Gerald

  Trew, Peter

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Neave, Airey

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Nott, Jonn

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hunt, John

  Orr, CaPt. L. p. S.

  Waddington, David

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Owen, ldris (Stockport, N.)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pa9e, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Walker-Smith Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  James, David

  Pa9e. John (Harrow, W.)

  wall, Patrick

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Jessel, Toby

  Percival, Ian

  Wells, John (Maldstone,

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  pike. Miss Mervyn

  White, Roger (Gravesend,

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  pink. R. Bonner

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Jopling, Michael

  Powell, Rt. Hn J. Enoch

  Wilkinson, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wfnterton, Nicholas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Kimball, Marcus

  Raison, Timothy

  Worsley, Marcus

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Younger, Hn. George

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Redmond, Robert

  Kirk, Peter

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and

  Knox, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Oscar Murton.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Bishop, E. S.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire. W.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Cant, R. B.

  Ashley, Jack

  Booth, Albert

  Carmichael, Nell

  Ashton, Joe

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Atkinson, Norman

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bradley, Tom

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Cohen, Stanley

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Brown, Robert C. (N'ctle-u-Tyne, W.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

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

  Concannon, J. D.

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Buchan, Norman

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  304

  305

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Cronin, John

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  John, Brynmor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whltehaven)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Davidson. Arthur

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prescott, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

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

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies G Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Probert, Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Radlce, Giles

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Judd, Frank

  Rankin, John

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Kaufman Gerald

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Deakins Eric

  Kelley, Richard

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kerr, Russell

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dempsey, James

  Kinnock, Neil

  Richard, Ivor

  Doig Peter

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dormand J. D

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lamond, James

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Latham, Arthure

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&R'dnor)

  Driber, Tom

  Lwason, George

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dnberg Tom

  Leadbltter, Ted

  Roper John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Ross, Rt. Hn. william (Kilmarnock)

  Dunn, James A.

  Leonard, Dick

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dunnett Jack

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Sandelson, Neville

  Eadie, Alex

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Short, Mrs. Renee (Whampton.N.E.)

  Ellis Tom

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  English, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Evans, Fred

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sillars, James

  Ewing, Harry

  McBrlde, Neil

  Silverman, Julius

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCartney, Hugh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McGuIre, Michael

  Spearing Nigel

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Machin, George

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Foot, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stallard A. W.

  Ford, Ben

  Mackie, John

  Steel, David

  Forrester, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

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

  Strang, Gaving

  Garret!, W. E.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Marquand, David

  Summersklll, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Marsden, F.

  Thomas.Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)

  Golding, John

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Tinn, James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Meacher, Michael

  Torney Tom

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Melllsh, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tuck, Rapheal

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brlghtside)

  Mendelson, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Varley Eric G

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mllian, Bruce

  Walnwrlght, Edwin

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Milne, Edward

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, ltchen)

  Walker Harold (Doncaster)

  Hamling, William

  Molloy, William

  Wallace George

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Watklns, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Weitzman, David

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Wells William (Walsall N.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Moyle, Roland

  White, James (Glasgow, pollok)

  Heifer, Eric S.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn Frederick

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hilton, W. S.

  Murray Ronald King

  Whitlock, William

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Oakos, Gordon

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Horam, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Doughlas

  O' Halloran, Michael

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Howell, Denis (Small Health)

  O'Malley, Brain

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Orme, Stanley

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Padley, Walter

  Woof, Robert

  Hunter, Adam

  Paget, R. T.

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLER FOR THE NOES:

  Janner, Greville

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Mr. Joseph Haper and

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pardoe, John

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House endorses the determination of Her Majesty's Government to give the highest priority to combating inflation in the
  306
  European Economic Community's overall interest; and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's initiative in pressing for means of support other than raising end prices in the development of the Common Agricultural Policy.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6th March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question again proposed.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I am sure the House will recall what I was saying 668½ hours ago about some of the things which affect London. I wish to revert to one point I made at the commencement of my speech about Clause 12. I must advise the sponsors of the Bill, through the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tudgendhat) that a number of my hon. Friends have such grave misgivings and anxieties about the clause as it stands that, unless we obtain from him a satisfactory assurance this evening that he will agree so to emasculate the clause that it does not resemble its present shape when it reaches Committee—or, much more preferably, if given an assurance to withdraw the clause altogether in its present form—we must consider dividing against the Bill.
  Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: Since the hon. Gentleman has asked me for an assurance, this might be an appropriate time for me to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) will be replying on behalf of the sponsors.
  Mr. Davis: I am not concerned about the identity of the person who gives the assurance, as long as I receive an assurance. Therefore, I shall look to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) later in the debate to answer the point.
  Clause 12 confers on the GLC wide powers of arrest without warrant pursuant to byelaws which they can enact under Clause 6. It is true that the ambit of Clause 6 is not particularly wide but it relates to landing places controlled by the GLC and to works carried on at those landing places and to a variety of other things. In my view it is an unconscionable interference with the liberty of the subject for the GLC to seek powers of this kind.
  308
  When the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster made a somewhat notable and lengthy intervention in my speech, his argument was based primarily on the precedent of the Thames River Steamboat Act 1904. I have no doubt that all hon. Members are familiar with the provisions of that charter of human rights. I prefer to rely on Magna Carta and habeas corpus, but each Member is entitled to his own choice.
  I looked up the curious debate in 1904 on the Thames River Steamboat Act and I discovered that nothing was said—not a word—about the Draconian powers of arrest without warrant which that Act conferred on the then London County Council. It was of interest that during the Second Reading debate John Burns, the then Member for Battersea, said that there had been
  "a vulgar and impudent attempt to influence hon. Members by asking them to lunch and giving them a trip on the river, and parading a half-dozen of these steamboats, with an extra coat of paint, up and down in front of the terrace."
  It is true that we have had nothing of that kind as a result of our debate today, but I do not regard that as a plausible or worthy precedent on which to base an argument of that kind in relation to this Bill.
  The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster then said that he had taken the advice of the Home Office. I find that to be the least attractive of all his arguments. I have not always found the Home Office meticulous about such matters as the liberty of the subject. This is a serious issue. If powers of arrest without warrant are to be given to the Greater London Council in circumstances such as those in envisaged in the Bill, why should not they be given to other local authorities? Why should not private individuals who run building sites, or even landing stages at Clissold Park, seek similar powers against vandalism? It is not a satisfactory argument to say that the GLC would want only a limited power of this kind. The mere fact that the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster went on to say that individuals will have the protection of the police and the courts is not sufficient protection against excessive powers being granted to private persons.

  309
  Let us look at some of the subjects on which arrest without warrant can take place. They include:
  "prohibiting the bringing on to or the leaving at or near any council landing place of any explosive or other dangerous material or any thing which may, in the opinion of the council"—
  that is to say, in the opinion of whatever council official happens to be there on the spot—
  "be injurious to, or prejudicially affect the use of, or cause or be likely to cause danger to any person, council landing place, vessel, work, appliance, equipment, building, facility or service …"
  Knowing the hon. Gentleman's belief in the liberty of the individual, I should be extremely surprised if he is satisfied to assume those powers on behalf of the Greater London Council. I am sorry that, when he intervened last time, he was not able to give a more categorical assurance.
  It has to be remembered that the powers of arrest are conferred on ordinary private individuals—officials of the GLC. Some officials of the GLC have a misguided belief that they are constables, but they are not. They do not have the power of constables, apart from that power which this Bill would give them. These powers should not be conferred. Delegated functions are given to members of Securicor. A number of hon. Members—and I see they are in their places this evening-have had something to say in the past about Securicor. It troubles me that these private police forces should constantly be given increasing powers, and not simply under the terms of this Bill.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Am I to understand that, under this clause, the words "or servant" could mean anyone whom the council agrees to nominate but who may have nothing to do with the everyday work of the council at all?
  Mr. Davis: I think that is right. That is my understanding of the clause, but it is not for me to define a particular clause which we are discussing. That is how I would determine it, and my hon. Friend, by implication, also seems to adopt that interpretation. These Draconian powers are totally without justification. We are entitled to demand an undertaking regarding the withdrawal of the clause. I hope
  310
  that hon. Members opposite will share this view, as this is not a party point.
  We should be vigilant about the liberty of the subject particularly over Private Bills. When we were dealing with a Bill concerning the Isle of Wight a number of hon. Members took great offence to some of the legislation which was then being prescribed. There was then a long debate —or, if I remember correctly, two debates —because of the anxiety expressed. Hon. Members are entitled similarly to express anxiety this evening.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am trying to follow the hon. Member's argument. As I read this clause once any constable, officer or servant has seized the person, if that person can provide a name or address that is accepted, that is the end of it. I am not a lawyer, but if I am correct does this not go some way—I take the point the hon. Gentleman is making, and perhaps the power should not be as wide as is suggested in Clause 12—to mitigating the position? If a person gives a name and address, that would be the end of the matter and the person could not be taken before a justice or to a police station by a constable, officer or servant.
  Mr. Davis: I take the hon. Gentleman's point but I cannot agree with his interpretation of the clause. The question of the provision of the name and address is an integral part of the clause. Nevertheless, we should define what is stated in this clause. The clause states:
  "… any constable or any officer or servant may without other warrant than this Act seize and detain any person committing or having committed any offence against any of such byelaws and whose name or residence is unknown to and cannot conveniently be ascertained by such constable, officer or servant and take him to a police station or before a justice of the peace…".
  and so on. This means that, first of all, there is the question of this seizing and detention, which could go much wider than the ordinary power of arrest which is conferred on ordinary citizens by the common law. I am worried that the GLC are seeking to assume powers which are wider than the common law. It will be for the hon. Member for Chelsea to define the terms which we are considering here.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Does the hon. Member agree that the real burden of

  311
  the argument should be on the previous clause, Clause 11? It is in the situation which is referred to under that clause that trouble will be caused. If an officer or servant of the council, acting under Clause 11, purports to examine a person's clothing, bags or personal effects, would this not be likely to cause a fracas possibly resulting in the person finding himself in prison, purely as a result of the action of the council's servant?
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: Could my hon. Friend also give the House an indication how many officers or servants of the council are likely to be authorised to carry out these serious duties?
  Mr. Davis: I cannot reply to that point No doubt the hon. Member for Chelsea will take note of this and answer the point later. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) about Clause 11. I should have noticed that myself and referred to it specifically. He is absolutely right in what he says. Prior to an arrest, there could be searching. I imagine that many people in my constituency and in my hon. Friend's constituency may not take very kindly to being searched in this way. I will not dwell on this point any further.
  I wish to turn to one or two matters which were mentioned last time. I will deal with these briefly before I develop another theme relating to housing management which I think is most important. When this matter was last debated, my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) referred at considerable length to the question of the proposed motorway box. Since then there has been a debate on that issue, which is of grave concern to Londoners as well as being one of the most significant issues in the GLC election.
  Another interesting aspect of this argument arises from an article in The Guardian on Monday. I believe the item was also reported in the Sunday Times. The article in The Guardian stated:
  "The London Motorway Action Group last night demanded that Mr. Rippon, Secretary for the Environment, publish the report of his Department into the proposed west cross route of the inner London motorway box. The inspector's report was said yesterday to have
  312
  rejected the building of the route. The report was said to provide such an impressive argument that Mr. Rippon would have to accept its recommendation. But Mr. Rippon was alleged to be delaying publication of the report and his Department's decision until after the GLC's election on April 12. Rejection of the west cross route would be extremely embarrassing from the Conservative controlled GLC, which has advocated its importance as part of the motorway box."
  The report goes on to quote Miss Helene Middleweek, director of the London Motorway Action Group, as saying:
  "Mr. Rippon must either publish the report or stand condemned of the most cynical and shabby electoral manoeuvring ".
  I understand that the report has been in the Minister's hands for some time. This House—and London—are entitled to know whether the allegations in The Guardian article are true or false. We are also entitled to know whether there is any delay in the publication of the report and, if so, for what reason. One must also ask whether there is any question of suppression.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: My hon. Friend stated that this report is alleged to have been in the hands of the Minister for some considerable time. Is he aware that it is alleged that the report has been in the Minister's hands since some time last November? That means that it was in the Minister's hands well before the Minister for Transport Industries answered questions on this precise issue in the House last week, when he said that he would be publishing the report "as soon as possible". My hon. Friends will agree, I think, that tonight or some time this week would be a good opportunity for the matter to be cleared up so that the truth can be established on the record about the "cynical and incorrect" behaviour which is being alleged against the Government.
  Mr. Davis: "Shabby" was the word used by Miss Middleweek, but "incorrect" may be more appropriate. Certainly, if elections are to mean anything, the people should be informed of the facts. Too many people in this country take a cynical view of our democratic process. Perhaps when situations such as this emerge there may be some justification for that.
  There is a great burden upon not only the hon. Member for Chelsea. A much

  313
  greater burden rests upon the Government, to clarify the situation and to indicate whether there has been any suppression. They should give very good reasons why this publication has been delayed and, in particular, what reason there can be for not publicising it before 12th April.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Acton and my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) referred in the previous debate to unemployment and declining industries. I mention this in passing because the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made a very interesting observation during his speech on 20th March. I gave the hon. Gentleman notice that I should be referring to this. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech and said,
  "I apologise for intervening but I think the record ought to be put right. In that debate I did not say that jobs should be increased. I advocated that the departure of manufacturing industries should be slowed down so that we might maintain the right balance of employment in London. I should like to get that clear."
  The hon. Gentleman's response was very interesting. He said,
  "I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the consequences are the same. If the number of jobs were allowed to slow down rather than an attempt being made to curb that effect, it would be easier to deal more quickly with the housing shortage in London."—[Official Report, 20th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 354.]
  I think that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we repudiate that prescription for a cure for the housing shortage in London. I hope that the people of London will note the hon. Gentleman's prescription.
  We then went on to talk about the problem of land hunger in the inner London boroughs. We talked in particular about the attitude displayed by Conservative outer London boroughs which are refusing to co-operate with the stress areas of London to take effective action to provide land for those areas, land that is simply not available in places such as Hackney. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) and I have referred to this matter on a number of occasions in the House. We have referred to the squalid deals that have gone on between the GLC and Bromley, Barnet, Kingston and Richmond. The effects of those deals has
  314
  been to deny any real possibility, apart from a handful of people being moved into these areas through the transfer system, for inner London not to solve its housing problems but at least to take some reasonable steps to mitigate the hardship that is the daily life of people in areas such as mine.
  It is also interesting that the GLC has colluded with the present Government to provide no remedy for the increasing problems of homelessmess which are affecting the stress areas of London. These problems have to be witnessed to be understood. It is not just a matter of talking in statistical terms but a matter of seeing people who are deprived of their accommodation, due often to the wantonness of private landlords who want to do well on the housing market at the expense of their tenants. All sorts of problems arise. It is not simply a problem of the man deprived of his accommodation.
  Within the term "homelessness" one is entitled to include about a million Londoners who are living in the most squalid and horrible conditions. The GLC provides no regional housing strategy to deal with this situation. It provides no effective leadership. Fewer than 4,000 houses were built by the GLC in 1972 in a situation which demands that at least 12,000 houses a year be built. The GLC proclaims loudly and proudly that it has sold 15,000 houses in London and has recouped £50 million as a result. But it would take £125 million, plus the cost of the land, in order to replace that housing stock.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my hon. Friend saying that the GLC built only 4,000 houses in 1972? I am astonished by that, because my area, with one-sixteenth of the population, also built 4,000 houses—under Labour control.
  Mr. Davis: It was less than 4,000. I think it was 3,700. That shows the degree of neglect of those in charge of the GLC housing programme.
  Mr. William Hamling: Criminal.
  Mr. Davis: There is absolutely no understanding of the fact that as a result of this situation about 50,000 people on the transfer list of the GLC find that

  315
  their hopes of finding other accommodation are constantly diminishing.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in recent years the Greater London Council has been able to increase its annual number of lettings from 22,000 to 24,000? Is not it the number of lettings which matters to families who are in need of rehousing?
  Mr. Davis: I do not regard that as a very remarkable increase. It is not the number of lettings which matters. It is the amount of new accommodation which is being provided. The hon. Gentleman ought to see some of the lettings being provided in constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), and in many others. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again.
  I refer specifically to Hackney because I know more about Hackney than I know about other constituencies. But this matter affects the stress areas of inner London generally. In Hackney we are faced with a declining population. There is a racket in house prices. Even the most appalling accommodation is selling nowadays at between £11,000 and £15,000 —even in Hackney. There has been a forecast of a drop in population from 217,000 to 160,000 in the next 10 years. It is forecast that they will be mostly elderly and sick people. The young people are moving out of areas such as this, and there is no balance in the community.
  What we have to do, in which we need the help of the GLC—perhaps we shall get it after 12th April with a change of administration—is to get good housing for young couples. We must ensure that more schools and hospitals are built so that we can attract and not reject the young in areas such as mine. It is quite clear that there is a need for more rented accommodation. Whatever one may think about the system of private landlordism in areas such as Hackney, the fact is that private rented accommodation cannot be provided. We need a massive increase in local authority developments, with substantially increased Government aid. We need also a massive extension of municipal action.
  On my last important point, one would have hoped that the GLC might have
  316
  thought it necessary to take additional powers to deal with this matter. It is grotesque maladministration in housing management and an insensitivity to the needs of people, particularly in the older GLC blocks. I noticed, as an example of the insensitivity of GLC management, that the Lambeth Housing Committee alleged that the Greater London Council had set fair rent assessments on average 30 per cent. above Lambeth's fair rent assessment. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton indicates assent to the factual nature of that proposition. It is a scandalous state of affairs which certainly requires investigation.
  People wait ages for things, even the most simple things, to be done in these old blocks of flats. Months pass before minor repairs are undertaken. Letters take weeks, if not months, to be answered. Indeed, unless the Member of Parliament intervenes or the Greater London councillor has certain problems referred to him, the private citizen is placed in an impossible position. It is no small wonder that people on the Kingsmead Estate in Hackney feel deprived, forgotten and unwanted.
  Indeed, in Haggerston, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury, the local authority was asked to call in the public health inspector to deal with neglect by the Greater London Council. That has happened in my constituency. It happened in 1970 in Paragon Road. The GLC had so neglected the affairs of a terrace of 12 houses that a number of summonses were issued and there were a number of court hearings. It is intolerable that one local authority should be obliged to take this kind of action against another.
  I am sometimes asked: is the Tory GLC responsible? The trouble is that it is completely irresponsible. A situation which leads to summonses being issued cannot be tolerated in a civilised society. These are not supposed to be Rachman-type landlords; they are local authority scrutineers of what the public needs. This is a function that is sadly being forgotten.
  One of the troubles with so many GLC estates is the lack of adequate care-taking. I read a report in a local newspaper that the leader of the tenants association in Hackney had said that

  317
  GLC tenants are handing over their flats for "key" money and moving out without the council knowing. As rents are paid through a rent office, rather than handed to a rent collector, illegal tenants can use the names of the previous tenants without detection. The association was complaining about the cessation of the resident caretaker system. It said that the mobile caretakers were remiss in their maintenance and cleaning tasks and that the absence of resident caretakers led to vandalism. I am sure that is right and that it is repeated all over London.
  So it is an urgent matter, particularly for third-rate accommodation, such as that on the Kingsmead Estate, that adequate caretaking should be provided. This means the recruitment of more caretakers and giving them better conditions of work. They can hardly be attracted with the present conditions. I hope that in that way some degree of comfort can be given to those unfortunate enough to be required to live in this standard of accommodation.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the worsening situation that the GLC now accepts as a practical attitude that every ground-floor flat on its estates should have corrugated sheeting over all the windows and doors.
  Mr. Davis: I am sure one could go through the whole chronicle of examples. However, I do not propose to do that tonight. Suffice to say that I hope I have given some prima facie evidence that the GLC in this important sphere of housing management needs to do something drastic and needs to do it soon. There is no indication from the Conservative-controlled GLC that it is cognisant of this dramatic and important need.
  I believe that the Bill is deficient. It is not worthy of our support. We ought not to give it our support unless the hon. Member for Chelsea provides us with a reasoned understanding.
  Mr. Tugendhat: The hon. Gentleman cannot end on that note. He must go one stage further. Will he explain whether he regards only those clauses which are the responsibility of the GLC as being deficient or the clauses which are the responsibility of the boroughs?
  Mr. Davis: My attack has been launched primarily, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, on the Greater London Council. Yes, I think that the Bill is monstrously deficient. None the less, I shall not divide against Second Reading if the hon. Member for Chelsea deals adequately—I know he will try to deal reasonably—with the points that I have raised on Clause 12. However, we want more than a display of forensic ability tonight. We want a real assurance that the effect of this clause will be eliminated. I hope that that assurance will be forthcoming.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I hope that I speak for my hon. Friends in saying that I had some difficulty in following the tenor and themes of the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). He began, if I may put it this way without being discourteous, with a kind of—how shall I express it?—barrack-room lawyer's type of expose of some of the more esoteric bits and pieces, mainly in Clause 12 but also in other parts of the Bill. He then went on to make some kind of local constituency speech for the Hackney Gazette, or whatever is the name of the well-known Right-wing journal in that borough. He then made a feeble clarion call expounding, indirectly—which may be the best way of doing it—Labour's cause to be considered on 12th April. It was a very feeble effort. He finished by asking for assurances about some of the legal aspects of the Bill—making points which were as esoteric as those he made at the beginning of his speech.
  Be that as it may, in due course there may be a chance to glean enlightenment on some of the mysteries of the hon. Gentleman's speech, so there is no need to dwell on it at length now.
  Equally predictably, besides the comments made by the hon. Gentleman we had the traditional obeisance to some kind of electoral speech. After all, the GLC election is now only a week away, and the hon. Member was clearly extremely imbued with his obligations. I suppose that I may take some comfort from the gloomy, lugubrious countenances of his hon. Friends while he was doing it. In what the hon. Gentleman said when he left the legal points there

  319
  was no magic about Labour's message to Londoners for next week's election. That is understandable. It is easy to see that the Opposition on the Greater London Council are entirely deficient in any attraction to the electorate of Greater London.
  I understand the acute difficulties in which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central and his colleagues find themselves. There is little for them to grumble about, in a fundamental sense, after six years of successful Conservative administration in Greater London. We can all think of the things that we would like the next Conservative-controlled GLC administration—after 12th April—to do. We all have our minor criticisms and subsidiary arguments about things that the Conservative-controlled GLC has not had time to do in the last six years. That is understandable. But their attempt to construct anything more fundamental has failed abysmally and dropped like the classic lead balloon not only in this House but outside it in this campaign.
  Again that is understandable because one of the evidential facts which the public in London will be weighing up carefully, in an election which may not have some of the strident manifestations of a parliamentary election but which none the less will be a serious and considered campaign for the public, is what has been achieved since 1967. Having previously gone through the glottal stop of three years of abortive Labour administration when nothing happened in London, substantial progress has been made since in all the key areas—
  Mr. Freeson: My intervention really relates to the hon. Gentleman's last remark and to an earlier point that he made. Does he describe as a point of unimportant detail a cutback in housing starts annually from about 7,000 a year, rising on a programme to 12,000 a year, to fewer than 4,000 a year? In that connection, does the hon. Gentleman suggest that nothing was done prior to the election of the present administration, when there was twice the programme of house building in London than that operating at present? Is that a detail or an important matter, and ought not whoever is responsible at County Hall to increase drastically the house building programme in London on land which is available?
  Mr. Dykes: The length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention was not justified by what he said. It was very predictable. I regard the future of the housing programme in London as one of the key areas, together with transportation and education. But that does not mean that the hon. Gentleman was correct in what he said about the future strategy of London's housing. I may have an opportunity to develop that theme later in my remarks.
  We were all intrigued by the description of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) of how the boarding up of windows was characteristic of the present Greater London Council's policy. That is typical of the tone of remarks which we expect from Opposition Members in debates of this kind.
  In this debate we have to consider not only the important aspects of the Bill and the fact that it is a technical measure with a number of valid legal points to be made, but that it is a mechanistic and functional piece of legislation which is essential to the existence of the Greater London Council and its relationships with the boroughs in certain specialist areas. But that does not gainsay the real success of the contribution made by the Conservative administration in making Greater London as a whole—the most important capital city in the world—a city which I believe will improve in the long term if the present administration is allowed to continue in office.
  I pay tribute to the achievements of the present Conservative administration of the Greater London Council. It has achieved a relationship with the boroughs on housing which in the long term can only lead to a successful housing programme. It is in the early stages, and I agree that there is still a great deal of inadequate housing. But that is above all a local responsibility. The present housing conditions will be solved only by those who are at the centre points in their localities.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite insist on saying what a terrible state some GLC flats and estates are in, as if this was a unique state of affairs. They only have to visit Socialist-controlled boroughs like Islington to see the grotesque conditions in which a Socialist

  321
  local authority maintains its housing. I know, because Islington is where I reside, so that in that sense I have an interest in the borough. It is but one example, and there are plenty of others.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: To which housing estate is the hon. Gentleman referring?
  Mr. Dykes: I move on from housing to consider other areas of responsibility of the GLC. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are extremely preoccupied with the future of transportation and traffic movement in London. Under its Conservative administrators the GLC has made an imaginative start. It has got things moving to improve traffic flows and to balance the legitimate role of the private motor car, none the less saying that the private car and the heavy lorry especially will have to be balanced sensibly in the future with public transport. Again the development of policies of this kind will mean that we shall have a city of which we can be proud.
  Those are the realities of next week's contest, which will be an important choice. Even if, as often happens in local elections, the number of people who turn out to vote next week is modest in terms of nationwide elections, it will be a vitally important choice for those who vote and for those who say that they are making a certain decision by not voting. Whatever our party views, we all hope that there will be a wide expression of opinion.
  The next four years in Greater London —not three this time—are critical. It is in that sense that we have to ensure that this Bill and the powers that it accords the GLC on a continuing basis are adequate, and I say that not only in a non-political way because I believe that the political choices are vital in support of a Conservative administration which has already made a successful start in running London.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamling: I do not propose to pursue the vague generalisations and repeated congratulations to County Hall which we heard from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I am sure that most town planners recognise that the GLC
  322
  has failed signally to overcome some of London's basic problems.
  I return to the Bill and the Under-Secretary's speech. I noted that the hon. Gentleman, whom we all like and who comes from Birmingham, was wise to stick very closely to his script.
  We last discussed the Greater London Council and its Bill without knowledge of the recently published report on the docks. Since then we have all seen that report, and in this debate it is well worth considering some of the fundamental and long-term planning problems of London and discussing some of the considerations which ought to apply.
  One of the questions which I should like to put to the promoters of the Bill and to the Government concerns the future that they see for development in the dockland areas, especially what they see as being the chief agents of development in those areas. Do they envisage that development as being largely in the hands of publicly-elected local authorities, such as the GLC, or private developers who are hungry for profits?
  For how long are these plans expected to be discussed? For how long will decisions about the character of the development be delayed? While opinions are being canvassed and discussions proceed, and while private plans multiply, the sale of land continues, partial redevelopment continues, and dereliction persists.
  I live in South-East London and I travel through the docks area of the South Bank regularly, day after day. I have lived in that area for a long time. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of dereliction in the area, and that there is great scope for redevelopment. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) knows that very well. That is particularly the situation on the South Bank, which is the bank that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford know.
  There are great opportunities. With vision, South-East London could be rebuilt in such a way as to permit people not only to work and provide industry, but to live with dignity. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn) knows that, too. It is astonishing that the history of the last 25 years is one of failure to achieve any

  323
  real plan for the redevelopment of London. I hope that the plans for the dock area of London will not suffer the same fate as the plans—or at least the vision—that we had way back at the end of the last war for the future of London. That hope applies particularly to those who live and have to endure the prevailing conditions in inner London.
  It is important to consider the opportunity that we have been given for the development of the river, the river banks and the dock areas, and to ensure that the plans which are made are good and comprehensive—plans which will improve the quality of life of the people who live in the area now and who will live there in future.
  Hon. Members who live in and represent South-East London constituencies have received representations about the use of hydrofoils and hovercraft on the river. Those representations have been made by river users who are faced with the conditions brought about by the increase in the use of hydrofoils and hovercraft, and especially by members of rowing clubs. I am a member of a rowing club in Greenwich—the Curlew—and members of my club and other rowing clubs down the river are concerned about this development.
  What steps are the promoters of the Bill taking to ensure that people— including young people and children— using the river for pleasure can continue to use it with safety? What is the effect on river banks, piers and landing places of the increasing use of fast-moving craft? The banks and piers were not designed for them.
  It is nearly 30 years since we first talked of a plan for London. Against the background of the Layfield Report we can think in general terms. Those of us who are social historians will remember the picture of London in William Booth's time. It was a picture of unemployment and great poverty, particularly in East and South-East London. Many people thought that William Booth's London was gone for ever, together with the black spots which he talked about in parts of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), parts of the constituency
  324
  of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and parts of my borough.
  When I consider the reduction of available jobs which has already taken place in London I wonder whether the Government, or at least the GLC, have not been deliberately reducing the population in order to fit a situation which provides fewer jobs. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has retired from the Chamber, no doubt exhausted by his speech. He suggested that that has been the GLC's policy.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Not only are we losing jobs in our part of London; the tailoring and garments industry is going back to the sweat shops. Only recently a deputation of workers was complaining bitterly—my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and I were present—that those who have a job in that industry in the area of London to which my hon. Friend refers have to operate in pokey little holes, and that the GLC have done nothing to prevent that situation developing.
  Mr. Hamling: That reminds me of the work not only of William Booth but of Beatrice Webb, Edith Hogg, and so on.
  I am reminded of the fur-pullers of London, the tailoring trade and other trades. These are real and important questions that I hope not only the promoters of the Bill but the people of London will be concerned about.
  Mr. Jessel: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I redirect what he is saying about William Booth and Beatrice Webb to the second half of the twentieth century. Is he aware that all through the 1950s and early 1960s the London County Council, which was continually under Labour control in that period, systematically made it part of its policy to persuade industry to move out of London, with the avowed objective of relieving the housing shortage?
  Mr. Hamling: I am well aware of the history. I do not want a penny lecture from the hon. Gentleman. I have lived in the borough of Greenwich, and I have consistently put forward over the last 20 years the view that I am now putting forward. I have been consistent, despite what may have been done by those who

  325
  have governed in County Hall. I hope that the House will not be diverted from a consideration of the real problems of the people of London by petty party considerations. I have never allowed myself to be diverted by such considerations.
  If the hon. Gentleman looks at my history and my record, particularly that on motorways and on unemployment in Greenwich, I hope that he will get away from the petty party point of view. I am putting forward important considerations for the people of London. Over the years I have seen the loss of 20,000 or 30,000 jobs—
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: More than that.
  Mr. Hamling: Yes, more than that. I am not thinking of neighbouring boroughs but particularly about my own borough. It is something we have been raising year in and year out. We have now persuaded the London Labour Party of the magnitude of the whole question. It concerns thousands of men and women, particularly those who live in inner London and in the constituencies that my hon. Friends and I have the honour to represent. Our constituents are not worried about petty, partisan issues. They are worried about the real issues of jobs, housing and rents. They are the issues with which we should be concerned in the debate. So far, I have not made a political attack on anyone. I am concerned about the considerations the House should have in mind when it thinks about the future of London.
  Many of the people who have lost jobs in our part of the world find employment elsewhere, but only at the expense of travelling great distances to work—not just up to town but across London to places like Croydon, Carshalton and Beckenham, and even across the river.
  Mr. Lipton: North-West London.
  Mr. Hamling: Yes, indeed. Some of my constituents who live in the part of London in which I live—Abbey Wood— are getting up at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning to go to work and not returning home until 10 o'clock at night.
  The changing pattern of employment in London is a matter of concern to the GLC as well as to the Government. The
  326
  pattern of public transport in London has not been built up on travel across London in various directions. It has been built up rather like a spiders' web. That is why so many of us have been concerned about developing a new ring route for railways, to try to persuade people to use public transport by making it easier for them to do so. There is a need for the GLC to have further powers to improve public transport, especially the railways. The railway authorities are well aware of that. Are the people who rule London aware of its importance?
  There is a new concept, of travelling across London and not simply to the centre. People in my part of the world are concerned that there should be opportunities for employment for skilled workers, and that we should not become simply an area for service industries. Those are important considerations against the background of the Bill.
  I hope that from the debate will come a general view of how London should look in a generation or so—the population distribution, a positive picture of industry and commerce, and a positive view on the future of the Port of London. Certainly for those who live in riverside areas like Greenwich, Deptford, South-wark, Poplar or Limehouse, it seems that the Port of London has little or no future. Looking at the state of the Roya Group today and comparing it with what it looked like 20 or 30 years ago, we realise that there has been a vast change.
  We have talked about replanning river banks. In doing so there is a great need to remove the industrial slums and to provide new industries to cut down travel. I know that in the past both major parties in the House have tended to take the view that we need to think of job opportunities in parts of the country other than the South-East. I spoke earlier of Charles Booth's London. I have often said that there is no guarantee that we shall not return to the situation that then existed, unless we have an increase of employment opportunities in London and the South-East.
  Is there a general picture of the development of housing and the location of schools? When we talked about the London Plan 25 or 30 years ago we had that sort of thing in mind. I remember the London school plan, and I know that

  327
  my hon. Friends the Members for South-wark (Mr. Lamborn) and Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) remember it well. What has happened to it? What has happened to the overall picture of social capital in London? Is it to be swallowed up? Is it to disappear beneath the burden of the private development which is going on piecemeal even now?
  The great obstacle to the creation of a reasonable life and the development of a coherent plan for London is the inflated value of land. That inflated value can provide for private development and office development, but will it provide for the development of housing for the ordinary person, or for the young couple who cannot afford to pay much more than £10,000 for a house which is modest enough in all conscience?
  We know from experience in other parts of the country what great disparities there are in the value of land and the price of houses. In London today the value of land is rising at such a pace that I forecast that in 10 years' time it will be impossible to carry on any projects at all for council housing—either GLC or borough council. Already there are in my borough council flats of which the rent is £16 per week. That is in Thamesmead, which my hon. Friend knows well. It is something about which he is always complaining. What is it to be like in 10 years' time if land values go on rising at the present rate? There must be some answer from this House and from the GLC to the problem of the homeless people of London. A moment ago people were bandying figures about. All I can say is that in a borough like Southwark there are 8,000 on the housing list.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: There are 8,000 families.
  Mr. Hamling: Yes, 8,000 families. How many are there in Tower Hamlets, Shoreditch, Finsbury and Hackney?— thousands upon thousands. They cannot afford £16 a week. They cannot afford the inflated rents we already see. We have private development going on piecemeal on the river front, with town houses at Wapping at £27,000. There are plans for private development all along the river. There must be some stop to this, because increasing land values will defeat any comprehensive plans we may have for the future of London.
  328
  I want to speak briefly on something referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) some time ago, The London Properly Letter, a publication sent to businessmen interested in making fortunes, or a lot of money, out of development. To quote from the Letter:
  "Since the Tories returned to power house prices have boomed as never before, giving dealers a rising market to profit from. What's more, loans for once are readily forthcoming "—
  that, I think, is now a little out of date.
  "Office development restrictions have been shot away. … Landlords have started to cash in on the new bedsitter boom. Converting properties of every type to flats for sale has become a big business. The Government is exceedingly generous with improvement grants, which makes this operation very profitable."
  We know what is happening with regard to the improvement of housing in my hon. Friend's constituency of Brixton. People on low incomes are having to get out of the borough, and to get out of Lambeth and Islington, because they cannot afford these inflated prices. I understand it is called the "gentry-fication" of London. That is what is happening now and if ordinary people cannot live in London, the ordinary people who are expected to do the jobs in London boroughs, looking after hospitals on the meagre wages they have, to run London Transport and do all the other jobs, where are they to live? Not in £16, £25 or £30 per week flats. Pick up any copy of the Evening Standard or the Evening News and look at the advertisements. Is that the future of London that the Government or the GLC contemplate? It is not one which we on these benches contemplate and it is about time we had a real look at some of these London problems of housing and redevelopment.
  I want to refer very briefly to transport. In my borough of Greenwich we are very concerned with the transport aspects of the GLC Development Plan, particularly the motorway complex. This has been going on for a very long time and we have not had any real answer to many of the questions that we would like to put. We on these benches have said repeatedly there is a need for London to look at transport as a whole, at the importance of transport and the need for a great deal of capital to be sunk into

  329
  public transport. The whole of south east London is becoming a vast lorry park. If lorries are excluded from central London all that will happen is that they will concentrate at Shoreditch, Southwark, Rotherhithe and Lambeth. There must be a halt to this development.
  There must be tremendous improvements quickly in public transport. In The Cut there is double parking every day of the week except Sundays. One finds double parking there at any time and the police are quite powerless to stop it. The main link road in London, down Tower Bridge Road, goes through a street market. There is parking throughout its length every day of the week. Yellow lines and double yellow lines are useless. That is the kind of picture we have of the part of London we represent. It is one that we do not accept and are not prepared to tolerate for much longer. Yet we are to face even greater invasions by road traffic through the building of a complex of motorways. I wish to refer briefly to the Dover radial road. One of the troubles about building motorways partially is that gaps are left. I am thinking particularly of the three-mile stretch of the Dover radial road from Falconwood onwards that goes through the middle of my constituency. A motorway brings the traffic, the motorway stops and what happens to that traffic? It stands still in the Rochester Way. All I ask the Government is to finish that three-mile stretch and then leave us alone. Take the M20 somewhere else. Take the Ringway away. Four motorways have been driven through the heart of my constituency and we are not prepared to accept any more. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind. Let them tell us what they propose to do with the rest. I hope that we shall have an answer to these important questions soon.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) about the River Thames. Like him, I represent a Thames-side constituency, although I believe that there is a considerably longer length of river bank in mine. It is longer than that in any other constituency in Greater London. I share his views about the way these river bank areas have been affected. It is necessary to
  330
  maintain an attractive environment for the whole length of the river in London so that people can enjoy the surroundings in which they live and not have the view ruined by too many large blocks.
  I wish to reply to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West about a point they raised on which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central criticised me personally. That dealt with the matter of employment in London and referred to something I said in a previous debate. I do not withdraw one word of what I said then. I fully appreciate the concern of the Labour Members— it is shared equally by Conservative Members—concerning the housing and employment problems in London generally. I would suggest that Labour hon. Members who are perturbed about these matters do not always face up intellectually to the interaction between housing and employment problems. Any attempt artificially to boost employment in the Greater London area whether it is to increase employment or to arrest a decline in employment, will inevitably make worse the housing shortage. I believe that Labour Members should face up to that position. London, like other capital cities, is a magnet for people looking for jobs. Perhaps all capital cities have their Dick Whittingtons who want to come to the capital to seek their fortunes, and there is no sign of that not being the case today. People are moving into London to look for better jobs, and they come not only from the provinces but from Ireland and even overseas.
  The population of Greater London has fallen from about 8 million a generation ago to just over 7 million now. The Greater London Council has had misgivings about whether such a fall in population was to be welcomed but the Layfield Panel in its report, which was published a few weeks ago, said categorically that these misgivings were unfounded and that there was nothing to fear in the population of London falling to 5½ million or 6 million by the end of the century. The Layfield Panel saw no reason to worry about this and I see no reason artificially to boost employment in London. There is already virtually a state of full employment. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West

  331
  referred to bus drivers. I was told recently by London Transport, to whom I complained about bus services in my constituency, that it had the utmost difficulty in finding enough bus drivers, certainly in West London, where the economy is affected by the boom at Heathrow Airport. There is full employment. The number of people looking for jobs is far outweighed by the number of vacancies.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, Central and the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) argued at an earlier stage in the debate that the decline in the number of manufacturing jobs was to be regretted. I think the hon. Member for Acton said that the number had fallen by 170,000 from a total of 1,400,000 between 1966 and 1970—a fall of about 12 or 13 per cent. That is not something to be regretted. It is a situation which is to be expected for two reasons.
  Mr. Hamling: Thousands of jobs have been lost in South-East London. Workers such as tool makers possess skills which are needed by this nation. If these people become hospital porters, go into service industries and have to travel from Woolwich or Charlton 15 or 20 miles to work which does not demand that skill, is that not an indication that something is wrong?
  Mr. Jessel: Of course there is something wrong in a situation in which people cannot use the skills they have acquired, but we are living in an age in which the tendency has been for industry to move out of London. As the population of London has dropped from about 8 million to about 7 million, so people have "jumped across" the Green Belt to towns 30 or 40 miles from the city centre—to towns such as Maidstone, Guildford, Reading and St. Albans. These towns have seen a great increase in population. Many people are much happier and more comfortable living out there than they were in the congested conditions of London. That movement of population is one reason why the number of jobs in London has fallen.
  The other reason is the growth in the demand for services. As the economy of the country has grown over the last generation, people have been spending a
  332
  larger proportion of their growing real income on services and a smaller proportion upon goods. As their real incomes increase more and more people are requiring the services of banks, insurance companies, building societies, restaurants, women's hairdressers and so on. Their expenditure on manufactured goods is concentrated on items for which productivity has increased and it is therefore no longer necessary to have such a large proportion of people employed in manufacturing compared with service industries. There is nothing intrinsically bad or evil about that. There is a demand for services and people are being employed in order to provide those services. Meanwhile productivity in manufacturing industries is increasing with a declining work force. The Layfield Panel saw nothing to worry about in this and I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite seem to deplore it so much.
  Another accusation made by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central was that the Richmond Borough Council, which covers the area of my constituency, had taken part in what he described as a squalid deal. He named it as one of four London boroughs which had done so in connection with GLC housing. He is not in the Chamber at present but I should like him to know that the Richmond Borough Council has recently doubled the number of nominations which it accepts from the GLC to 100 a year.
  This may not sound a very large number but I would remind hon. Members that Richmond is one of 20 outer London boroughs. It has a population of two-thirds of the average borough so that if every outer London borough adopted a similar policy there would be an additional 3,000 nominations per year available to the Greater London Council. That is a substantial number.
  It is the very number mentioned by an hon. Member opposite when he said that production of houses by the GLC had fallen from 7,000 a year to 4,000 a year. He did not mention that this drop in production last year was entirely due to a prolonged building strike. Everyone knows, if he bothers to inquire into it, that this strike had an adverse effect on production. Despite this the GLC has managed to increase its total number of new lettings from 22,000 a year to 24,000 a year. This is a considerable increase

  333
  and one which should be strongly commended.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: The opportunities that we have in this House for discussing the problems of London are few and far between. This is despite the fact that the population of London is almost equal to the combined populations of Scotland and Wales. We all know how much time is allocated to Scottish and Welsh problems—far in excess of what is allowed to the Metropolis.
  The Greater London Council has become one of the most bureaucratic and inefficient institutions in this country, if not in the world. Let me quote one simple example. I wonder how many of my hon. Friends have been faced with this problem. An old couple whose children have grown up, married and moved away, want to move from their three-bedroom flat into a one-bedroom flat. The amount of work imposed upon an hon. Member trying to effect this one transfer is quite inconceivable.
  The GLC has produced a new kind of creature. I can only compare them with primeval mastodons floundering around in vast seas of paper, unable to know what is going on outside the confines of County Hall. They make plans which they are unable to carry out. Then they find themselves having to bring in outside managment consultants and all kind of other outside bodies, costing thousands of pounds, to tell them how to run their organisation.
  On the question of simply transferring a tenancy from one council tenant to another, the machine has completely broken down and it is almost impossible to do this. If I were given the power, I could effect all the transfers I want to arrange without consulting County Hall just by going into one street and telling a tenant that there is somebody in the next street who has more accommodation than he needs and they can swap. But heaven help anybody who tries to organise that through the official channels of County Hall. It just cannot be done.
  I want to refer also to the kind of mania which now besets the planners of County Hall in favour of motorways. So
  334
  far as the Borough of Lambeth is concerned, many thousands of houses are to be demolished or adversely affected by the construction of Ringway One. It is a very curious thing that the Government have finally decided on the construction of Ringway One, which goes through some of the poorest areas of London, and have abandoned Ringways Two and Three, which go through Conservative areas. I wonder whether that is accident or part of a carefully designed plan. I do not know. All I know is that many thousands of people are living in suspense because they do not know what will happen to their homes in the next few years. Any attempt to get precise information from anybody as to exactly where Ringway One is to be constructed is fruitless. It is impossible to get any definite information.
  I can see that it is necessary to have ringways round London, but the traffic problem of London could probably be better dealt with if the Greater London Council adhered to its original idea of having Ringway Two or Ringway Three.
  On top of all that, the Greater London Council now has a hair-brained idea, a £1 million scheme to widen Brixton Hill into a six-lane highway. Just imagine what will happen in that £1 million scheme if the Greater London Council ever gets it off the ground. On one side of Brixton Hill, governed by an ancient Act called the Rush Common Act, we have houses with large gardens, which cannot be built upon. The original idea of the council was to have a woodland walk through this Rush Common land on the east side of Brixton Hill. This would have provided a very pleasant woodland walk for the benefit of people living in an area which is very short of open space. What does the Greater London Council do? It produces a plan for a six-lane highway which will kill any possibility of having what would have been a charming woodland walk along the length of Brixton Hill.
  Most hon. Members know that Brixton Hill starts somewhere near Streatham and slopes down towards Brixton itself. The traffic already proceeds down the hill, at a very unreasonable speed. Imagine what will happen when all those six lanes of traffic eventually converge in the heart of

  335
  Brixton, which cannot be widened. There will be a kind of whirlpool of traffic, which will make life quite impossible for shoppers or anyone else who has any legitimate business to carry out in that neighbourhood.
  The Greater London Council has a good plan to deal with the juggernauts. It intends to ban large lorries within central London.
  Mr. Deakins: Will my hon. Friend tell us, before he leaves the point about the £1 million and the six-lane motorway, whether the people of Brixton could not use that £1 million more beneficially in rather different ways?
  Mr. Lipton: Yes. With 14,000 people on the Lambeth Council housing waiting list, there are many other uses to which £1 million could be put.
  The G.L.C. has not worked out what will be the effect of banning large lorries from central London, but the effect will be that the adjoining areas will be inundated with lorries and there will be a substantial increase in heavy traffic at the northern end of the London Borough of Lambeth.
  Lambeth Borough Council is concerned about the proposal because it has not been able to obtain from the GLC detailed information about the traffic study upon which the proposal to ban juggernauts from central London is based, nor is there any indication that the effect of the ban on surrounding areas has been considered. That is a further example of how the GLC operates under its present management. It tries to deal with a small section of the problem without regard to the consequences in the immediate vicinity.
  Reference has been made to the GLC's housing record. In the London boroughs the result has been disastrous. A long time ago the GLC decided to transfer a large part of its housing accommodation to the London boroughs. For several years before that transfer was effected the GLC deliberately ran down its repairs programme for those old GLC estates. As a result the London boroughs were suddenly landed with a lot of semi-slum property which it became their duty to put right.
  336
  Reference has also been made to the curious way in which the GLC under its present management has arrived at provisional fair rent assessments. The rent levels proposed by the GLC are outrageous. Officers of the Lambeth Borough Council were asked to take a random sample of these GLC so-called fair rents. I will take one instance from my own constituency of an old block of GLC flats which is now called Renton Close. The GLC gave it a fashionable name so that people would forget that it used to be known as Briscoe Buildings. A four-roomed flat at Renton Close is supposed to bear a rental of £315 per annum—more than £6 a week—compared with a similar property owned by the Lambeth Borough Council which would bear a rent of £231. There is a difference of almost £100 a year in the rents of those two properties. For a three-roomed flat in Renton Close the GLC assessment is £5.94 a week, whereas the Lambeth assessment for a similar property would be £4.03—a difference of £1.91 a week. There is something radically wrong with the way in which the GLC is calculating its so-called fair rents.
  Reference has been made to the contribution that could be made by outer London boroughs towards a solution of the housing problem in the inner London boroughs. Let me quote one example. Lambeth happens to own some land in Croydon. When Lambeth proposed to build houses on that land, the Croydon Borough Council objected. An appeal is pending and the Ministry will decide in due course to what use that land should be put. That is merely an example of the difficulties that face an inner London borough owning land in an outer London borough where the Conservative-controlled outer London borough objects to the building of houses for working-class people.
  From every point of view the record of the GLC during the past few years has been most reprehensible. Several hon. Members have reminded us of the GLC elections on 12th April. Had they not done so, I would not have mentioned the matter. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) made what could be regarded as a good party political speech on behalf of the Conservative Party relating to the

  337
  Greater London Council. As he has mentioned the GLC elections on 12th April, I take the opportunity to express the hope that the people of London will make sure that after 12th April the GLC will be under different management.
  It is very unfortunate we have not had a fuller attendance at the debate tonight. It is also very unfortunate that much of what has been said in the course of the debate will receive no mention in most of tomorrow morning's newspapers. But the people of London know what is going on, and they will know what to do on 12th April.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The last occasion on which we listened to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) he put a ball through his own goal by talking about building in the green belt, and the embarrassment he caused his Chief Whip had to be seen to be believed. He has done it again tonight.
  Taking first his rent comparisons, before I accepted his figures I would want to know, as I am sure he, too, would if he gave some more thought to the matter, the exact square footage of each of these properties. I would like to know their precise location in relation to each other and the age of each property. All these factors have to be weighed up. Each of us could make a comparison between two things where in fact no true relationship existed.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned motorways and I am glad that he did.
  "To draw off traffic from the residential areas and make them quieter and safer Labour is planning a motorway box round inner London and work is already going on to build sections of the east and west sides of it. These new roads are essential to the well being of us all."
  That is a quotation from the Labour Party's GLC election campaign on 13th April 1967.
  Listening tonight to what has been said about motorways by some hon. Members, one would never have thought that the whole concept of motorways was spawned by the Opposition when they controlled County Hall. I have always opposed the concept, but let it not be forgotten that they started it. Because there are cheap votes in it, they are now
  338
  trying to say, "We've changed our minds", but I do not propose to let them get away with that one.
  Mr. Lipton: Is not the hon. Gentleman pleased that the Labour Party in London now agrees with him?
  Mr. Finsberg: I am delighted when sinners repent. However, I do not have to believe in the sincerity of these particular sinners in their repentance.
  I should like to return to the North Cross route which is a part of the possible addition to Ringway 1. I was anxious to find out the facts and I tabled a Question on this subject which was answered today. I am glad that the GLC has now made it clear that it is not discussing the North Cross route until Ringway I has been in operation. The council intends to let off on long leases properties which it already owns on the line of the North Cross route. I hope that that information will give the lie once and for all to those who say that, irrespective of need, the GLC intends to build the North Cross route. If the council intended to do so, it would not be letting its own properties on long leases on the route.
  I come to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) who had the temerity to intervene in this debate. If he had understood anything about London he would not have tried to compare the figure of 4,000 GLC dwellings with many more which he said Manchester had built, because even the slightest intelligence would have told him that there are 32 other housing authorities in Greater London all engaged in building operations. I warned the hon. Gentleman that I intended to comment on his speech. The hon. Gentleman's own authority should be careful when it next presents a private Bill in this House. It must expect interventions which it does not like and can blame its Member of Parliament for starting it.
  I return to the realities which most hon. Members who have taken part in this debate have had in mind. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) talked about poor housing in London and I do not think anybody would disagree with him on that point. It is an inheritance in which we all have a share. It is not right continually to harp on the fact that it is the GLC that

  339
  must bear all the responsibility. It was no use hon. Members laughing when my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said that 13 weeks of the best building weather was lost last year throughout the country because of the building strike. That argument was a very fair one and it should not be jeered at.
  We must not forget that for 30 years or more the housing destinies of inner London were in the control of the Labour-controlled London County Council. Labour left a legacy with which they could not cope. I am not saying that it was possible for Labour to have coped with the problem, but I am saying that there is no purpose in trying to say that all the responsibility lies with the present GLC. One cannot solve that sort of problem in a decade.
  Both the hon. Member for Brixton and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central criticised the management of GLC housing estates, and I join with them in that criticism. The management of the GLC housing estates is appalling, as was the management of the Labour-controlled Labour County Council and the management of the GLC when it was under Labour. The bodies involved have been too large. Equally, the management of the Tory-controlled Camden when I was its leader and also Labour-controlled Camden has been bad. None of these bodies seems able to understand how to deal with its tenants.
  My criticism on this score goes right across the board. No local authority has yet found the secret of how to deal promptly with the management problem and tenants' complaints. This perhaps is criticism of local government in general. With respect to the hon. Member for Brixton, who thinks that he can solve the problem, I should like to hazard a guess that many of his hon. Friends who have had more experience of local government than he has will join me in telling him that the solution is not as easy as that. With the best will in the world, it is not easy. It is not merely a case of saying to Mrs. Bloggs, "You are a widow now. You do not want three rooms. I will find you a one-room flat". Nor can one say to Mr. Buggins in another street, "You have a one-room flat and would like three
  340
  rooms, so we can arrange a swap." The situation may be entirely different. Mr. Buggins' one room may be on the fourth floor with no lift. The problem cannot be solved as easily as that. We are deceiving people if we accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Brixton.
  There is no purpose in confining criticism, in the way in which the hon. Members for Brixton and Hackney, Central did and putting the blame for bad management of housing on the Tory GLC. If both these hon. Members were fair and said that they were blaming the Greater London Council, whether Labour- or Tory-controlled, they would carry more credence, because the tenants know it. I speak as someone who served three years as a co-opted member on the Greater London Council Housing Committee some years ago. I was shocked at the lack of communication between that body and the tenant. This was not the fault of the councillors. The trouble was that the machine was so vast. It is run by officials and no-one, irrespective of party, has been able to get a grip on these officials.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) made a 35-minute speech which I enjoyed. I found it thought-provoking and I was not bored for a moment. What he said about dockland was fascinating. As another true Londoner I hope to see something coming to that area which will be a credit to London, but I do not think the solution for dockland is a programme which is either all municipal or all private. It has to be a mixture, with industry, commerce and housing of all kinds developed together to make it a living community. I made this comment during a debate on a London problem shortly before Christmas.
  There is only one matter with which I disagree slightly with the hon. Member. I am sorry that he is not present, since I think that he would have admitted to having been slightly misleading, when he spoke of council rents in the area in which he lives being between £16 and £25 a week. The hon. Member would, I am sure, wish to be reasonable and would admit that these may be the rents which are assessed by local authorities but they are not necessarily the rents which tenants have to pay. Rent rebates

  341
  and the needs allowances have to be taken into account, after which the figures are very different. We can all quote rental figures fixed by local authorities but one has to work out the actual rent which the tenant pays.
  This is a fascinating Bill. It runs to 24 printed pages, and I have looked at them all carefully. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central raised a very fair and valid point relating to Clause 12 and to the series of powers in Clauses 3-18. I wish to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) will say on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central regarding the power to arrest without warrant. This seems somewhat unusual, but there may be a good answer, and I would like to hear it. Clauses 19 and 20 deal with flood defence. Clause 21 deals with allowances to members of the Greater London Council.
  The rest of the Bill has been promoted at the behest of the boroughs. I would like to see the face of Alderman Lou Sherman, chairman of the London Boroughs Association, if his friends in the House do not allow the Bill to pass. I can evisage the faces of hon. Members of the Opposition. How embarrassed they would be if the Bill containing legislation required by the Labour-controlled London Boroughs Association were not allowed through because of the annual fun-making exercise at the expense of the Greater London Council because it is Tory controlled. If I were in a different mood, I might be tempted to say, "Go ahead and defeat it." Many hon. Members of the Opposition would be taken to task by their management committees for doing that. They would find themselves in very hot water.
  There is possibly only one hon. Member who should be acquitted of this charge. That is the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). He always criticises the General Powers Bill or the Money Bill, but he always confines himself strictly to Thamesmead and a particular problem, so far as I have heard him on more than one occasion. He does this irrespective of which party controls the GLC.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: One of the reasons why it is so vital to have the opportunity of debating the Greater London Council (General
  342
  Powers) Bill is that both sides of the House refuse to allow proper parliamentary time for debates about London. Therefore, it is a duty, which will not be criticised by our constituents, that we seize all the opportunities which present themselves to ensure that the activities and welfare of the people of this great metropolis get at least some examination in the House.
  Mr. Finsbcrg: That is a view which I warmly endorse. I have supported it in the past, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  I think that there are more non-Scottish and non-Welsh hon. Members than there are Scottish and Welsh hon. Members. Therefore, it ought not to be impossible, bearing in mind the fact that most of them have to live in London for three or four nights a week, to ensure that on both sides of the House there is a ration of time to discuss London properly. We should not have to deal with it on a General Powers Bill or a money Bill. On this issue there is no division between us.
  None the less, it is unfortunate, perhaps, that because of the timetable we have to debate the Bill a month or so before the GLC election and the London borough elections. The real purpose behind the debates is often obscured by some of the arguments I read when the debate started some 660 hours ago, before it was interrupted. It would be much better if we could find an alternative way of dealing with the matter. But we are stuck with it until enough pressure can be exerted.
  The Bill contains many pet schemes which the London boroughs want. They want to improve the consumer advisory and protection service. Reference has not been made to Clause 34, but, very interestingly, they want to establish a development fund. This is, as it were, an extension of the old idea of a capital fund to be applied for different purposes. I like this idea. It is a good idea. I am certain that the London boroughs want this, as they want to protect users of self-service laundries and as they want to have further control of food premises and stalls.
  This has been a useful opportunity of debating London problems, but it could be that in the excess of zeal of hon. Members of the Opposition to discuss

  343
  the Bill they may lose the Bill. They would be the people who would be in hot water, and not those of us on the Government side of the House.
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Lamborn: I start by taking up two of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg). I mention particularly his reference to motorways in London and the suggestion that the Labour Party at County Hall, in changing its mind from its position in 1967, was taking an unprecedented decision. I take my stand as one who was a member in 1967. In the light of developments, it was necessary to have a reappraisal of the needs for motorways.
  I find it surprising that hon. Gentlemen opposite should object to anybody reconsidering the situation, seeing that the present Government have reconsidered practically every policy on which they based their programme at the General Election and reversed it.
  My view in 1967 was—it still is—that of Ringway 1, 2 and 3 the least acceptable is Ringway 1—the proposed motorway box. I have heard talk of Ringway 3, or part of Ringway 2, destroying the amenities of the outer London boroughs. I know that over the last 20 years South-wark's amenities have been destroyed by traffic which should never have been permitted to go through the centre of the capital, winding its way through side turnings which now lead to major roundabouts. Many quiet residential roads have lost all amenity value. If there is a case for a motorway system in London it is for a motorway which will divert that traffic before it finds its way through the centre of our city.
  I cannot see any justification for proceeding with Ringway 1. The motorway box should have been the last alternative. If we were committed to ringways, we should first have considered the possibilities of Ringsways 3 and 2, to see if they could avoid the tremendous destruction of the inner area which will take place with the construction of the motorway box. The inner area has already had many of its amenities destroyed.
  I should like to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Hampstead on the question of housing. Having served
  344
  on the Labour-controlled London County Council and the present Greater London Council, I cannot agree that there is no difference in the administration. Over the past six years at County Hall we have witnessed a disgraceful reduction in maintenance standards on GLC estates. The older types of estates, which should have been gutted and refurbished ages ago, have been allowed to run down at a faster rate because the GLC, under Conservative control, has deliberately cut the maintenance standards on its estates, and has failed to provide transfer opportunities for people living on these estates.
  The caretaking and portering services are vital, and have always been maintained with a resident staff—at least, under the former London County Council and for the first three years under the Greater London Council. A great deal of deterioration has taken place not because of any deficiencies in the people who are employed in caretaking services but because they merely pay fleeting visits to estates. The damage from vandalism which has occurred as a result has certainly meant a tremendous deterioration in housing standards on GLC estates.
  A former Conservative chairman of the Greater London Council boasted of his aim to relieve the council of housing responsibilities. A situation has now been created in which most tenants want to get out of GLC-controlled housing.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred to the progress which had been made at County Hall since 1967. When I look at parts of my area for which the Greater London Council has had a special responsibility, I wonder what the hon. Gentleman means by "progress". If I look, for example, at the area between Blackfriars Bridge and London Bridge—which, unlike other areas in the borough, is not under the control of the Southwark council but which, because it is a comprehensive development area, is under the planning control of the Greater London Council—I see an area which, since the middle 1950s has been ready for redevelopment and which, as a result of the leases which have fallen in, has been over-ripe for redevelopment during the past six years. If the Greater London Council cannot get on with its task under the comprehensive development plan to see that this

  345
  vital area of London's riverside is refurbished it is time responsibility was passed back to Southwark, which is the planning authority.
  Another area in which the hon. Member for Harrow, East may consider that there has been progress but which I consider to have reached an alarming state of affairs is the area designated for open space in North Camberwell. It was designated to provide 130 acres in the middle of 1950. Progress has been piecemeal, with a few houses being demolished and a little green area created. At the same time, all round the area the Southwark council has built three massive housing estates—the Heygate estate, the Ayles-bury estate and the North Peckham estate. The area in the centre of those three housing developments has become derelict. It requires some initiative and drive at County Hall to remedy the situation, and I was astounded to note the GLC's recent statement that it would take 30 years before the open space provision was fulfilled. It is a deplorable state of affairs, not only because the surrounding area needs an open space but because of the rundown of the housing in it. If it had been an ordinary clearance area, that housing would have been dealt with in the way in which the area all round it was—because the housing was all of the same vintage. Merely because it is designated as open space under the control of the GLC, instead of coming within the purview of the Southwark Council the area will continue with derelict housing in it and with people having to live in it for the next 30 years.
  I want now to refer to those clauses which deal with piers and landing stages. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) concern about the use to which these piers and landing stages will be put. I have in mind especially the proposals to provide hovercraft and hydrofoil services, in the first place between Greenwich and Central London and ultimately between Erith and central London. I know that users of the river, especially sailing clubs and rowing clubs, feel considerable concern about the proposals, having seen the experiments which took place last year with the hydrofoil and the hovercraft. Their fear is that if a regular service is established hazards will be created which will considerably prejudice the existing usage
  346
  of the river, quite apart from the amenities and the environment.
  There is great concern among many river users, and I trust that if we agree to the control of the piers passing to the GLC, the GLC will have discussions with river users to satisfy itself and the yachtsmen and rowing men that the hydrofoil and hovercraft services can be operated without prejudice to those using the river.
  It is most important that we should take the opportunity which we have for opening up the river amenities and encourage far greater use of the river in future. I hope that we can be certain that the introduction of hovercraft and hydrofoil services on a regular commercial basis will not destroy the river amenities for other users.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I shall confine my remarks to the topics which most interest those who live and work in London—namely, homes, transport and jobs. It is useful to have this opportunity to examine some of these problems in perhaps greater detail than we normally have time to do during Question Time.
  Housing is and will remain, at least until the end of the century, the biggest social problem facing London and Londoners. Unfortunately on this important subject the GLC appears to be contracting out of its responsibilities to the people of London. Admittedly the 32 London boroughs have responsibilities themselves, but unless there is an overall authority—and the only elected authority covering the whole of London is the GLC—which can work with the London boroughs and get them to co-operate with each other, we shall never begin to tackle the very serious problems of homelessness and bad homes in London.
  The Borough Council of Waltham Forest has a waiting list of 6,500 people. It is unlikely that many of those people will be rehoused this century. That is not because the borough council is unwilling to help them but because there is a severe shortage of land. That problem is not confined to the inner London boroughs because Waltham Forest is one of the stress areas in the outer London boroughs.

  347
  The GLC could help if it wanted to do so not only by building more homes but by bringing the borough councils together and insisting that the outer London boroughs which have land which could be developed should make that land available for the London boroughs with large housing waiting lists. That would be a speedy way in which the London housing problem could be tackled.
  The problem of homelessness in Greater London is increasing. At the moment that is basically a problem for the London boroughs to tackle separately. As the recent Shelter report showed graphically and conclusively, many homeless people are being shoved from one local authority to another. The GLC could help by taking upon itself the responsibility of ensuring that the London boroughs do not evade their responsibilities for homeless-ness.
  We have an organisation called the London Housing Group. That was set up by the Government. That group, by and large, is merely a window dressing exercise. It is not having very much effect on making more land available for housing homeless people and those families on waiting lists.
  I turn to the problem of transport. The emphasis in the debate has been on motorways, but there is another side to transport in London that affects far more people than are likely to be affected by motorways. I refer to the problem of public transport. We have the absurd situation that there are two authorities for public transport in London—the London Transport Executive, controlled by the GLC. and British Rail.
  The liaison between the two is pretty awful. For example, in North London there are two lines, the North London line and the Barking-Kentish Town line. The lines are subsidised and are under threat of closure because not many people use them. They could serve a useful purpose if their services were more widely known to the people of North London, but because they come under British Rail their existence is not made known to the people of London on all the maps showing the underground system, for example. If we had a co-ordinated transport authority under the GLC, whatever its political complexion, we should be able to make
  348
  much greater use of the railway lines, linking them with the underground system at various points.
  But public transport will never pay in a large conurbation such as London. It will always need some form of public subsidy. We think, certainly on the Labour side, that the GLC should adopt that policy towards London Transport, but it is reluctant to do so. I do not go as far as to say at this stage that we should go all out for a free public transport system. But I think that ultimately it will be the only way to achieve a rational transport system in Greater London as between private and public transport, though we have not got there yet.
  At least we could improve the quality and level of the services of public transport by spending a little more money on them. I refer particularly to bus routes. Some of the services are very poor during the rush hour, and constituents of mine and, I am sure, of many other hon. Members on both sides, are extremely inconvenienced by them. But our constituents do not want to go to the lengths of using their cars or buying cars, because that adds to the congestion on the roads.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend will agree that the GLC's edict to the London Transport Executive that it had to make a £2 million operating profit each year made it inevitable that bus routes in his area would be cut.
  Mr. Deakins: I entirely agree. I hope that after 12th April we shall have a new GLC committed to the principle that public transport cannot always be run at a profit, and that the first priority must be to improve the quality of the service and get passengers back on to it. Everything follows from that.
  My third point concerns jobs, a matter in which the GLC does not have direct responsibility. It is very much a matter for the Government. Many of us on both sides of the House have shown in recent months our increasing concern about the decline of manufacturing employment in the Greater London area—North, South, East and West. The decline over the past 10 years is well documented. We have lost several hundred thousands of jobs.

  349
  It is all very well for the Government to say that we are still the biggest manufacturing centre in the country. We cannot go on with the declining trend ofmanufacturing employment. The creation of new jobs in the regions should not be at the expense of jobs in London. They should be genuinely additional new jobs, because London needs a balanced employment situation.
  It is horrifying to look forward perhaps 10 or 20 years to a time when manufacturing industry in London will have shrunk to such an extent that the bulk of our people will be employed in offices, hotels, or warehouses—the service industries. We have the skills in London. We have many skilled people and in many cases are not making good use of them. That is a drain on the national economy. Therefore, the GLC, preferably under new management, should take a much firmer line in London on the loss of jobs and take its responsibilities in this respect more seriously. If it does not have appropriate powers it should come forward at some point in the near future with another Bill which would give it powers—which I am sure it needs—to improve the job situation in London.
  That is why I hope we are to get a change on 12th April—for three very good reasons. We need a GLC which will take seriously the problem of providing houses, will take seriously the problem of providing better transport and will take seriously the absurd and dreadful decline in manufacturing employment in Greater London.
  9.41 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Worsley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Christopher Tugendhat) has said, I have been asked to say a few words on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. It is difficult to know quite what words to say, since we have covered so much ground. I take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) who talked of the form of the debate. I, like many others, hope—I am not saying this in any way as a spokesman; it is my own personal view —that we will have an annual London debate. The device of using this Bill is profoundly unsatisfactory. We do not get good debates in this way. Hon. Mem-
  350
  bers on both sides of the House should tell the Government, "We will stop using the GLC (General Powers) Bill"—and I suppose the money Bill would have to come in, too—"in exchange for a debate in Government time." We can reasonably ask for this as a completely non-party affair, and I hope we will do so.
  The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) did not speak in the debate, but he intervened to good effect. He asked about proposals for the barrier and for flood defences. The design work is proceeding according to programme. It is hoped to invite tenders for certain works on the barrier in June of this year, and the contractors will start work in February 1974, which I think is good progress. The council believes that its existing powers are adequate. The interim defences upstream of the barrier are complete. Of those downstream, tenders for one mile of river were met last October, and tenders for the remaining 13½ miles of river will go ahead soon and should be finished before the barrier is built. I hope it will be felt that those are very satisfactory replies.
  The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) asked why the GLC was not included in the proposals for a development fund. The proposal for development funds for boroughs was widely welcomed by both sides of the House. The answer is very simple. The GLC believes it has the financial resources which individual boroughs have not to carry out the kind of activities which would be carried out by boroughs under a development fund. The GLC simply does not feel that it needs additional powers, because of its very much greater financial resources. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) raised the matter of Clause 12 and asked me for a display of forensic ability.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I wanted the hon. Gentleman to enter into a self-denying ordinance in that regard, and not to display his forensic ability but to give me an assurance.
  Mr. Worsley: I am delighted to hear that, because the hon. Gentleman would not get a display of forensic ability from me. I have taken advice and, rather than attempt to follow him in the details of what he said—he is a solicitor and

  351
  I am not a lawyer of any kind—I tell him that the promoters accept that issues of human rights are overriding. They give the undertaking that they will re-examine Clause 12 in the light of criticisms made in the debate and will take further advice in the matter in order to consider whether the principles of English justice require any amendment to the clause. Should that prove to be the case they will move the necessary amendment in Committee. They cannot commit themselves to making any particular change or, indeed, any change at this stage, since that would obviously prejudice the re-examination. I hope that that meets the wishes of the House in that matter.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I am bound to say that I am disappointed in that reply, because the promoters have had since 6th March, when I first raised this point, to consider the matter, and to take advice. Evidently they have not taken it sufficiently seriously to do so. I am not happy with that assurance because it can mean everything and nothing. I asked the hon. Member to reconsider his undertaking to withdraw the clause altogether.
  Mr. Worsley: The hon. Member asked me in his speech earlier either to emasculate or to withdraw the clause. I cannot give him that assurance. I do not think it is reasonable to ask me to do so. He is not the only hon. Member who expressed doubt about the clause. I believe that I have made a reasonable statement that the matter will be looked at carefully. These matters are complicated and the hon. Member, being a solicitor, knows that better than I. For me to make a wider statement would be extremely unwise. I hope he will accept what I have said in the spirit in which it is meant and I hope that the House will do so, too.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) made an interesting speech and, like some of the most effective partisan speeches, it was totally non-partisan. He spoke principally about the docks. I am not as familiar with the dockland area but I was impressed by what he said. He will know that some months ago the Department of the Environment and the Greater London Council jointly sponsored a study into the
  352
  docks. That has now been published and those two bodies, and the five London boroughs involved in the area, wish to promote a public debate into the matter.
  For instance a free pamphlet will be issued describing the suggestions and the ideas that have been produced by the study. An information office will be set up in each of the London boroughs concerned. The intention is that rather than the GLC, the Government or both issuing a diktat about what should be done to meet the tremendous opportunity which the hon. Member rightly described, there should be a free-ranging and wide public debate based on the ideas put forward. That is exactly the right way to approach the issue and I support the view of those who believe that there is an opportunity here which has not been vouched safe to us in London since, perhaps, the Great Fire.
  The hon. Members who talked about the problems of the river were quite right. The barrier will enable us to use the river as it should be used. I never tire of telling people that a fish has been caught off Chelsea, because when this happens there must be hope for the Thames. [Interruption.] It was not that big.
  Mr. Hamling: A red herring?
  Mr. Worsley: I suspect that it was a coarse fish. The point is that the river is London's greatest wasted asset and we must learn to use it better.
  The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn) asked whether the GLC would consult before using its new powers. The answer is "Yes." My only criticism of the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West was that he succeeded —and I thought that was an achievement—in talking about the level of rents without mentioning rent allowances or rebates. If the hon. Member had been considering the matter in a totally non-partisan way, as he claimed he was, he would have given the Government credit for the fact that in so many of these stress areas, where the problem affects privately-rented houses, the Government's rent allowances are proving enormously helpful. I merely add that little gloss to the hon. Member's speech.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) referred to three principal themes—employment, transport

  353
  and housing. I do not want to say anything about employment, which is wide of the Bill. It is a problem which goes far wider than the area of responsibility of the GLC, but in taking that view I do not mean to imply that it is unimportant.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich, West referred to the length of journeys to work, which is a relevant point. I consider the point as a central London Member, and one of my great desires is to ensure that people can continue to live and work in central London. This relates to service industries, but it is important both from the point of view of transport and the quality of life that people should be able to live in central London. The rent allowance system has done more to help in that direction than any other Government action in recent years.
  Mr. Handing: Does the hon. Member not realise that the rent increases that have taken place and are contemplated far outweigh any benefit which might be derived from rent allowances?
  Mr. Worsley: My simple answer to the hon. Member is "No". I leave it at that.
  On transport, I made it clear in the debate we had that I was pro-GLC. I underline once more that the GLC believes in the vital necessity of improved public transport in London. There is no dispute about that. At present it is spending three times as much on public transport as on roads. That illustrates its order of priorities. It is giving substantial grants—matched by the Department of the Environment—to public transport. It is not true to say that the GLC does not put transport at the top of its priorities. There are signs of an improvement following from its policy.
  The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) spoke a lot about the GLC selling off council housing. He appeared to think that by selling houses it has somehow failed to help solve the housing problem. We could argue all night whether or not council houses should be sold. The hon. Member believes that the council house element in a community should be considerably increased. We believe that a large part of it should move back into private ownership. We have public opinion on our side in that respect. The hon. Member must realise that the
  354
  GLC sells houses only to GLC tenants, to borough tenants or to people whom they have a statutory duty to rehouse. These are people displaced as a result of road or school developments. Irrespective of whether the individual is buying his own house there is no housing loss for the GLC or any borough.
  Mr. Hamling: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the GLC, in so far as it is selling houses and not flats, is considerably reducing the stock of houses it has to let, as against flats?
  Mr. Worsley: I do not believe that to be true. Given the facts about the people to whom these houses are going, it follows that as they move out of present accommodation into other accommodation the initial accommodation is then available. The hon. Gentleman will be happy to know that his constituent has been offered a house.
  Many hon. Members have tried to build up a great bogy about the GLC being unwilling to build in the outer boroughs. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central even said that a dirty deal—he did not use that phrase—had been done at Kingston. He said that it had been agreed that there should be no GLC building in exchange for 1 per cent. nominations. I make it clear that there is no deal with Kingston. There have been discussions but there is no agreement and there is no question of the GLC agreeing to nominations at anything like so low a figure.
  In Hillingdon, under successive parties, the GLC nomination has been 25 per cent., and that has worked extremely well. Bromley has been mentioned. It was said that no GLC building was going on there. Tenders are in for 230 dwellings, with 250 more to follow. The Bromley council has promised 1,000 nominations over five years. It is important that these facts should be known, to show that the GLC is co-operating with the outer London boroughs in solving London's housing problem. Unless there is that co-operation there can be no solution.
  When the Opposition scratches around like this for arguments they are showing just how arid they can be. I hope that the Bill will have the support of the House. It is promoted not only by the GLC but by the London boroughs

  355
  With a few exceptions there has been little real disagreement about the details.
  Mr. Tugendhat Mr. Tugendhat rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  New Clause
  EXTENSION OF POWER TO REFER PROCEEDINGS OR QUESTIONS ARISING IN PROCEEDINGS IN COUNTY COURTS TO ARBITRATION OR FOR INQUIRY AND REPORT
  ' .—(1) In section 92 of the County Courts Act 1959 (which enables the judge, but not the registrar, of the court to refer proceedings to arbitration with the consent of the parties) there shall be made the following amendments—

  (a) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following—

  "(1) A county court may, with the consent of the parties to any proceedings, order the proceedings to be referred to arbitration (whether with or without other matters within the jurisdiction of the court in dispute between the parties) to such person or persons (including the judge or registrar) and in such manner and on such terms as the court thinks just and reasonable."; and

  (b) in subsection (2), for the word "judge" there shall be substituted the word "court".

  (2) In section 93 of that Act (which enables the judge to refer proceedings or questions arising in proceedings for inquiry and report) there shall be made the following amendments—

  (a) in subsection (1), at the end, there shall be inserted the words "and, in such cases as may be prescribed by and subject to county court rules, the registrar may refer to a referee for inquiry and report any question arising in any proceedings."; and

  (b) in subsection (2), after the word "judge", there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the registrar".'.— [The Solicitor-General.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  9.58 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  This is an important Government proposal. It fits in with the philosophy that has arisen over past years in respect of small claims courts. The main object of the new clause is to enable the Rule Committee to authorise the registrar—not only, as at present, the judge—to refer county court proceedings to arbitration and to make it clear that the arbitrator
  358
  may be the judge or registrar making the reference. The new clause would also enable the registrar to refer any question arising in any proceedings to a referee for inquiry and report. This could be done by substituting for Section 92(1) of the County Courts Act 1959 a new sub-section in the terms set out in the new clause amendment.
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  The Solicitor-General: It means that by substituting the phrase "A county court" for "The judge" the registrar also will now have the power to refer proceedings to arbitration in such cases as the Rule Committee may prescribe. The result of this is that it will be open to the Rule Committee to delegate to the registrar the power to refer proceedings to arbitration either in certain cases or in certain categories of cases, as it may decide. An example of this would be those cases with a consumer element, such as cases arising out of the sale or hire of goods or the supply of services. As was pointed out in The Times in its leading article of 19th March, there are many disputes in which the amounts involved are small which do not arise from trading but would be susceptible to the kind of arbitration which was then being considered, such as a dispute, for example, over a motor car damaged in an accident where the amount involved was too low to warrant a claim from the insurance company. It may be that the appropriate figure for this type of work will be £75, which is the current limit of the registrar's jurisdiction, but this, no doubt, is a matter better left to the Rule Committee, which will be able to take into account the way in which the scheme is working before deciding whether to extend or narrow it.
  It has the important advantage that it will enable provision to be made for a consumer arbitration service within the framework of the existing county court system, unlike the earlier proposals, which

  359
  sought to set up a parallel system. It will be possible, for example, for rules to be made to provide that when a case comes before the registrar for what is known as a "pre-trial review" he can refer the proceedings either to himself or, if necessary, to the judge or to some other suitably qualified person who would sit as an arbitrator.
  This will have the advantage—and we think it a very important advantage— that the case can then be disposed of more informally than if it were tried by the judge or registrar sitting in his ordinary court. It would be unnecessary to insist on a hearing in public or on formal pleadings, or upon the rigid application of the rules of evidence, or even the ordinary procedure adopted at the trial of an ordinary action. An award of a registrar sitting as an arbitrator, for example, could be entered as the judgment in the action and the successful party would be able to enforce it without having to bring fresh proceedings on it. It will have a great future here because in the smaller cases it will enable the court to order that these should be dealt with by arbitration without the formalities that would follow if the case remained in the registrar's or judge's court.
  There is an amendment down by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) in which he suggests that this power should obtain not only where the consent of both parties exists. The amendment he intends to move, and which I can tell the House now that we accept, takes away the need for the consent of the parties in this sort of case and substitutes
  "in such cases as may be prescribed".
  The prescribed cases would be those prescribed in the rules. Ordinarily one might hesitate before removing the right to trial of a case by a judge or registrar but, since the whole philosophy of this amendment is to speed up and simplify the cases in this sort of category, it has been decided by the Government that this amendment is a sensible one and would be acceptable.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Before the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) rises, I should say that he will be called
  360
  upon in due course formally to move his amendment.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not quite clear what is the procedure for dealing with my amendment. No doubt it would be for the convenience of the House if I did not make a separate speech on the amendment but dealt with it in the course of the few remarks I have to make on new Clause 1.
  New Clause 1 is a move in the direction of what has been called the small claims court but within the ambit of our existing county court system. So far as it goes, the Opposition welcome it. The question that is raised by the pressure in favour of a new court, by whatever name it be known, arises from the fact that many people are frightened of courts of any kind. People who are unwilling to take their disputes to the court, whether out of fear of the costs they may incur or for other reasons, are not likely to be persuaded to do so by this provision. One has to go a great deal further to get the general public acclimatised to the idea of referring small matters to a court.
  I hope that in the future we shall concentrate particularly on that aspect of the matter and that, valuable as the changes in the procedure of the existing system may be, we shall not lose sight of the fact that they will not go very far unless and until the public are prepared to accept the local court in exactly the same way as they accept the local doctor, and we have not yet reached that stage.
  If we are to make the best of the new proposals which appear in new Clause 1, it is essential that the court should have the power to operate these new provisions even where one party to the dispute is unwilling to do so. If the court does not have the power to operate these provisions in the absence of the consent of one of the parties, one can reasonably expect that in a great many cases the consumer will be the person who wishes to operate the procedure but the other party—whether it be a shopkeeper, a person who has sold a motor car, or someone who may have caused damage to property in the course

  361
  of cleaning and repair—is extremely unlikely to wish to take full advantage of the procedure because of his greater means of making use of legal advice and assistance. If that situation is permitted, undoubtedly the purpose of the new clause will in many cases be frustrated and such good as I accept it will do will be very much lessened.
  With that in mind I tabled two amendments. The second was in a form of words I understood to be acceptable to the Government, but I am very happy to accept the Government adviser's drafting rather than my own.
  The effect of amendment (b) will be to enable the court, the registrar in many cases, in the sort of case where the authorities may prescribe, to proceed with the new powers under the clause even if one of the parties does not consent to their use. I was happy to hear the Solicitor-General confirm that the Government regard that as a useful amendment and that it will not be opposed.
  In those circumstances, following your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will in due course formally move amendment (b), but for the moment I welcome the new clause in principle.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I wish to intervene briefly to accord a very lukewarm welcome to the new clause which has come about to some extent as a result of some of the debates in the proceedings of a Standing Committee upstairs. I wish that I could feel that the new clause will be more effective in bringing about a small claims procedure for consumers in this country, and more particularly for the less articulate and literate consumers, than I believe it will in fact prove to be.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. C. S. Silkin) said, many consumers are intimidated by the formalities of the courts and, dare I say it, some of them are even intimidated by the legal profession.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: Oh, come, come!
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I am not saying that they are justifiably intimidated. The fact remains that some of them are.
  In the context of this clause, I welcome the fact that through the £25 scheme many more people who would not other-
  362
  wise find legal advice as accessible as it will now be to them may be drawn towards the county courts.
  As I understand the new clause—and I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will correct me if I am wrong—the case must first have arisen in the county court before it can go to arbitration. In that case once again there will be a disincentive for the small consumer with a very small claim to bring his case to the county court.
  I also add my support to the amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich and express my gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend for its acceptance.
  I look upon this as a halting first step. I shall be delighted if it proves more effective than I expect and, if it does not, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to look at the question again later.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I also welcome the new clause with the reservation which has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim)—that is to say, that it may prove to be a disappointment to those who are deterred from going to the formal legal institutions, solicitors offices and county courts, to pursue their claims.
  I am therefore somewhat reassured by my understanding of the operation of the clause if it means that by going to the county court it would be possible for proceedings to be transferred to some central point—perhaps to a civic advice centre in a shopping centre of a town— where arbitration can take place. I refer to a place which is easily available and accessible to members of the public and which can normally be regarded as a small claims court—not only for the purposes of complaints by shoppers, but the sort of place which is occupied by consumer advice centres in other respects. If that is the way the clause will operate, then we need not worry too much about its effect.
  I have a reservation to make about amendment (b) proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). It seems to me that the essence of justice is impartiality, and what is sought by his amendment is to compel

  363
  both parties to a dispute to accept the jurisdiction of a court or arbitration at a low level. It may be that the trader or manufacturer involved in the dispute has at issue a point of law which involves an important point of principle for the trader but which may not appear to be important to the consumer. It might be unjust for that trader to be compelled to accept jurisdiction at a low level. Therefore, I ask the Solicitor-General to go very carefully before he makes it obligatory on such people to accept a low level of jurisdiction.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that a case involving an important principle, whether on a matter of law or a complex factual issue, would be the sort of matter which would not be referred to arbitration if the importance of the point was made clear to the registrar. That would be the sort of case where it was essential for both sides to be legally represented and to have the best possible tribunal.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I accept that point, and can only express the hope that provision will be made in the rules so that it is taken into account by the registrar or the county court judge for appropriate provisions to be made. However, I see danger in saying that there must be compulsion in requiring both parties to submit to a low level of jurisdiction.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not want my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to be under any illusion. I must tell him that there will not be an arbitration shop in the high street. The clause seeks to encourage informality on the occasion when the registrar is examining a case on the pre-trial review. He may then invite the parties—or in the right circumstances may tell the parties—that the matter will be referred to arbitration. He will usually act as the arbitrator, or in certain cases a skilled accountant might be required to act as arbitrator. He will then deal with the matter himself ordinarily, if not on the spot, at very short notice, with a great deal less formality, but almost certainly using either his room or his court. But I do not want anyone to feel that there will be a special small claims court set up in the high street where people can wander in and get
  364
  "instant justice" simply by ringing the bell. That is not what is intended by the new clause.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Amendment made: In line 5, leave out
  'with the consent of the parties to any proceedings, order the'
  and insert:
  'in such cases as may be prescribed, order any'.—[Mr. S. C. Silkin.]
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  New Clause 2
  PENSIONS OF RESIDENT MAGISTRATES IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  '(1) In the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960 the definition of "retiring salary" in section 22(1) shall be amended by omitting the word "average" and by substituting for the words "during the three years immediately preceding the date of his retirement" the words "immediately before his retirement".
  (2) This section shall not affect any pension or other benefit payable to or in respect of a person who retired or died before the coming into force of this section.
  (3) For the purposes of section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 this section shall be deemed to have been passed before the appointed day within the meaning of that section '.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  If it is convenient for the House, perhaps we may discuss at the same time Amendment No. 15, in Clause 19, page 17, line 18, leave out 'and 16' and insert
  '16 and "pensions of resident magistrates in Northern Ireland"'.
  This new clause is intended to amend the definition of "retiring salary" contained in Section 22(1) of the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960, so as to provide that this expression means the salary in payment immediately prior to retirement. At present "retiring salary" is defined under that Act as meaning the average of the last three years of service.
  Subsection (1) of the new clause brings the definition into line with that applied to stipendiary magistrates in England and Wales since 1960 by virtue of the

  365
  Administration of Justice (Judge and Pensions) Act of that year.
  Subsection (2) is self-explanatory, and ensures that existing pensions will not be affected. Subsection (3) is the formality which is required to comply with the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.
  I am sure that the House will agree that the same provision for pensions should apply throughout the United Kingdom.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 3
  PROVISION OF STATEMENTS IN CRIMINAL CASES
  '(1) In criminal cases where on summary conviction the defendant shall be liable to imprisonment for a term exceeding three months, the prosecutor shall if required by the defence, as soon as reasonably practicable, supply the defence with copies of all statements relevant to the case taken from witnesses whom it is proposed to call or to tender to give evidence.
  (2) If a defendant is not represented by counsel or a solicitor the Court shall inform him of his right to be supplied with copies of statements as set out in subsection (1) hereof.
  (3) Where the prosecutor has in his possession statements relevant to the case, taken from persons whom it is not proposed to call or to tender to give evidence, copies of all such statements shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, be supplied to the defence.
  (4) The prosecution shall be entitled not withstanding the relevancy of any statement, to refuse to supply copies or to permit inspection of the statement or parts of it, on the ground that it would be contrary to public policy so to do. In such a case, however, the objection shall be notified to the defence in writing. If the defence does not accept the validity of such objection the Court or judge shall rule thereon. In deciding upon the validity of such objection the Court or judge shall not be bound to disclose the contents of such statement to the defence'.—[Mr. S. Clinton Davis.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. S. Clinton Davis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The clause is designed to cover the following points—first, the desirability in certain cases which are tried summarily of the prosecution tendering to the
  366
  defence, in advance of the hearing, statements on which the prosecution intends to rely; second, the desirability, in the interests of justice, of the prosecution tendering to the defence of copy of a statement of a prosecution witness which is materially at variance with his testimony; third, the desirability, in the interests of justice, of the prosecution tendering to the defence a copy of a statement by a witness whom it is not proposed to call. These views have been expressed very forcibly by Justice and I believe that there is a great deal to commend them.
  Subsection (1) is limited to the duty to provide statements, first, if they are required by the defence, and second, only in cases which carry a sentence in excess of three months. It would be folly to have every trifling case dealt with in this way. Certainly, one would not want people who are charged with being drunk in the street, for example, to have recourse to this system.
  This procedure would have a number of advantages. We are frequently told by the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General that, in too many cases which could be tried summarily, a defendant elects to go for trial. Thereby there is caused a coagulation of the lists of the Crown Courts, delay and undue expense.
  The reason for this is that frequently the defence does not know the case which it has to meet when a defendant appears in a magistrates' court and the prosecution all too often refuses to give any indication of its evidence beforehand. This is particularly true of the case where a police officer is prosecuting and feels, perhaps, a natural reticence because he feels that it may not be proper to divulge to the defence the nature of the prosecution case and, indeed, the details of it. This is a situation which occurs even where the prosecution is represented. Secondly, there are many people for whom a conviction, even in a relatively minor case of dishonesty, could have a devastating effect upon their future. This situation has to be remembered in that context.
  If this procedure were followed, because the defence would know what the situation was, it would result, first, in many more pleas of guilty. Secondly, there would be fewer cases where an

  367
  election would be adopted by the defence. I cannot see any distinction between the proposal which I am enunciating here and the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act which enable the defence, in cases which go for trial, to have the prosecution statements in advance of the hearing. That particular section of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 has worked extremely well concerning commitals. I see no good reason why in these more serious summary cases a similar situation could not prove of advantage to courts, to the accused, to witnesses and to the advocates.
  The opposition to this proposal—this is by no means the first time that it has been raised—would probably be to argue first that there might be some delay. That is not a weighty consideration, because the prosecution's statements are invariably available to the prosecutor in any event before they appear in court, and it would not be very much more difficult to ensure that the formalities which are outlined by the Criminal Justice Act could be readily complied with. There is infinitely more delay and expense involved if an unnecessary election is forced upon an accused person.
  A second argument that might be adduced against it is that a witness might regard the implementation of this rule as a deterrent against making a statement to the police. But that is not a very weighty argument either, because most witnesses in prosecutions realise that they might have to give evidence in any event. Although that argument has been adduced in the past, I hope that the Solicitor-General will not seek to rely upon it, because it is somewhat unworthy.
  Subsection (2) seeks to protect the unrepresented defendant. It speaks for itself that if a defendant is not represented by counsel or by a solicitor, the court usually informs him of his right to be supplied with copies of statements, as set out in subsection (1).
  Subsection (3) deals with the second and third points which I sought to adumbrate at the beginning of my speech. Sensible prosecutors will supply the defence with statements of prosecution witnesses which are materially at variance with the testimony of the accused person, but the law is not specific.
  368
  It is spelt out at paragraph 1374 of the current edition of Archbold that there have been cases where, in view of their particular circumstances, judges have ordered the prosecution to hand to the defence statements made to the police by witnesses for the prosecution. Two cases are cited, those of Hall and Xinaris.
  Archbold states:
  "In both these last-mentioned cases it is clear that the judge adopted the course only in the circumstances of the particular case, and neither case should be regarded as an authority for the proposition that there is any general duty on the part of the prosecution with regard to statements to the police by witnesses or potential witnesses beyond what is above stated."
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Denning, in Dallison v. Caffery, reported in 1964 2 All England Law Reports, went further and said:
  "The duty of a prosecuting counsel or solicitor, as I have always understood it, is this: if he knows of a creditable witness who can speak to material facts which tend to show the prisoner to be innocent, he must either call that witness himself or make his statement available to the defence."
  I believe that the proposed new clause will make the duty of the prosecution plain and specific. It would be fair and just. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find it acceptable.
  The new clause also meets the position where the prosecution has statements which it does not intend to use. Lord Goddard, in the case of Bryant and Dickson, reported in 31 Criminal Appeal Reports, page 151, said:
  "It is said that it was the duty of the prosecution to have supplied the defence with the statement which Campbell had admittedly made to the prosecution. In the opinion of the court there is no such duty, nor has there ever been … the duty of the prosecution is to make available to the defence a witness whom the prosecution know can, if he is called, give material evidence."
  It would seem that the words used by the former Lord Chief Justice, "make available", merely mean to give the name and address of the witness. This is quite unjust. It can have monstrous consequences. Indeed, a case was cited to the Justice Committee, which investigated this matter, where the prosecution refused to divulge any information about 38 witnesses who were not called until after conviction. Statements were refused although an appeal had been

  369
  launched on the ground that the witnesses could give no material evidence to the defence. So the defence was put to the enormous trouble and expense of locating the witnesses, the vast majority of whom refused to make any further statements on the ground that they had already assisted the police. Why should the prosecution be the judge whether a witness can help the defence?
  Subsection (4) provides safeguards for the prosecution, coupled with the proviso that the judge should be the final arbiter where the prosecution refuses to supply statements on the ground that it would be contrary to public policy to do so— for example, so that informers should not be prejudiced on the ground of public policy where the judge thought it appropriate to invoke that proviso. Obviously it would not be in the interests of the public for certain methods used by the "underworld" relating to forgery or other crimes to be disclosed where this proviso is invoked, and similarly where matters of great confidentiality between the public and the police have to be protected.
  I believe that subsection (4) would introduce into the administration of our criminal law a system of fairness to both parties. It would have the effect of cutting out a great deal of delay and expense which is necessarily involved. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept not perhaps the precise wording —I do not claim to be an expert drafts-man—but the principle in the new clause.
  Mr. Grieve: The whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) for having again brought this matter before the House in the form of a new clause. It was raised on Second Reading, and I was happy then to give the hon. Gentleman my support in principle with regard to the furnishing of statements in cases coming before the magistrates' courts.
  Had the clause comprised merely subsections (1) and (2), it would have had my unreserved support. But I cannot go along with the hon. Gentleman in supporting subsection (3), even with the reservation contained in subsection (4). But as regards subsections (1) and (2), the argument adduced by the hon. Gentleman and the facts on which it is based are irrefutable.
  370
  The truth is that when a case of any importance and gravity comes before magistrates the only way in which those who are defending the accused can be assured that they know the case against him is to opt to go for trial. At present in a case before magistrates, if the accused elects for summary trial his advisers and he do not know the case which is to be deployed against him. This is one cause of the overcrowding of the higher courts, and the fact that vast numbers of cases are committed for trial on indictment at the instance of the accused, thereby clogging up the works of the Crown Court, is in no small measure because without opting for trial by jury the accused and those advising him cannot know the nature of the case against him.
  That by itself would be quite sufficient ground for supporting subsections (1) and (2) but, as we all know, the matter goes much further. It is elementary fairness in the administration of justice that the accused, in whatever court he should be tried, should know the case against him. We recognise this on trial on indictment because the statements of witnesses which are to be used are all made known in advance. At one time, the Crown had to go through the procedure of calling the witnesses in person before the justices on committal. It was only by the Criminal Justice Act 1967 that that was ended and we were enabled to have the shorter procedure of serving statements before the magistrates and on the accused so that there could be committal for trial.
  When a man goes before justices none of this is gone through. He goes down, his advisers go down, and he does not know what the case is to be. His legal advisers are in no position to tell him, as they can frequently when a case is tried on indictment, that the case against him is overwhelming and that he will do much better to plead guilty. Perhaps they hear from him a garbled, one-sided, coloured, emotive version of what took place, and they are in no position to advise him. Frequently in circumstances of that kind the prosecution springs on the legal advisers and possibly even the accused matters of complete surprise.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, Central was kind—perhaps overkind—to some police prosecutors in suggesting that it

  371
  was perhaps through fear of doing something which they thought was exceeding their functions that they would not give statements to the defence. I am not at all sure that in many cases they are not very glad to keep the cards close to their chests. Looking back to the days after the war when I returned to the Bar and frequently defended in magistrates' courts, I remember that I was met all too often by police prosecutors who said, "I cannot possibly show you the statements of witnesses" and who reserved them. Frequently to have done so would have shortened proceedings, made them less costly and redounded to the advantage of the administration of justice.
  I do not deploy any argument from personal experience, but there may be all sorts of reasons why at the moment police prosecutors may not feel disposed to let the defence see the statements of witnesses whom they intend to call in summary proceedings.
  I am bound to say that there can be no good reason. Therefore, subsections (1) and (2) of new Clause 3 have my unreserved support. I believe that they would have the unreserved support of all who are interested in the administration of justice, both from the point of view of justice and from the point of view of speedy administration. They will lead, when they pass into law, to many cases being tried before magistrates' courts instead of going for trial.
  I cannot go along with the hon. Member for Hackney, Central on subsection (3). The present practice, which has the support and authority of the judges, as the hon. Gentleman showed in the extracts which he read from Archbold and from Lord Chief Justice Goddard, is that there is an obligation on the prosecution to give the names and addresses of witnesses who may be relevant and whom the prosecution do not intend to call. That is sufficient for the purpose of the administration of justice. It is not for the prosecution to do the work of the defence.
  It is my experience, when justice demanded that a statement should be served on the defence, that prosecuting counsel are never reluctant to give their learned friends the benefit of a sight of that statement. Therefore, subsection (3)
  372
  is not necessary and subsection (4) is otiose. I hope very much that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be able to give the House an assurance—I look for nothing else—that the Government will concede that henceforth in the magistrates' courts defendants will be entitled in advance to a sight of the statements of the witnesses who are to be called against them.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central. I shall not go over the ground which has alrealy been covered. We must consider the reality of the criminal in the magistrates' courts. Most criminals in those courts—criminals is the wrong term to use—or persons charged tend to be less than articulate. They are not always able to describe the circumstances in which an alleged offence was committed, just as they are not always able to tell a hard-pressed solicitor of the circumstances which would help their mitigation.
  The reality of the situation is that counsel in the high courts rely heavily on social inquiry reports. They rely on those reports more than they rely on instructions from their solicitor to discover the background of the accused's private circumstances and history. Equally, counsel rely heavily, as do solicitors, on statements provided to them which give details about the circumstances of the offence.
  10.45 p.m.
  What is lacking in the magistrates' courts, particularly when a man pleads guilty, is that the solicitor often does not have the prosecution's statements which give details about the offence. Those statements often include valuable matters in mitigation. If a defending solicitor does not see those statements he is not able to put forward relevant matters in mitigation. He is wholly in the hands of the prosecuting solicitor, who, if he misses an important matter or if he does not bring it out fully, might inadvertently put the defendant at a disadvantage. That is the situation in the higher courts when a committal for sentence with a view to borstal training is considered, when statements are not usually provided. We find there that both the court and counsel are at a disadvantage in dealing with the circumstances of an offence because there are

  373
  no statements before the court dealing with those circumstances.
  It has always seemed to me—and I am not alone in this view—that committals for sentence suffer badly because there are normally no statements dealing with the prosecution case. If that applies in the higher courts it must equally apply in the lower courts. Therefore, for the purposes of a decent examination of mitigating circumstances the prosecution statements would be helpful to the defence. The lack of ability of the accused to explain fully the situation makes that a useful precaution. That is why I support my hon. Friend.
  In his subsection (3) my hon. Friend phrases his proposed reform far too widely, because an obligation is there laid upon the prosecution to supply all relevant statements, even though the statements put before the court may cover the points made by additional potential witnesses whom the prosecution decided not to call.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Subsections (1) and (2) are so fundamental that I should be prepared to give way on subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (4) depends on subsection (3) anyway. I do not accept the arguments adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and by my hon. Friend. It is obvious that subsections (1) and (2) are so much more fundamental.
  Mr. Lyons: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He must not assume that I am making the same argument about subsection (3) as the hon. and learned Member for Solihull was making. In the higher courts it is common practice to supply the names and addresses, and often the statements of witnesses who have made statements contrary to the statements of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution rely, or who will give evidence on matters germane to the case which are not dealt with in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses whose statements have been tendered. That is a thoroughly desirable practice. I have a feeling that it is not followed in the magistrates' courts.
  The advantage of subsection (3) is that for the first time it makes an attempt, albeit in rather wide terms, to give a
  374
  statutory basis instead of what is now a case law basis for a practice of handing over statements of witnesses whose evidence conflicts with that of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intend to rely. In the magistrates' courts, in particular, I believe that this practice followed in the higher courts is often not followed. There is an argument for saying (hat something should be done, but not in the wider wording of subsection (3).
  I thank my hon. Friend for arranging a discussion on the matter, though I believe that he is not likely to achieve success, in this Bill at any rate.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I do not share the good will that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) has expressed towards the clause, because it seems to me that it provides guilty people with extra opportunities to escape conviction. It is asking the prosecution to do the job of the defence. In recent years we have become accustomed to the defence in criminal trials being given greater and greater assistance to enable it to succeed, but this is ridiculous.
  We have a system of law under which 95 per cent. of all crimes are dealt with in magistrates' courts. The effect of the adoption of the clause would be to impose a mountain of work upon prosecutions and police authorities. An enormous amount of paper would be required, apart from the time and labour of typists and police officers in compiling statements for the purposes of the clause. If any one wanted to gum up the works of the prosecution and the legal system of this country this is surely one way in which it could be done at a stroke.
  The very concept of offering the whole of the prosecution evidence to the defence in trials in magistrates' courts is misconceived. Distinguished lawyers like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull may say that the defendant must know the case against him. Of course he should—and he gets that information. That is to say, he gets reasonable particulars. He is entitled to ask for them and if he does not get them he can insist, if necessary. The suggestion here is for an extension of the present procedure under which he will not merely be entitled to the particulars—
  Mr. Grieve: Following my hon. Friend's argument to its logical conclusion I take it that he would be in favour of an amendment of the law which would deprive those going for trial on indictment of the statements of the evidence against them?
  Mr. Stanbrook: I shall deal with that point when I come to it. What is being suggested in the clause is not merely that, as at present, particulars should be provided, but that the facts constituting the prosecution case should be provided, and, more than that, that the evidence on which those facts are based should be provided. We already have a system under which it is possible to provide the facts which constitute the case for the prosecution, so enabling defendants to decide beforehand how they should plead.
  But the clause is asking for all the evidence. It has been asked by my hon. and learned Friend why there is any objection to the proposal when it is the system at present operated in cases on indictment. Apart from the fact that 95 per cent. of all cases are dealt with in magistrates' courts anyway—and that is a pretty weighty objection—there is a big distinction between cases heard on indictment and cases heard summarily, and that is the gravity of the offence.
  It is possible to argue that certain cases are so serious and that the possible consequences for the defendants so great that they should be assisted with a full statement of the evidence against them at some stage before trial—that is to say, the stage at which the magistrates have to decide whether there is a prima facie case. That is all very well, but it does not follow that they should be so entitled with regard to any alleged offence, irrespective of its gravity.
  I accept what the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) said about limiting the proposal to a certain range of cases. He excludes very small cases, of course, but he includes a large number of cases which potentially could result in imprisonment but which in most cases do not. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it is proper to draw it at the level between magistrates' courts and the Crown Courts. It is not serving the interests of justice to require the prosecution to serve all its evidence to defendants in magistrates' courts.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I have been listening to the hon. Member's line of argument carefully and as I have an interest in justice I wonder why he is arguing against the production of all available evidence. Surely a court is entitled to hear all of the evidence before it pronounces judgment or convicts, or otherwise. I cannot understand why the hon. Member is objecting to the use of evidence from both sides.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I am sorry if I have opened the way to a misunderstanding. What is suggested in this clause is that the evidence should be made available to the defence before the trial. Of course, at the trial itself the evidence must be assembled, and it is the duty of the prosecution to produce all relevant evidence. What is here suggested is that before the trial, to enable the defence to assemble its case at trial, the prosecution evidence should be made available in written form. If this is so, I am saying that it is going too far in a direction in which we have been moving for some time in giving the edge, an extra advantage, to many defendants. It will result in more cases going for trial in the hope of picking holes in the prosecution case.
  An example I have in mind is that of the offence of driving with excess alcohol in the blood. At the moment most of those cases are decided in magistrates' courts although they could be tried on indictment. Invariably a certificate is served before the trial showing that an analysis of the blood indicates a figure in excess of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. When thai certificate is served, the defendant knows how he should plead. If this clause is adopted the future situation will be that the defendant will not only get the certificate; he will get all the evidence, all the facts on which the police will act, the details of the arrest and subsequent behaviour. That is something to which he is already entitled if he elects to go for trial and to put the community and the system to that amount of inconvenience and trouble.
  What is suggested is that this should apply at the magistrates' court stage before trial. In those cases a defendant who formerly would have pleaded guilty on the basis of the certificate will ask whether he can get round it because the

  377
  evidence shows that the officer was not in uniform at the time the arrest was made, or did not use the time-honoured words, or did not go through the appropriate processes after arrest. This clause would lead to an unworkable situation and I am wholly against it.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any solicitor who writes to the court and says that his client intends to plead not guilty can obtain these statements? All that he has to say later is that his client has changed his mind and is pleading guilty. Any solicitor who is prepared to stretch the truth a little gets the statements anyway. It is only those who refuse to pretend that their client is considering an alternative plea who do not get the statements.
  Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Member may be speaking from experience in his part of the world. As far as I know that practice is not followed in the London area and I do not believe that the Metropolitan Police go along with that sort of practice. Whenever I have advised an attempt to secure the written evidence of the prosecution before going to a magistrates' court on a possible election for trial it has never been possible to secure such papers. But if a solicitor gives a pledge that there will be an election for trial, it is possible to obtain the papers. There is an important distinction between the two. The sheer volume of work justifies the distinction.
  On subsections (3) and (4) I believe with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull that it would be a retrograde step to require the prosecution to supply the statements made by witnesses whom it does not intend to call. That is yet another instance of the effect of the clause being to disable the prosecution. A statement is often taken from an alibi witness. Such a statement is valuable to the prosecution. If the prosecution is then required to hand over to the defendant, it is robbed of a weapon for getting at the truth when that witness, whose name and address has been supplied to the defence, comes to the court with a different story. Those are perfectly legitimate devices and practices in a trial aimed at getting at the truth. The overall effect of this clause is to prevent the courts getting at the truth.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I always like to hear the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) address the House on these matters before making my own speech because he so frequently confirms me, as he has tonight, in the opposite point of view.
  I am sure that everyone, whether here or outside the House, would agree that we should always aim at open justice openly arrived at. Where we may differ is on how far we should go in that direction, whether for administrative reasons and the additional work load that may be caused or whether for reasons of fairness between the parties.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has done right to make us stop and think again whether existing procedures are wholly satisfactory. In Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill, which became an Act in 1972, I moved an amendment in somewhat similar if perhaps rather more elaborate terms relating to trials by indictment. The Minister of State, Home Office, who was here at the beginning of the debate, tended to take the view that the proposals were unnecessary, but at the end of the debate, having heard several hon. Members, including his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), who welcomed the amendment, he was constrained to say that he would look again at that matter, that he accepted the views of those who had experience in practising in the courts that the present situation was not satisfactory and that he would consider what steps might be taken to make improvements. Whatever happens to the new clause tonight, I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able at least to match what his hon. and learned Friend said on that occasion and give a similar undertaking on this new clause.
  I accept, as I am sure does my hon. Friend, that his new clause is cast in language which may be a little wide and that in its present form it would not be too easy to incorporate it precisely in the law, but the basic principle at which he is aiming is a desirable one. I would be more inclined to put the emphasis on subsection (3) of the new Clause, which is the matter of substance, and on subsection (2), which applies to the whole

  379
  of the new clause, then perhaps on subsection (1), which applies to those whom the prosecution is calling as witnesses.
  One can perhaps see that there may be an argument about the view that, if the prosecution is to be required to hand over its statements to the defence, it would be equally right for the defence to hand over to the prosecution the statements made by witnesses whom the defence proposes to call. That is a possible view.
  But when we come to subsection (3), we are dealing with people who have been interviewed, probably in most cases by the police but sometimes at the instance of a private prosecutor whose solicitor may have taken statements, and the prosecution, having obtained these statements has decided that they are witnesses it does not expect to call, perhaps because what they say is of no relevance, in which case no possible harm can be done by allowing the defendant to see their statements.
  It may be that what they say merely confirms what prosecution witnesses are already going to say, and for that reason it is not thought desirable to add to the time taken up by the case in calling them. Again, if that is so, it can do no possible harm. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) pointed out, the weight of such statements may be sufficient to persuade someone who is guilty, but who up to then is determined to plead not guilty, to change his mind.
  There is the third case—that of a witness's statement where the witness tells a story which is in conflict with the evidence given on behalf of the prosecution by other witnesses. If we accept the argument of open justice, openly arrived at, it is not right that a defendant in a serious criminal action, where there is a liability to imprisonment for a term exceeding three months, should be deprived of the right of seeing statements which the prosecution has discarded because they conflict with the evidence of other witnesses.
  Of course, it would be for the defence to decide whether to call those witnesses. It may be decided that they were not suitable witnesses. But there may be gleaned from their statements material
  380
  which the defence, because of the limitations upon a defendant in obtaining material as compared, for example, with the police, would wish to bring before the court by calling the witnesses, which may put an entirely different light on the case as presented by the prosecution. So far from that taking up undue time of the court, that is surely the sort of case in which a defence which suspected that such material might be available would, following present practice, wish to go to a higher court.
  In a higher court the defence would know that the practice would enable it to get those statements, whereas in the lower court it would not. Therefore, from the point of view of open justice and from the point of view of avoiding an undue number of cases which are triable on indictment going to the higher court —and finally an undue number of cases where there should be a plea of guilty being fought on a plea of not guilty—it would seem to me that the principle of subsection (3) ought to be seriously considered by the Government.
  I hope that in reply the Solicitor-General will say that what has been said tonight will be carefully considered, and that whatever can be done to put right any deficiencies in the system which now exist will be done in one way or another by the Government either by legislation or by some form of circular addressed to the magistracy.
  The Solicitor-General: In regard to the last few words of subsection (1) of the clause,
  "statements … taken from witnesses whom it is proposed to call or to tender to give evidence ",
  this matter is dealt with in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. So long as statements are given not less than seven days beforehand, they have to be provided. Therefore, I imagine that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) is speaking of cases in which witnesses will attend a hearing.
  Mr. Clinton Davis Mr. Clinton Davis indicated assent.
  The Solicitor-General: Inquiries made recently have disclosed a situation which was not known when this matter was discussed in Committee. As was forecast by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), a great deal

  381
  of extra work would be involved. It is estimated that the number of cases where copies of statements would be or could be requested would be in the region of 500,000 a year. It will be seen what a huge amount of extra work would be involved for the police, and as a consequence there would undoubtedly be a clogging up of the magistrates' courts.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is that the total number in relation to subsections (1) and (3), or subsection (1) only—and how many cases would be involved in that figure of 500,000?
  The Solicitor-General: That is the number involved if subsection (1) of new Clause 3 were to be accepted. Under subsection (2) the defendant, in the absence of legal representation, would be told of this right and one imagines that in most cases he would say "Yes, I should like it to be provided". It is impossible to estimate on how many occasions his legal representative would require it. Again, it is a fair assumption that in practically every case he would. This would range from dangerous driving cases right across the board, so long as the provision of a liability to imprisonment for more than three months applied.
  11.15 p.m.
  It is true that at the moment there may be occasions when adjournments are required because at some stage the defence has been caught unawares. But the number of adjournments which would be required if this provision became law would be enormously greater. So the requirements of manpower and adjournments make this provision, in our view, unacceptable.
  There is a safeguard already. This applies not only to the kind of case which has been mentioned, in which one lets it be known that one's client intends to go for trial, and then, having received the statements in advance, decides to have the matter tried summarily. It also applies to the kind of case in which, because there may not be sufficient knowledge of the case against the accused, his legal advisers advise him to go for trial, and he decides, during the course of that hearing, subject to the ruling of the court, to have the matter dealt with summarily. Several witnesses may have attended and given evidence
  382
  but not been cross-examined, because the defence was reserving its rights. But if they then ask for the case to be dealt with summarily, they can ask for those witnesses to be recalled, and can then cross-examine. So there is that safeguard, even after full committal proceedings.
  On subsections (3) and (4), on which the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) twice used the phrase "open justice openly arrived at", it is right to remind him that the statements of which we are speaking are documents which may or may not be handed from one side to the other. "Open justice openly arrived at" is concerned with evidence by witnesses in front of anyone attending the court. There is a strong distinction which should be drawn here.
  In the case of a police inquiry, there may be hundreds and sometimes thousands of statements taken from many people, all of them apparently necessary, some of which, on analysis, turn out to be irrelevant. Those statements may not even be typed, they may contain hearsay evidence, matters of great privacy and delicacy to the maker of the statement, may in some cases be defamatory, perhaps causing the risk of grave domestic trouble, or giving details of previous convictions of the accused or other witnesses. These are matters which it would be wrong to broadcast.
  Under the present system, the names and addresses of those witnesses who have been interviewed and whom the Crown has decided not to call are, if their evidence is relevant, provided to the defence solicitor. If, during the case, any witness is called who has made a statement inconsistent with his evidence, it is a practice for that inconsistent statement to be handed to the defence.
  But if one is to provide every statement, taken from every person, it will, first, place a great burden on somebody to decide which are relevant statements and which are not, and it will, second, need a great deal of editing of the statements to cut out the irrelevant, the personal and the secret matters which are in no way connected with the issue which is being tried by the court.
  One may get other examples where there may be a witness who is not treated

  383
  by the Crown as being reliable or credible, and there is the case where someone interviewed may well eventually be called as a witness for the defence. In those circumstances it would be quite wrong in the interests of justice—the interests of justice in this case being that the truth is eventually arrived at—that that person should have the advantage, weeks or months later, of having given to him, through the person to whom he is going to speak, the legal advisers, a resume of what he has said. This will prevent in this case the prosecution from having the very effective weapon which sometimes occurs when a man provides an alibi and gives an account which supports the defendant's case and has put to him a statement which he made after the event which is entirely contrary.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Reverting to subsections (1) and (2), which are far more fundamental, the hon. and learned Gentleman is no doubt aware of the fact that a large number of prosecutors make available statements to accused persons, and more particularly to their advisers, before a hearing. Some more sanguinary prosecutors will not do that, as the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) indicated. Disappointed though I am with the Solicitor-General's reply, will not he be prepared at least to go thus far—to say that a directive from the Home Office, or the appropriate Government Department, should be made that, unless prosecutors consider it contrary to the interests of justice and the public interest, they should divulge to the defence the statements prior to a hearing, albeit not in the requisite form under the Criminal Justice Act? This at least would go some of the way towards what I have sought.
  The Solicitor-General: In a sense, it may be that the hon. Gentleman is a mind-reader. I should have come to that point a little later. Although it may be said by him that subsections (1) and (2) are the more important, other hon. Members have dealt with subsections (3) and (4) and I felt it right to accord to them the same courtesy that I have accorded in respect of earlier subsections.
  Mr. Ernie Money: There is one aspect of this matter with which I wish my hon. and learned Friend to deal
  384
  shortly. There is still a limitation where a name is given to the defence if it is a case of a police officer. In some police forces that police officer can be interviewed only by the senior officer of his own force. Will my hon. and learned Friend make some general emphasis to police forces that police witnesses should be treated in the same way as any other witnesses?
  The Solicitor-General: It may be that the practice varies. I do not know of which police force my hon. Friend is speaking. I suspect that it may be the force of which I am thinking. If he will give me the details I shall certainly look into that matter.
  There are criticisms about the drafting of the new clause. I shall not deal with those. Concerning the future, I should prefer to see it become a matter of practice rather than of law. I am not sure that it is necessary that the actual statements of the witnesses for the prosecution should be handed over, literally, to the defence. In my experience at the bar, one was usually afforded by the prosecuting solicitor or prosecuting counsel a fair summary of what the case was, which was quite sufficient. One did not need the details. Sometimes, in a way, it was almost an embarrassment to see the actual statement. I should prefer to see it in any event as a matter of practice, as in so many of the ways in which the law works out between both sides, particularly when represented by counsel and solicitors, it works out that way satisfactorily. It would be very difficult to do it as a matter of legislation.
  I leave the matter in this way: whilst inviting the House to reject the new clause, I undertake to reconsider the question, and I shall certainly invite the comments of the Criminal Bar Association and any other body to which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, may draw attention. It is certainly something that I am prepared to reconsider.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I am grateful for the Solicitor-General's final observations. At the outset of his remarks I thought that he would express a categorical refusal even to consider my observations. I feel that at some stage it would be desirable to have information before the House based upon the expert knowledge of the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar

  385
  Association, the Law Society, the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, and the rest, because this is a matter about which I know many people have felt deeply for a long time.
  In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 3
  COURSES OF INSTRUCTION FOR JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 46, at end add:
  '(3) A justice of the peace shall attend at least one course of instruction in each calendar year.'
  I raised this question in the Second Reading debate. It concerns the obligation of justices of the peace to undertake some form of instruction in each calendar year. In his Second Reading speech the Solicitor-General indicated that he thought it inappropriate to impose an obligation of this character upon a voluntary body. I do not accept that argument. It has to be remembered that when justices of the peace accept the solemn obligations imposed upon them on assuming office—the duty to determine guilt, the duty to impose an appropriate sentence, the duty to adjudicate on civil issues, as between husband and wife, and so on—they accept, perhaps by implication, the corollary duty that they will endeavour to keep abreast of changes in the law and in procedure, and, in conceptions that govern the thinking of magistrates' courts—and, in these days, Crown courts—to consider the way in which society at large is thinking about a wide variety of issues which impinge upon the functions of the justices.
  I know that many justices of the peace accept and honour those obligations and already attend the instructional courses provided. I know something about those which are provided in inner London at least, because my wife is an assiduous attender of the instruction courses and sentencing exercises which are set. Many justices unquestionably attend, but there is still a substantial minority of justices of the peace who will not go to these sentencing exercises and have no real
  386
  interest in what is being discussed there and yet continue to occupy their important office.
  I know that some justices of the peace say "We have enough to do spending our time in courts once a week or once a fortnight." I know that it is a heavy and time-consuming responsibility. But that is not an adequate excuse for one who accepts this solemn undertaking. These people may be extremely busy, but in order to fulfil their functions adequately they must not be too busy to attend at least one sentencing exercise or instructional course in each calendar year. That is not asking too much, particularly since these courses are generally held on Saturdays.
  Sitting as a justice of the peace is not a game. One does not undertake these functions for purposes of social embellishment—at least, one should not do so. This is a vitally important role in our judicial system. Therefore, it is not a function that one should take on lightly.
  Other justices say, "We are fairly experienced magistrates already. We do not need these instructional courses. We get our experience where it matters— on the bench". I do not think that is a satisfactory argument either, because there are often changes which affect our criminal law and, indeed, the civil jurisdiction of magistrates, and it would be wrong to treat those appearing before justices as guinea pigs.
  11.30 p.m.
  It is important that those who are experienced should obtain greater experience by attending sentencing exercises and other instructional courses. It is wrong, in a sense, to refer too much to sentencing exercises, because the courses ought to be of a much wider nature than they are now. I referred to this matter on Second Reading, and I shall not embellish upon it at this late hour, but there are important aspects of civil jurisdiction which perhaps do not feature too much in the instructional courses undertaken by justices.
  I believe, too, that the experienced magistrate has a good deal to offer to the inexperienced one attending these instructional courses, and he ought to think about that. After all, he can pass on the benefit of the experience which he has acquired by sitting on the mock

  387
  benches at sentencing exercises. I hope, therefore, that there will not be too many who feel that they do not need the guidance and help which these courses can bestow.
  I am not seeking to disparage justices —I hope that the Solicitor-General will recognise this—because I accept that a large number of them undertake these exercises, but it should be obligatory on them all to undertake the minimum number of courses which I have set out in the amendment. They are volunteers but of a special kind with special obligations, and I do not think that this would be asking too much of them.
  The Solicitor-General: This matter was debated in Committee. One of the problems raised by the amendment is that it would need a great deal of prior consultation, followed by agreement with the Magistrates' Association as representing the lay magistrates and, indeed, with magistrates, courts committees which have the duty and the financial responsibility of mounting the courses which they arrange each year for the justices.
  When compulsory training was introduced it was recognised that those who were appointed were giving up their time to voluntary service and that they were usually mature and responsible persons, many of whom occupied prominent positions in the community. It was not thought proper to enforce this compulsory training by legislation, but it was enforced in a different way. That was by requiring justices to give an undertaking on appointment to complete a prescribed course of instruction within a year of appointment. They are, therefore, given that instruction within the first 12 months.
  It must be remembered that justices are busy people with many other commitments. The amount of time which they are being required to give to their magisterial duties is increasing every year due to the increase in the number of cases which they have to try, and in my view it would be an intolerable burden to enforce attendance at even one course of instruction a year.
  Magistrates' courts committees arrange at least a sentencing exercise, which is available for all the justices for whom they are responsible, not less than every
  388
  other year and in a number of cases more often. All justices are encouraged to attend these exercises and also any other instructional courses which may be available. Sometimes these are arranged by the magistrates' courts committees, or by branches of the Magistrates' Association, and at other times by universities and other educational institutions.
  In my experience in East Anglia it is a frequent occurrence to have a weekend session from late on Friday evening until after lunch on Sunday at one of the colleges. There is a huge attendance. A large number of important, useful people—probation officers, prison officers, judges and the like—come to give lectures. A very big sentencing exercise takes place. It may be that in that part of the country we have been very lucky. It would be wrong to say that such attendance is lacking among magistrates generally. It is not. Most of them are very good about it.
  I should not like to enforce upon magistrates by legislation what is basically recognised and agreed to be a voluntary system. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has under constant review the training of justices, a subject upon which he receives expert and informed advice. If at any time it became apparent to him that some form of compulsory training was required in addition to the basic training, I think that it could be introduced either as a condition of appointment, which would be the best way because upon accepting the appointment a magistrate would know what was involved, or subsequently by legislation.
  My inclination would be not to change the terms of office of somebody who has accepted voluntary duty as a justice by thrusting upon him a few years later a compulsory form of instruction which he did not accept at the time of his appointment in addition to the onerous duties that he has to carry out in any event.
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 9
  JUDICIAL PENSIONS (INCREASE OF WIDOW'S AND CHILDREN'S PENSIONS)
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 8, line 6,

  389
  leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.
  I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that with this Amendment it might be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 3 to 8 and No. 10.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Yes, if the House agrees.
  The Solicitor-General: These amendments have a dual effect as a result of the amendment that was made in Committee relating to pensions for widows. It became apparent when it was examined that those who died before the appointed time would not be able to make provision for their widows as was proposed in the Bill. The amendments will enable Clause 9 to apply to any person in office after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Secondly, they will make it possible for the regulations to provide for the case where a person dies in office during the period in which he might have exercised one of the options under Clause 9 or, having retired from office, dies during that period without having exercised his option.
  As the clause stands, it is incapable of benefiting a person holding judicial office who either dies in office or retires before its commencement. Since the clause cannot be brought into force until the fairly complex regulations under it have been made, it means that nobody who retires for a considerable time ahead, or who dies in office during that time, would be able to provide for his widow and therefore benefit from the provisions.
  It is obviously right that the clause should be capable of benefiting such persons and should operate in this way. It is wrong that the amount of pension payable to a judge's widow should depend on how quickly the Department concerned can prepare the regulations. They must not be prepared in a hurry for fear that they might be faulty. Therefore, these amendments are proposed to avoid what would seem to be an extremely unfair hiatus.
  Amendment agreed to.
  A mendments made: No. 3, in page 8, line 18, leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.
  No. 4, in page 8, line 40, leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.
  No. 5, in page 9, line 9, leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.
  No. 6, in page 9, line 10, leave out from 'regulations' to end of line 11 and insert:
  'whereby, subject to any prescribed conditions, an election may be made by or with respect to a person—'.
  No. 7, in page 9, line 14, leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.
  No. 8, in page 9, line 24, leave out 'appointed time' and insert 'passing of this Act'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 10, line 3, at end insert:
  ' (8) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to the enactments mentioned in the Schedule (increase of certain widow's and children's pensions in Northern Ireland) to this Act as they have effect in relation to the Act of 1950, but subject to the adaptations provided for by that Schedule; and provision corresponding to that which is made by subsections (1) and (3) above, or which may be made by regulations under this section for purposes of those subsections, may, in relation to the pension benefits of any resident magistrate or county court registrar included in Schedule 5 to the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (persons remaining subject to the Superannuation Acts (Northern Ireland) 1967 and 1969), be made by order of the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland.
  For the purposes of section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 this subsection shall be deemed to have been passed before the appointed day within the meaning of that section '.
  This makes provision first for the increase of widows' and children's pensions in respect of county court judges, clerks of the Crown and peace, certain resident magistrates, the National Insurance Commissioners, the President of the Industrial Court and certain others. Secondly, it deals with the cases of certain judicial officers—two resident magistrates and the one full-time county court registrar—to whom the provisions of the Superannuation Acts (Northern Ireland) 1967 and 1969 continue to apply by virtue of the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. It enables the Ministry of Finance

  391
  to make an order increasing the pensions of widows and children of those judicial officers.
  The curious second paragraph is intended to comply with Section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which provides that in terms of amending legislation nothing shall happen after the appointed day. In order to preserve Stor-mont's power, therefore, everything is to be deemed to apply before the appointed day all those years ago.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 10, in page 10. leave out lines 7 and 8.— [The Solicitor-General.]

  Clause 11
  RETIREMENT OF HIGHER JUDICIARY IN EVENT OF INCAPACITY
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 26, leave out
  'but is for the time being incapacitated from resigning it'.
  I make no apology for moving again an amendment that I moved in Committee. At the end of the debate on that amendment I said that I hoped the Government would keep an open mind on the matter and look at it again before Report. Naturally I hope that that has been done and that in due course the result will be manifested through the mouth of the Solicitor-General.
  Clause 11 introduces a new concept into our procedure for senior judges in that it enables the Lord Chancellor, subject to various qualifications, to remove a High Court judge if that judge is disabled by permanent infirmity from the performance of the duties of his office. But before doing so he has to be satisfied that that is so by a medical certificate and in addition by consulting various senior judges who are in a position to know whether the infirmity is likely to be a disabling and permanent one.
  In a major constitutional matter which I concede this to be, all that obviously is right. The clause provides not merely that the judge should be disabled by permanent infirmity from performing his duties but also, as a second test, that the judge should for the time being be incapacitated from resigning his office.
  392
  There are two conditions precedent before the Lord Chancellor can exercise this power.
  I invite the House to look at the position where, unhappily, a judge is disabled by permanent infirmity from the performance of the duties of his office, where this is certified to the Lord Chancellor by the necessary medical certificate and where he has satisfied himself by consulting the senior judges whom he is required to consult under the terms of the clause.
  11.45 p.m.
  Three possibilities exist. The first is that a judge who is so disabled may voluntarily resign, realising that he cannot carry on his duties. No doubt that happens frequently. If that happens the problem disappears. The second possibility is that a judge is unable to record his resignation because his incapacity prevents him from doing so. If that is the position, without the words which I seek to leave out the Lord Chancellor would be enabled by the clause to remove the judge. He would be able to remove him if he was disabled by permanent infirmity from performing the duties of his office. It adds nothing in those circumstances that in addition he is incapacitated from resigning.
  The third possibility is that, being disabled by permanent infirmity from performing the duties of his office, a judge, not recognising that that is the position, declines to resign.
  That is the difficult case. That is the one case in which the Lord Chancellor would wish and need to have the power to remove a judge, and that is the case when under the clause he is unable to do so.
  I appreciate, as the Solicitor-General said in Committee, that constitutional issues are involved. Of course, we wish to avoid trespassing upon the independence of the judiciary any more than is necessary. Nevertheless it is an odd way in which to comply with that correct principle when that is the one case when the clause does not enable the Lord Chancellor to act. The only means by which he could require a judge to resign, or by which a judge could be required to do so is by the procedure which happily is so rare and which I hope will be even more rare—namely, the removal of the judge by an address of both Houses. It

  393
  is the one difficult case that may arise and arises when, unhappily, people are disabled by permanent infirmity from performing their duties and do not see why they should resign.
  The Solicitor-General said in Comhmittee that he fully understood the logic of the amendment but on constitutional grounds he came down against it. Because it is a logical necessity, if such a clause is to be introduced at all the amendment should be accepted. As to constitutional considerations, it is the clause and not the particular wording that is the important innovation, and by the amendment the Opposition are giving effect to what was manifestly the Government's intention in drafting the clause.
  I hope that the Solicitor-General, having had time to reflect upon the matter, will appreciate the reasons for the amendment. I hope he will accept that they are not only logical, as he did, but desirable and that he will accordingly accept the amendment.
  The Solicitor-General: This is perhaps a rehearsal of the debate in Committee.
  I must emphasise yet again that the special position of the higher judiciary goes back to Section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700, which provided that judges' commissions be made quamdiu se bene gesserint, but that upon the address of both Houses of Parliament it might be lawful to remove them.
  At present a judge can vacate his office only by resignation, death, promotion or attainment of the age of 75 if he was appointed after 17th September 1959. This is a constitutional protection which has been carefully preserved for over 270 years. I cannot agree to any diminution of that constitutional safeguard, which has been one of the heritages that we have cherished over that long period of time.
  I must ask the House to resist the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 15
  PAYMENT OF INTERPRETERS IN CRIMINAL CASES (ENGLAND AND WALES)
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 13, line 18, leave out from 'with' to 'and' in line 22 and insert:
  394
  'then if he has incurred expenses on the employment of an interpreter for the proceedings on the information, he may apply to a magistrates' court for that area and the court shall order the payment out of central funds of the expenses properly so incurred by him'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall discuss Amendment No. 12, in line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall', Amendment No. 13, in line 24, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall', and Government Amendment No. 19.
  The Solicitor-General: Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which were set down only yesterday, arise as a result of the amendments put down by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). What he set out to achieve is quite acceptable to the Government and I am grateful to him for drawing it to our attention. The reasons why his amendments have not been selected are purely those of drafting.
  The result of the Government amendments is exactly the same as the hon. Gentleman intended. In short, they say that not only where a case has been brought before the court and the defendant has appeared will he be entitled as a matter of right to any costs involved in the use of an interpreter, but that also on those occasions when the information has been laid but withdrawn before the court hears the case, or in similar circumstances at a Crown court, so that he does not appear, he may apply to those courts for any costs properly incurred in the use of an interpreter, subject to the proviso that applies in all cases that he must satisfy the court that his lack of English required that.
  The Government amendments adopt and put into drafting terms the hon. Gentleman's proposals.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. He has made the point more clearly than my amendments could have done, and I am grateful to him.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 19, in page 13, line 24, leave out from 'tied' to end of line 27 and insert:
  'then if he has incurred expenses on the employment of an interpreter for the proceedings in the Crown Court, he may apply to

  395
  the Crown Court and the court shall order the payment out of central funds of the expenses properly so incurred by him '.—[The Solicitor-General.]

  Clause 18
  COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 15, leave out lines 26 and 27.
  The Bill at present provides that the provisions relating to county court jurisdiction and the related repeals should not come into force until 1st April. That date has now passed and the amendment is therefore necessary.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 19
  SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 15, in page 17, line 18, leave out 'and 16' and insert:
  '16 and "pensions of resident magistrates in Northern Ireland "'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

  New Schedule
  INCREASE OF CERTAIN WIDOW'S AND CHILDREN'S PENSIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND.
  '1.The enactments in relation to which section 9 of this Act has effect by virtue of section 9(8) are—

  (a) Part XIII of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (relating to county court judges and clerks of the Crown and peace), in relation to which the references in section 9 of this Act to section 7(4), section 8 and section 11 (or sections 10 and 11) of the Act of 1950 shall be replaced, respectively, by references to section 126(4) of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, section 127 of that Act and section 13 of the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951;

  (b) the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960, in relation to which—

  (i) subsection (4)(c) of section 9 of this Act and the reference in subsection (6) to sections 10 and 11 of the Act of 1950 shall not apply; and

  (ii) the references in section 9 to section 7(4) and section 8 of the Act of 1950 shall be replaced, respectively, by references to section 8(4) and section 9 of the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960;

  (b) Part II of the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951 (relating, by virtue of later enactments, to the National Insurance Commissioners, the President of the Industrial Court and the President of the Industrial Tribunals), in relation to which—

  (i) subsection (4)(c) of section 9 of this Act and the reference in subsection (6) to sections 10 and 11 of the Act of 1950 shall not apply; and

  (ii) the references in section 9 in section 7(4) and section 8 of the Act of 1950 shall be replaced, respectively, by references to section 10 (4) and section 11 of the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951.

  (2) In relation to the provisions to which section 9 of this Act applies by virtue of paragraph 1(a) or of paragraph 1(b) above references in section 9 to relevant service shal have effect as references to service within the meaning of those provisions.
  (3) In relation to any of the provisions to which section 9 of this Act applies by virtue of paragraph 1 above, the expression "enaci-ment" in section 9(6) shall mean enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or amendable by Act of that Parliament; and section 9 (7) shall not apply, but regulations for purposes of section 9 may be made with the consent of the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland by the Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland or, in relation to the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951, the Ministry of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, and shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 as if they were a statutory instrument within the meaning of that Act'.—[The Solicitor-General/]
  Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Schedule 4
  REPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 17, in page 29, line 54, at end insert:

  ' 9 & 10 Eliz. 2 c. 3.

  The Administration of Justice (Judges and Pensions) Act 1960.

  Section 2".

  —[The Solicitor-General.]

  Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time. [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  HOUSING (MAINTENANCE ORDERS)
  Resolved,
  That the Housing (Payments for Well Maintained Houses) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th March, be approved.—[Mr. Murton.]

  IRON (ANTI-DUMPING DUTY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order 1973 S.I., 1973, No. 419), dated 9th March 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.—[Mr. Murton.]
  11.59 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: The Minister has been saved by the Whip formally moving the motion in his absence. I wish to speak briefly on the matter. This is the second anti-dumping order affecting East Germany to come before the House in the last five months. The Minister no doubt remembers that last November his Department placed a duty of £2,250 per machine on sweet-wrapping machines from that country.
  Now we have the order imposing antidumping duty of £5 a tonne on pig iron and cast iron. Will the Minister say who complained? I know that the British Steel Corporation, the private sector and the British Scrap Federation might have been involved, but the Minister must inform the House who has complained sufficiently to insist upon an examination of the matter.
  Will the Minister also tell us what was the extent of the material injury and what tonnage of pig and cast iron has been coming in from East Germany? I take it that this £5 per tonne duty will be retrospective. From what date will it apply? How much will Customs gather as a result? Because the Department of Trade and Industry has had to impose two duty orders within five months against the German Democratic Republic, it may give the appearance of being vigilant. This vigilance is absolutely necessary.
  The Department and Customs and Excise must observe more closely the numbers and types of products coming into Britain from Eastern Europe. Its system of trading is quite different from our own. It has a State monopoly and State control of products and exports. No
  398
  doubt State subsidies are involved too. This is also true of other Eastern European countries. That is why there are constant complaints, for example from the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board, about the dumping of cheap Polish coal on the British market. It is about time that an examination was made of that.
  At the moment the German Democratic Republic is guilty of malpractice in international trading. The Minister might care to say what representations he has made or intends to make to the GDR Government about the question of fair trading and the need to observe international trading agreements. I cannot understand why it persists in this practice. Apart from Parliament having to be informed each time it is caught, many firms and businesses must get to know of these malpractices and that must do the offending nation greater harm.
  The Eastern European bloc, particularly the USSR, Romania and the GDR, has been guilty of the dumping of goods into Britain which has caused material injury to our producers on at least six occasions in the last three years. I hope that the Minister and the Department will inform it that it is six times too often. It is now necessary to inform the Eastern European countries, particularly the GDR, that these malpractices cannot be tolerated. In their own interests they ought to curtail their dumping practices.
  12.3 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Lord Commissioner of the Treasury for moving acceptance of the order. Some of us were taken by surprise at the remarkable taciturnity of our legal friends in the preceding debate.
  This order, which was made under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969, imposes an anti-dumping duty of £5 per tonne on pig iron, originating in East Germany, prospectively from 9th March 1973 and retrospectively to 12th September 1972 when a provisional charge to duty was imposed. That deals with one of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).
  The anti-dumping action which we have taken follows a thorough investigation by the Department in response to

  399
  an anti-dumping application submitted by the United Kingdom producers of pig iron. The application came from the British Steel Corporation and was supported by Ford.
  Our investigation established that the East German pig iron was dumped by reference to the price paid for imports of comparable pig iron from Norway, after adjustments had been made to allow for differences in the composition of the pig iron imported from these two different sources. The 1969 Act allows us to use this method of assessing dumping in the case of imports from State-trading countries when satisfactory information cannot be obtained about their domestic prices.
  We were also satisfied, after a thorough investigation of the position of the British producers by our professional accountants, that the dumping had caused material injury and threatened to cause further material injury to the British industry. In the light of these findings, and after considering representations made to us by importers and users of the pig iron, we concluded that it was in the national interest to impose the duty.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the extent of the imports. Between August 1971 and July 1972 imports from East Germany amounted to 58,000 tonnes, and they were on a rising curve. The Department's estimate was that at the peak rate of imports in 1972 the maximum loss would be about 80,000 tonnes a year out of a total open market purchase of about 600,000 tonnes. Therefore we took the provisional action in September, after which imports ceased.
  We did not receive all the information we required from the British Steel Corporation on the financial position until about November last year. Therefore, bearing in mind that there has been a court case on this matter in which judgment was given in the Department's favour on 6th March, I think that the Department has acted as expeditiously as possible.
  The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned coal. Imports of coal from all sources are currently at very low levels, and imports of Polish coal form only a small proportion of the total. The Gov-
  400
  ernment are nevertheless keeping the situation under close review.
  Finally, I will say a word on the general observations of the right hon. Gentleman about the Eastern bloc in general and East Germany in particular. He is right in saying that this is the second occasion on which an anti-dumping order has had to come before the House dealing with East Germany. Naturally we deplore dumping, and we have shown that we are prepared to take action. But we have to investigate the cases very thoroughly to ensure that there is material injury and that there is dumping. We also have to have regard to the interest of consumers, which we must never forget, and the consumers' interest is obviously to get as cheap products as possible. But we are determined to see that dumping is safeguarded against, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we note carefully the countries from which there seems to be a spate of dumping.
  The right hon. Gentleman will understand that the Department also has to have regard to the broad trade interests of this country. We export substantially to the Eastern bloc countries, and we cannot allow any feelings we have on particular dumping issues to cloud our minds on the general overall trade position. Nevertheless we have acted in this case, and we will act in other cases where substantial dumping is proved, whether by East Germany or any other country.
  I therefore hope that the House will approve the order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order 1973 (S.I., 1973. No. 419), dated 9th March 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.

  MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Order for Committee be discharged and that the Bill, as amended (in the Select Committee), be re-committed to a Standing Committee.—[Mr. Jopling.]

  Resolved,
  That Mr. Dick Taverne be designated a Member of the European Parliament.—[Mr. Jopling.]

  GENERAL RATE ACT 1967 (EXEMPTION OF CONSTANT ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCES) (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]
  Queris Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to exclude payments of the constant attendance allowance from calculations of gross income when assessing eligibility for rate rebates under the General Rate Act 1967, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other enactment.—[Mr. Jopling.]

  GENERAL RATE ACT 1967 (EXEMPTION OF CONSTANT ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCES) (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill for adding attendance allowances to the matters specified in section 7(3) of the Rating Act 1966 (which relates to the calculation of rate rebates payable in Scotland).—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Jopling.]

  ABINGDON BYPASS
  12.10 a.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has always been of the greatest assistance to me and my constituents in matters concerning roads in North Berkshire, but he will agree with me that in the last few months something has gone seriously wrong with the planning of the second stage of the Abingdon bypass and the link road to Didcot. This has caused considerable exasperation and inconvenience in view of the previous assurances which Ministers have given over the past two years that the two stages of the Abingdon bypass would be built in succession and without a prolonged interval between them.
  402
  On 28th March my hon. Friend wrote to me saying that the Didcot link road was in the preparation list. I thought this was very welcome. I wish to refer to the rather confusing Press release which his Department gave afterwards, giving details of the interchanges and side roads of stage two between Drayton and Chilton. In a Written Answer on 29th March he included the Faringdon bypass as well, which is also in my constituency, and which I hope he will mention in his reply tonight. I express my thanks to him on behalf of Faringdon for the inclusion of the Faringdon bypass, and also to all the local authorities and the action group who worked very hard to get this result.
  But I should mention that the news of the inclusion of the Faringdon bypass in the preparation list was somewhat marred by the Berkshire county surveyor, who, during the filming of a BBC "Man Alive" programme on Friday, chose to say that it would be six to eight years before the bypass was built, which rather dampened the spirits of the audience.
  Berkshire County Council has issued a more reassuring statement, and it will be for Oxfordshire County Council— under the local government reorganisation my constituency will go to Oxfordshire—to decide on the speed of construction. But I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to use his good offices and say that procedures are being followed which will speed things up, that the paper work is being cut down and that the bypass will be built in a much shorter period.
  The second stage of the Abingdon bypass, included in the statement my hon. Friend made on 29th March, has been the subject of correspondence throughout 1971 and 1972. In 1971 my hon. Friend's predecessor, now Minister for Aerospace, said that both stages should be built in one contract, and as late as 24th January 1973 my hon. Friend himself evidently hoped that the gap in the completion of the two stages would be very narrow. But on 21st February he had to inform me that the status of the Didcot link road had not been settled and that this would cause delay in publishing the interchanges and the side roads. They were published last week,

  403
  but even so it appears to me from what I have heard that 12 months will elapse between the end of stage one and the beginning of stage two, which, on a two-year contract, means that three to four years at least will elapse before the whole bypass is built. I assume that the first stage will be finished fairly soon, and as there has been fine weather recently this is to be expected perhaps by the autumn, according to local reports.
  There is no doubt that there has been an administrative tangle and some serious planning mistakes have been made. The consequences for the surrounding villages must be considered. It is still not absolutely clear from my hon. Friend's Department's Press release how far the Didcot link will go. To be effective, it must go to the far side—that is to the east or Wallingford side of Didcot. If it is only to go from the new interchange at Milton Heights to the Foxhall Road it will not bring about the radical improvement in the Didcot road system that is so needed. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that point in his reply. The Press release of 29th March does not make clear that the road is in the preparation list, although one knows that that is so.
  To return to the interchanges, on the second stage of the bypass the plan has now been changed from having an interchange at Drayton, where there is to be a flyover, to one at Milton Heights. When will work on stage two begin as a result of the latest announcement about these interchanges? This is of enormous consequence to the village of Steventon, through which vehicles travel southwards probably at speeds of up to 70 miles an hour on dual carriageway along stage one to a point north of Drayton. This will affect safety in the village. Some 19 per cent. of the traffic will be heavy vehicles, and, according to local calculations, 40 per cent. of local traffic will create a dangerous situation on the existing A34, which will continue after stage one as far as Chilton. Will my hon. Friend say what effect the temporary terminal connection now being constructed at Drayton is likely to have on this position? Between Drayton and Steven-ton the stretch of A34 requires special safety measures if this is to happen,
  404
  particularly at the S-bend opposite Esso House.
  Some constructive suggestions have been made locally. The Steventon Road Safety Association has also proposed some steps of which I have given my hon. Friend notice. The first is that there should be a 40 miles an hour limit on the A34 from the end of stage one to the existing 30 miles an hour speed limit in Steventon. The second point the association makes is that the existing plans to raise the 30 m.p.h. limit through Steventon should be scrapped, at any rate for the present. The third point it makes is that there should be traffic lights at Hanney Road, at which a lot of the traffic turns off the A34. Fourthly, it suggests that there should be a pedestrian crossing or footbridge in Steventon.
  Other neighbouring villages are affected by the delay in the planning and construction of the bypass. For example, the village of Milton is suffering from a steady flow of lorries to a new industrial estate, which will continue until the interchange at Milton Heights is built. Therefore, the sooner the planning and construction can be speeded up the better for them. At the village of Chilton, at the south end of stage two, there is considerable uncertainty about the future. It is difficult for pedestrians to cross the A34 or to emerge by car from the village into dense traffic.
  The proposed interchange at Chilton will, in fact, go straight through an existing service station belonging to Mr. Hodsdon, my constituent, about whom the Minister already knows. Mr. Hodsdon has been trying to make improvements to his service station. Can he be told his position as soon as possible, particularly with regard to compensation?
  There is also a large area of land on the Manor Estate, Chilton, which has been blighted for the past 10 years by the knowledge that this second stage of the bypass was to be constructed in that area.
  Now that the side roads and interchanges have been published by my hon. Friend, subject to objection before 8th June next, can he say what procedures will be followed to make up for lost time? I am not interested in blaming people too much for these delays.

  405
  Obviously, there must be some explanation, but the clock cannot be put back. What I would ask him to do is to take steps to speed up those procedures so as to save my constituents anxiety and possibly the lives of several of them. I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure them tonight.
  12.21 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): First, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for the remarks at the start of his speech. As he and I both know, on various occasions, certainly over the past year, he has impressed on me his concern and that of his constituents about a series of road schemes. I know that before that my hon. Friend who is now the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping was similarly pressed several times by my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend is particularly concerned on behalf of his constituents living in the Steventon area about the effects of the gap between the completion dates of the first and second stages of the Abingdon bypass.
  Perhaps before I deal with that, the main subject of this debate, I should say a word about the Faringdon bypass. My attention has been drawn by my hon. Friend to the remarks of the Berkshire county surveyor last week, and I understand—I have a copy here—that statements have been issued both by the vice-chairman of the Berkshire County Council highways and bridges committee and by the Chairman of the Berkshire County Council. It is fair to paraphrase both those statements as saying that they hope that, with the speed-up in consultation and other procedures, which are the responsibility of the county council, it will be possible to improve upon the estimate of six to eight years mentioned by the county surveyor last week.
  The Faringdon bypass is essentially a matter for the local authority concerned. Nevertheless, so far as my Department has an interest in this—and, of course, we do, not least in providing the money and in the programming and the rest— we shall be pleased to consider the proposals sympathetically, and I hope speedily, when they come to us from the county council.
  406
  There is to be a change of highway authority for the Faringdon area on the reorganisation of local government, and I understand that schemes such as this, which will be subject to a change of highway authority, have already been the subject of discussions between the two counties concerned. My Department's regional controller's office is maintaining a watching brief to ensure that the takeover is a smooth one.
  On the main question of the Abingdon bypass, my hon. Friend has alerted me to the likelihood that difficult traffic-conditions may be experienced on the existing A34 between Drayton and Chilton during the construction of the second stage, and he has pointed to the risk that these conditions could be aggravated as a result of the completion of the first stage, which will make a fast road leading through to the uncompleted second stage.
  I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern, and everything which can be done to speed up the second stage is being done. As he said, a significant step forward was taken last week, with the publication in draft of the side roads order.
  Urgent as is the need, my hon. Friend will appreciate that we must follow the statutory procedures. We must ensure that the proposals which we put forward for connections with and alterations to other roads will satisfactorily meet the need for links not only with the existing road system but—this is important— with other proposed roads in the area. We must ensure also that where there is a close relationship between a road for which the Secretary of State is responsible—a trunk road—and a road for which the local highway authority is responsible the differing procedures which have to be followed for each road are carefully co-ordinated.
  Nothing is gained by the premature publication of proposals that are unlikely to win general acceptance, and a great deal of time can be lost if proposals have to be withdrawn, reconsidered and republished.
  It was important, therefore, that my Department should satisfy itself that the proposals for interchanges on the Drayton-Chilton section, which were published last week and are now open to

  407
  objection on the time scale mentioned by my hon. Friend, would be justifiable and would adequately meet the needs of traffic. Within the next few weeks the Department will publish further orders concerned with the connection at Drayton between stages one and two and with the compulsory acquisition of the land required for stage two. That will meet the point about Mr. Hodsdon, to which my hon. Friend was referring, because it will be the draft compulsory purchase order for the land required for the roadworks which, I understand, will affect Mr. Hods-don's property. As owner of the property, Mr. Hodsdon will be entitled to compensation in accordance with the usual rules. In assessing the compensation the district valuer will have regard to all the relevant circumstances at the time, including any planning consents which Mr. Hodsdon may then have for his property.
  Provisional arrangements are being made to hold a public inquiry in September, if one proves to be necessary, to look into objections to any of these orders. Subject to satisfactory completion of these procedures, and the availability of funds—that is always a caveat which one has to enter—we aim to make a start on stage two at the end of 1974 with a view to completion at the end of 1976.
  The first stage from South Hinksey to Drayton is under construction and is due to be completed at the end of this year. Thus there will be a gap of about three years between the completion of stage one and the completion of stage two. I agree that it is disappointing that this gap will be about a year longer than we had earlier hoped, but there have been problems requiring considerable negotiation and detailed investigation to overcome.
  The plan of this route was fixed in January 1971 and indicated a possible site for an interchange to serve Didcot between the existing A4130 and A417. After the line had been fixed, the recommendations of the Didcot-Abingdon-Wantage Transportation Study became available. They included a proposal for a new link road to serve Didcot which would cross the new A34 route near Milton Heights. In the light of this recommendation, the interchange proposals for the Chilton-Drayton length were reviewed. In place of the A417-A4130 interchange, consulta-
  408
  tions with local authorities, preparatory to publication of the Department's proposals, were carried out in February 1972 on the basis of an interchange to serve Didcot at Milton Heights. At this time the programme envisaged publication of the draft side roads order in April 1972, to coincide with the expected publication by Berkshire County Council of formal proposals for the Didcot link in the form of a planning application. This would allow the application to be called in by the Secretary of State and taken to a joint public inquiry with the interchange proposals, if a public inquiry should become necessary. In the event, Berkshire County Council's application was not published until 21st September 1972 and publication of the Department's side roads order was deferred accordingly.
  In the meantime—this is where my Department has a responsibility—some doubts were felt within the Department about the status of, and the necessity for, the Didcot link, and it was decided that publication of the interchange proposals must be withheld until these questions were resolved.
  After discussions between the Department and the county council, it was agreed that an interchange at Milton Heights should be included in the Department's proposals in anticipation of the acceptance of the Didcot link proposal, but it was felt that the case for an additional interchange with the A417, including a link road to the A4130, should also be investigated. As a result of the investigations, which have now been completed, it has been decided not to include a proposal for the A417-A4130 interchange. The side roads order now published provides for an interchange at Milton Heights and a free-flow connection with the existing A34 at Chilton. The Milton Heights interchange will connect with the A34 at Steventon via a new link road and with Potash Lane.
  It has been designed to connect also with the Didcot link road proposed by the Berkshire County Council. The Department has considered the county council's planning application and informed it that it accepts the necessity for the link. But, since the link as proposed will be possible only if the Milton Heights interchange is constructed, no final decision on the planning application will

  409
  be taken until it is known whether a public inquiry will be held into the interchange proposal. If there is an inquiry, it would seem desirable to deal with the Didcot link at the same time.
  I am pleased to be able to say that the Didcot link has not been added to the preparation list. This is a scheme for which Berkshire County Council is responsible. The planning application relates only to the first stage, from Milton Heights to Foxhall Road. Any eastward extension will no doubt be the subject of a further planning application.
  My hon. Friend was right to refer to a number of other important matters which remain to be resolved. It is no longer proposed to provide a permanent interchange with the A34 at Drayton. When the partial interchange at Drayton was originally proposed it was thought that the first interchange further south might be at Harwell. The subsequent publication of the results of the Didcot-Abingdon-Want-age Transportation Study, with its proposal for a Didcot link road crossing the new trunk road at Milton Heights, changed the situation. Construction of an interchange at Drayton cannot be justified in addition to one at Milton Heights only about 1¼ miles to the south.
  Draft orders to authorise the deletion of the Drayton interchange from the proposals will be published shortly. Access to the new trunk road from the Drayton area will be available via either Milton Heights or the A415 interchange west of Abingdon. A temporary connection is being constructed to provide access between the A34 and the first stage of the Abingdon bypass until the second stage is completed, when the temporary connection will be severed.
  My hon. Friend will appreciate that a great deal of work in connection with the statutory procedures still remains to be done. Advantage will certainly be taken of every opportunity to speed up the process. For example, the Department has taken advantage of the powers made available under the Highways Act 1971 to adopt a shortened objection period for the side roads order. It proposes also to adopt a shortened period for the Drayton interchange order—I cannot pre-judge that in any way; I would not wish to discourage objections—and if it does not
  410
  prove to be necessary to hold a public inquiry it is likely that the construction programme can be brought forward.
  In anticipation of the possible three-year gap between the completion of the first and second stages, provision has been made in the Abingdon bypass contract for suitable signing and lighting at, and at the approach to, the temporary terminal at Drayton, and I have arranged for an assessment to be made of likely traffic conditions on the A34 south of Drayton following completion of the first stage in order to determine what safety measures should be provided on the existing road. Comprehensive safety measures are being considered, and the suggestions that my hon. Friend has made will be taken into account. I can promise him that I shall write to him as soon as possible giving the details of what we proposed. We are taking the matter extremely seriously.
  With regard to the suggestion that the bridge to carry the new road over the existing A34 at Drayton should be constructed as part of the first stage, there seems little advantage to be gained. The bridge could not serve any useful purpose until the second stage is completed. Whenever this bridge is built there will be some inconvenience to traffic, which will be diverted to one side or the other of the existing road, but access between Steventon and Drayton will be maintained.
  My hon. Friend has raised in correspondence the question of the standards for the bridge to carry Cow Lane over the new road. This will be a combined bridle way and accommodation bridge, about 15 ft. wide, with 5 ft. high parapets. It will be adequate for farm traffic.
  I appreciate the problems which this delay will bring, and I deeply regret them. I think that they are a combination of circumstances involving my Department and other authorities. I promise my hon. Friend that we shall do all the we can within the procedures, and the short procedures, to speed up construction of the second stage. If we can improve upon the completion date that I have given, we shall do so.
  I also promise that in the interim period we shall do all that we can to make the A34 south of Drayton as safe as possible.

  411
  In that we shall take fully into account the helpful suggestions made by my hon. Friend and his constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Invalid Cars
  Invalid Cars
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Benefit Recipients (Food Expenditure)
  Benefit Recipients (Food Expenditure)
  Spectacles (Charges)
  Spectacles (Charges)
  Mortuary Attendants (Pay)
  Mortuary Attendants (Pay)
  Hospital Workers (Dispute)
  Hospital Workers (Dispute)
  Hospital Ancillary Workers
  Hospital Ancillary Workers
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus
  Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus
  Proprietary Medicines
  Proprietary Medicines
  Free Milk (Nurseries and Playgroups)
  Free Milk (Nurseries and Playgroups)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Prescription Charges (Chronic Bronchial Asthma)
  Prescription Charges (Chronic Bronchial Asthma)
  Food Hygiene Regulations
  Food Hygiene Regulations
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Area Health Boards (Dentist Representation)
  Area Health Boards (Dentist Representation)
  Coronary Thrombosis (Deaths)
  Coronary Thrombosis (Deaths)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Hexachlorophane (Toilet Preparations)
  Hexachlorophane (Toilet Preparations)
  Rent (Families in Need)
  Rent (Families in Need)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Mentally-ill Persons
  Mentally-ill Persons
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  District General Hospital, Walsall
  District General Hospital, Walsall
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Child-Resistant Containers
  Child-Resistant Containers
  Pensioners (Income)
  Pensioners (Income)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefit)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefit)
  Doctors and Hospital Staff (Injury Compensation)
  Doctors and Hospital Staff (Injury Compensation)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Infant Mortality (Leek)
  Infant Mortality (Leek)
  Prescriptions (Staffordshire)
  Prescriptions (Staffordshire)
  Scientology
  Scientology
  Northwick Park Hospital
  Northwick Park Hospital
  Hospital Facilities (North Larkfield)
  Hospital Facilities (North Larkfield)
  Nurseries (Staffordshire)
  Nurseries (Staffordshire)
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Hospital Facilities (West Cumberland)
  Hospital Facilities (West Cumberland)
  ENT Specialists (Vacancies)
  ENT Specialists (Vacancies)
  West Cumberland Hospital, Whitehaven
  West Cumberland Hospital, Whitehaven
  Geriatric Services (Eastleigh)
  Geriatric Services (Eastleigh)
  National Disability Income
  National Disability Income
  "The Beeches", Ixworth (Inquiry)
  "The Beeches", Ixworth (Inquiry)
  Pneumoconiosis (Benefit Claims)
  Pneumoconiosis (Benefit Claims)
  Children and Young Persons Act 1969
  Children and Young Persons Act 1969
  Private Patients (NHS Facilities)
  Private Patients (NHS Facilities)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Building (Cost)
  School Building (Cost)
  Rheumatic Diseases (Research)
  Rheumatic Diseases (Research)
  Schools (First-aid Facilities)
  Schools (First-aid Facilities)
  Middle School, Burley
  Middle School, Burley
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
  Schools (Staff Turnover)
  Schools (Staff Turnover)
  Adult Education (Russell Report)
  Adult Education (Russell Report)
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Church Treasures
  Church Treasures
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Schoolchildren (Staffordshire)
  Schoolchildren (Staffordshire)
DEFENCE
  Research and Development Establishments (Closures)
  Research and Development Establishments (Closures)
  Welsh Guards (Car Import Duty)
  Welsh Guards (Car Import Duty)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER OF TURKEY
  PRIME MINISTER OF TURKEY
  MR. GEORGE SHULTZ (MEETING)
  MR. GEORGE SHULTZ (MEETING)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Livestock and Wool (Marketing)
  Livestock and Wool (Marketing)
  Sea Fish (Conservation)
  Sea Fish (Conservation)
  Molassed Beet Pulp
  Molassed Beet Pulp
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Cereals (Intervention Price)
  Cereals (Intervention Price)
  Bacon Imports
  Bacon Imports
  Beef (Intervention)
  Beef (Intervention)
  Trees and Shrubs
  Trees and Shrubs
  Sugar Subsidy
  Sugar Subsidy
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Accidents (Staffordshire)
  Industrial Accidents (Staffordshire)
  Oxy-Acetylene Equipment (Safety Precautions)
  Oxy-Acetylene Equipment (Safety Precautions)
  School Leavers (West Cumberland)
  School Leavers (West Cumberland)
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
ENVIRONMENT
  Strategic Trunk Routes
  Strategic Trunk Routes
  Water Supplies (East Anglia)
  Water Supplies (East Anglia)
  Albert Bridge
  Albert Bridge
  Straw and Stubble (Burning)
  Straw and Stubble (Burning)
  Central Water Planning Unit
  Central Water Planning Unit
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Operation Eyesore
  Operation Eyesore
  British Waterways Board (Membership)
  British Waterways Board (Membership)
  Road Development (Warwickshire)
  Road Development (Warwickshire)
  Planning Appeal (Bexhill)
  Planning Appeal (Bexhill)
  Kielder Reservoir
  Kielder Reservoir
  Pedal Cycles (Rear Lights)
  Pedal Cycles (Rear Lights)
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Radioactive Waste (Dumping)
  Radioactive Waste (Dumping)
  North Cross Route
  North Cross Route
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  USSR (Academician Benjamin Levich)
  USSR (Academician Benjamin Levich)
  EEC Council Instruments
  EEC Council Instruments
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Government (Brownsover, Rugby)
  Local Government (Brownsover, Rugby)
  Landing and Embarkation Cards
  Landing and Embarkation Cards
  Factory Farming (Puppies)
  Factory Farming (Puppies)
  Stolen Property (Police Information)
  Stolen Property (Police Information)
  Firearms (Criminal Offences)
  Firearms (Criminal Offences)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Counter-Inflation Policy
  Counter-Inflation Policy
  Pension Schemes
  Pension Schemes
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Ulster Museum
  Ulster Museum
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Employment (Equality of Opportunity)
  Employment (Equality of Opportunity)
  Sewage Retention Tank (Portaferry)
  Sewage Retention Tank (Portaferry)
  Portaferry-Strangford Ferry
  Portaferry-Strangford Ferry
SCOTLAND
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Springburn, Glasgow (Redevelopment)
  Springburn, Glasgow (Redevelopment)
  Erskine Bridge (Toll Charges)
  Erskine Bridge (Toll Charges)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Pickled Birds (Imports)
  Pickled Birds (Imports)
  Gatwick Airport (Noise Insulation)
  Gatwick Airport (Noise Insulation)
  Newsprint (Price)
  Newsprint (Price)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Rugby)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Rugby)
  Coal
  Coal
  Fuel Demand
  Fuel Demand
  Japan (Footwear)
  Japan (Footwear)
  Timber and Timber Products
  Timber and Timber Products
  Hunterston (Iron Ore Terminal)
  Hunterston (Iron Ore Terminal)
  Offshore Oil (Scotland)
  Offshore Oil (Scotland)

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

EAST GRINSTEAD BY-PASS AND SPECIAL-SCHOOL CLOSURES
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: 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 are aware that the proposed East Grinstead by-pass will mean the closure of three special schools, one of which, Peredur, is unique.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the route of this road. for which East Sussex County Council are both the highway and the planning authority, has not yet been fixed. As the noble Countess knows from a letter from my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, there will be opportunities for representations to be made and for a public inquiry to be held.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at a meeting of the East Sussex County Council on February 21 last a resolution was passed which stated that the Peredur route was the only one to be submitted to the Department? At the same meeting, may I ask on what grounds was the amendment agreed, restricting planning on the alternate routes and on the other side of the by-pass turned down?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am aware that the Council has adopted a resolution, but I must repeat that it has not yet been submitted to Her Majesty's Government.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether or not he is aware that the three special schools, which are going to be completely
140
ruined if this road is allowed, are unique and of enormous value in regard to handicapped children, with which the Government are deeply concerned?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I must repeat what I said. Your Lordships are all galloping against an animal that does not yet exist.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, is the Ministers aware that the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, would not have raised this matter unless there were some prospect of these schools going out of existence, and can he at least give an assurance that whatever plan is adopted by the County Council and approved by Her Majesty's Government will not mean the end of special schools, which are so scarce on the ground?
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as a member of the East Sussex County Council can testify to the fact that there are about five alternative schemes? The Minister is quite right in saying that they will all be submitted to an inquiry in due course. I forget exactly when it is, but it is a very major operation.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing that out. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, I would repeat that it is almost inconceivable that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would agree to anything which would involve schools being destroyed. This is so far removed from the concept of Her Majesty's Government's idea of government that it is impossible.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord, who is galloping in all directions, whether he would withdraw his quite monstrous reflection on Lady Elliot, who certainly is a fast mover, but I have never known her to gallop against an animal that did not exist?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think, on reflection, I must accept the rebuke of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, do the Government fully realise the amount of human suffering that would be inflicted

141
on the 70 mentally retarded children involved if the intended route were agreed upon, and would they revise their present views and decide on one of four alternative routes?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if the East Sussex County Council, as the planning authority, puts this scheme up to the Department, if there is a substantial deviation from the original line, that will be a reason for an inquiry. Equally, any owner, lessee or tenant of any bit of land involved in purchase has a right to object, in which case an inquiry has to be held. The time for all this talk will be at the inquiry which will be held in public. All representations may then be made. The Department is well aware of what is happening, and it is inconceivable that my right honourable friend will not insist, if it is not already wished for by the East Sussex County Council, on that happening.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, as a former Member for that part of the world, I would support the Answer given from the Front Bench. We are prematurely jumping at conclusions. I do not think there is any danger of these three schools being closed.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lady Emmet has indeed said something which is completely true. We are fighting against something that does not yet exist. Public inquiries are for the airing of points of this kind.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does not the noble Lord feel flattered that so many noble Lords and Ladies in this House feel that his influence with the Government is so great that they are trying to bring pressure to bear on him now?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, all noble Lords in this Government are delighted to have noble Ladies bringing influence to bear against them.

E.E.C.: FARM PRICES
2.43 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
142
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the intention of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to resist the efforts of the French to increase farm prices, and whether the verbatim script of the recent discussion at Brussels will be made available to Members of the House.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is not the practice of the Community to reveal verbatim reports of Council meetings, but my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture made clear in his statement last week that it is important to avoid courses of action which could increase prices. That remains his view.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that according to the Daily Telegraph and other reputable newspapers. Mr. Beresford, the President of the Food Manufacturers' Federation has forecast that by the end of this year the price of butter will have increased by 24 per cent., the price of sugar will have increased by 18 per cent., the price of meat will have increased by 12 per cent., the price of fish will have increased by 10 per cent. and the price of dried eggs will have increased by 8 per cent? In those dreadful and horrific circumstances, is it not advisable that his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should inform the French at the earliest possible moment that we did not enter the E.E.C. in order to satisfy the financial avarice and ambitions of the French farmers?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am aware of what was said yesterday which was, in general, about the retail price of manufactured foods in Britain. I know what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, feels about this matter, but we have accepted the Common Agricultural Policy and we intend to play our part in developing it.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, with very great respect to the noble Earl, whose integrity is not in question, that is not satisfactory. The noble Earl's honesty is transparent and even more transparent than that of most Ministers—not in this place, but in the other place. Is he aware that the public are now being forced to accept a situation

143
that was never contemplated when we debated whether we should enter the E.E.C., and that all the prospects of a reduction in prices are now vanishing into thin air? What are the Government going to do about it?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that that is really a different point from the Question which the noble Lord has down on the Order Paper, which in fact refers to the proposed increase in common agricultural prices. The purpose of this proposal is to overcome monetary problems due to the realignment of currencies, and in the view of Her Majesty's Government it is preferable to seek solutions which are not essentially alterations of price levels. It is that which has caused the proposed increase to which the noble Lord's original Question referred.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I found it difficult to understand part of the noble Earl's Answer, when he said that it is not customary to disclose figures which have been discussed at the E.E.C. Is it not a fact that the noble Earl himself disclosed the figure of 2·76 per cent. which had been discussed at the E.E.C., when he was trying to support the Price Review which he was then presenting?
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked for a verbatim report of a discussion of the Council of Ministers. It is not the practice to issue verbatim reports of discussions of the Council of Ministers, as it is not of meetings of Cabinet Ministers. But what Ministers say outside the Council chamber is of course up to them.
LORD HOY: My Lords, did the noble Earl not say in the course of his Statement that the figure of 2·76 per cent. was discussed at the Council of Ministers in the E.E.C.?
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, that is quite right. It was.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the House was delighted when he said, in answer to my noble friend's Question, that the Government would support the maintenance of reasonable and reduced prices? Is he further aware that at the conference in Berlin, which Scottish and other
144
farmers attended a few weeks ago, the Mansholt plan envisaged decreasing farming land inside the Community by 5 million hectares? Is he also aware that the French went further and envisaged decreasing farming land by 11 million hectares, which is one-third of the entire farming land of France? If this damned foolish policy is followed, prices in the Common Market will get out of control.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is in order to try to bring our influence to bear on the future Common Agricultural Policy that my right honourable friend takes the view that he does take.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, will the noble Earl and his noble friends, who have done a lot for England in the past, please resist his worship of the mere price at the expense of health, prosperity and cheap food for the masses of hungry people still in the world?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I shall certainly see to it that it is brought to my right honourable friend's attention. We are anxious to see that there is adequate food produced under a reasonable system of prices, and it is our intention as full Members of the Community to play our part in developing the agricultural policy in the best possible way.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, is it not a fact that, having joined the Common Market, the Government have lost all control over the price situation in this country?
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, when the noble Earl reads the report of his answer to the supplementary question put by my noble friend Lord Shinwell, will he be kind enough to ask the Treasury officials who helped him draft the background to that answer to do better in future, because it was almost incomprehensible to most of us?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I dare say it was my supplementary reply which was incomprehensible, as opposed to the original reply, in which case the fault was mine.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl how, if prices go up

145
as is forecast—even if they do not go up so high as forecast—it will be possible for the Government to impose restraint on wage demands? If they have to agree that some wage demands are inevitable in the circumstances, shall we not be back again into the inflationary situation?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that that really is going considerably wider than the original Question on the Order Paper. If the noble Lord wishes to put down a Question dealing specifically with that matter I shall be obliged to answer it. But I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell: that anyone is entitled to make a forecast, and the forecast to which he refers was made by. I think, a gentleman called Mr. Beresford.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I ask the Government how they propose to limit the increase in prices of agricultural goods when there is a world demand for meat and a shortage of cereals? Can the Government go to Brussels and discuss this question so that we may get a stable price, even if increased, for a matter of, say, two to five years?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is the type of question which my right honourable friend obviously has in mind, and it is in order to ensure a suitable Common Agricultural Policy that my right honourable friend wants to do all that he can to bring his influence, as well as those of all the other countries, to bear. But, my Lords, this is a question of negotiation. We are members of a Community and we wish to negotiate. It is my right honourable friend's desire to put his point of view forward as strongly as any others.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, am I right in assuming from the answers that the noble Earl has given to this particular Question that it is not customary for there to be given to any Minister a verbatim report of a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community on the policies that have been pursued, even in regard to the agricultural policy? This seems rather out of date in view of our practice here, where we have become so accustomed to Parliamentary control and Parliamentary understanding and where
146
Ministers are responsible for giving Answers to Questions that are tabled. Surely we have a right to know what our Minister really says and what he is seeking to do to further the agricultural policy which has been enunciated so much to-day in reply to the questions which have been asked?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked about a verbatim report of a meeting of the Council of Ministers. I said that it was customary not to provide a verbatim report of such meetings of Councils of Ministers, which in the Common Market are equivalent to Cabinet meetings in this country. In the same way as it is not customary to produce verbatim reports of Cabinet meetings, so it is also customary not to produce reports of this nature.

FORWARD TRUST BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
2.53 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I should perhaps explain that these proposed Amendments to our Standing Orders flow from the recommendations of our Procedure Committee which are embodied in their Report to your Lordships last December, which was approved by this House on March 14. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:
After Standing Order No. 35
Insert the following new Standing Order—
'Short Debates.
35A.—(1) If a Short Debate is continuing at the end of the time allotted to it, the Clerk at the Table shall rise and thereupon the Lord Speaker shall ask the Mover whether or not he wishes to withdraw his Motion. If the Mover does not ask leave to withdraw, or if leave to withdraw is refused, the Lord Speaker shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 18, put the Question forthwith.
(2) If an amendment is moved to a Motion which is the subject of a Short Debate, paragraph (1) shall have effect in relation to the amendment in like manner as it has in relation to the original Motion."
Standing Order No. 49
Line 2, at end insert ("on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor").
Standing Order No. 61
Leave out Standing Order No. 61 and insert the following new Standing Order—
'Committee of Selection.
61.—(1) At the commencement of each Session the House shall appoint a Committee of Selection consisting of the Chairman of Committees and such other Lords as the House shall name.
(2) The Committee of Selection shall select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection it if and any Committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) and may propose also the name of the Lord who will be the Chairman of such Committee.
(3) Notice shall be given in the Order Paper of any Motion for the naming of Lords proposed by the Committee of Selection to serve on any Committee other than a Select Committee on a Private Bill."— (Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as the noble Earl says, this gives effect to a decision of the House. There is only one point I should like to make on it. I think your Lordships ought to note that this represents a major departure from past practice in that it involves a time rule. Though I believe it is entirely appropriate and valuable to our proceedings that we should have a time rule in this particular instance, I am sure the House will be equally cautious about extending it in any other direction in the future. I just wanted that on the Record.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what the time rule really involves? I happen to be at a loss to understand why such a rule should be introduced. Surely it is left to the responsibility of each Member of this House, when making his speech, as to how long he should speak and when he should end. I think this is asking a little too much of Members of this place, because if this had been raised in another place there would have been hell let loose.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should again say that your Lordships have approved this principle. This recommendation flows from the Report, which was before your Lordships and which was fully debated, in which the so-called short
148
or mini-debate was suggested; and I think that the great majority of your Lordships feel that this experiment has been a success. That is the only self-discipline which it is suggested we should now impose upon ourselves in perpetuating, until your Lordships decide otherwise, this particular form of debate, which I think by common consent has proved to be a useful addition to our procedure.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, the idea of having a two and a half hour debate with no means of drawing it to a close is surely quite absurd.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that may very well be the noble Lord's opinion, but I suggest to him that the time to have made those views known was when we in fact debated the Report of the Procedure Committee.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I am entirely supporting the noble Earl. I am saying that the view of the noble Lord, Lord Slater, must have been based on a misconception of the whole process.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is a most extraordinary abberation on my part not to recognise an ally, and I apologise to the noble Lord for my not having recognised him in the guise of an ally on this particular occasion. But I would not myself have characterised the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Slater, as absurd. I think he was perfectly entitled to put it, although the best time to have discussed this at length would have been when we were discussing the Report of the Procedure Committee. But I hope the noble Lord is satisfied with this particular procedure in this instance. I take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the Leader of the Opposition, that we should be very chary about extending this principle of time limits; but I think that in this particular sphere of the short or mini-debate it has been justified in practice.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will accept my apology for not raising this matter when it ought to have been raised. If I had, we should not have had to listen to some of the Back-Benchers here saying "Hear, hear…" when an individual got on his feet and asked a question of the noble Earl, who happens to be the Leader of this place and who seeks to give me the

149
answers I should like to have in response to the questions I seek to raise.
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly; the said Amendments to be printed.

LAND COMPENSATION BILL
2.59 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): 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 Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Right to compensation]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 12, after ("the") insert I "appropriate").
The noble Lord said: Before speaking to this Amendment I should like to make two points in connection with this stage of the Bill. First, I would offer an explanation to the Committee for the very large number of Amendments put down by the Government. This has arisen because the Bill is a complex one dealing with highly technical and legal matters. It was not possible fully to consider all the valuable suggestions made from both sides in another place, and we are dealing with the result of mature consideration of matters raised at earlier stages in the passage of the Bill through Parliament. I must also apologise in advance for my own shortcomings. To do justice to this Bill one has to have either legal training or valuation experience, and I have had neither. But I am to be assisted later by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross who is experienced in this subject, but he is not here at the moment.
Amendment No. 1 is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 19 which amends Clause 18 and I think it would be helpful if your Lordships would look at Clause 18 in which certain terms used in Part I of the Bill are defined. All that these two
150
Amendments do, taken together, is to set out what is meant in Part I by "the appropriate highway authority". When we get to Amendment No. 19 it becomes clear that the definition of "the appropriate highway authority" is required because there are numerous statutory provisions enabling one highway authority to carry out improvement work on a highway for which another authority is the highway authority. Some of these provisions also provide for the transfer of a highway constructed by one highway authority to another highway authority. Similar situations could arise under the Bill, especially in Part II, and these could give rise to questions of liability as the Bill stands. The Amendment ensures that the authority carrying out the work is the responsible authority for the purposes of claims under Part I of the Bill. I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am sure that the Committee will sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in the situation in which he finds himself. The Government are fortunate to have someone with his ability to take on the task. The noble Lord has referred to the very large number of Amendments tabled by the Government and to the highly complex and legal nature of the Bill. I find myself in the quite unexpected position of being called on to move a number of Amendments, and if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is in some difficulty I think that I am in even more difficulty, not having at my disposal the resources that are at the disposal of the noble Lord.
Having regard to the very large number of Amendments and the highly technical nature of the Bill, it would have been helpful if the precedent which was set when we were considering the Local Government Bill had been followed on this occasion, and if we had been in possession in advance of some notes from the Government indicating what was behind their Amendments. If we do not complete the Committee stage to-day, and I do not see how we can, I hope that something may be done in that direction. If such a situation should ever occur again with regard to a Bill, I hope that very helpful precedent will be followed. We on this side of the Committee will do our best, but we did not anticipate being confronted by

151
about 100 Government Amendments. So far as this Amendment is concerned we have no criticism to offer.
LORD HUGHES: May I ask a question which, if it is answered, may save time later on when we get to the Amendment to which this is a paving Amendment? There is already a definition in Clause 18 of a "highway authority" in relation to Scotland which has the meaning assigned to it in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970. Does this definition of an "appropriate highway authority", which presumably applies to places other than Scotland, have the same meaning in both countries?
LORD SANDFORD: The noble Lord will see that "highway" in relation to England, Wales and Scotland is already defined in Clause 18, and "highway authority" in relation to Scotland. The new definition in Clause 18 introduced by Amendment No. 19 applies to all parts of the United Kingdom, so far as I can see at the moment, but if this is not so I will expand on that point when we reach Clause 18.
LORD HUGHES: I will accept that, but I will come back to the point when we discuss that clause. If this applies to the whole of the country we have the peculiar position, so far as Scotland is concerned, that we have a definition of a "highway authority" and a definition of an "appropriate highway authority", which would seem to indicate that the first one is an inappropriate highway authority.
LORD SANDFORD: I do not think that is necessarily so, but we can go into it further when we discuss Clause 18.
LORD CHAMPION: Will the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, respond to the invitation of my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy to provide notes to help us in the consideration of this Bill? My noble friend called attention to the fact that on the Local Government Bill, which the Government wanted in a hurry and which was a highly complex and difficult Bill, the Government provided notes and they were extremely helpful to the whole House. I think that a Bill of this sort justifies the same sort of provision to help in the consideration of this highly difficult matter. Would the noble Lord con-
152
sider this and consult his colleagues about the possibility of providing notes, even at a late stage?
LORD SANDFORD: I will certainly consider that. I think that such difficulties as we have on this Bill are of a rather different kind, but as we go through the Bill I will do my best to make sure that all the matters which require explanation are explained as fully as possible.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Before we part with this clause, I should be grateful if my noble friend would clear up a couple of small matters which seem to be causing some concern. It may be that the answers are to be found elsewhere in the Bill, and if so I apologise, but I have been unable to find them. According to the clause, when the value of an interest in land is depreciated the interest qualifies for compensation, payable by the responsible authority. I take it, therefore, that whether the land is required for constructing, let us say, a highway, or whether, as the result of that highway being brought into use, land adjacent is depreciated, it will qualify for compensation. It would appear from later clauses that compensation can take various forms; cash, acquisition by the authority by compulsory purchase or by agreement; and the further question which would ask my noble friend is, who decides the form compensation is to take? I ask that because I note from Clause 23, for example, that under an agreement the provisions, including those of a financial character, are left to the decision of the highway authority. Should the decision as to the form of compensation not rest with those who have an interest in the land which is being depreciated? Should such a person not have a right to claim that the authority should purchase his land at the price it would have commanded if there had been no question of a highway or other public works?
LORD STOW HILL: May I put one further question to the Minister which arises on Clause 1(6)? The object of subsection (6) is to exclude the right to receive compensation in cases in which there is still preserved a right to bring an action for nuisance in respect of the

153
physical factors which are mentioned in subsection (2) of the clause. I should like to ask the Minister to explain the Government's thinking on that. Would I not be right in thinking that when one is talking about compensation for depreciation in the value of land owing to the physical factors in question, that compensation being measured in terms of Clause 4 of the Bill, one is talking about something which is different from the damages that can be awarded in an action for nuisance? Would I not be right in thinking that you cannot really succeed in an action for nuisance unless you can show that you have been seriously inconvenienced by something which I would describe, perhaps rather loosely, and possibly inaccurately, as a rather unusual user of the roadway or the highway, or whatever it is that is the source of the nuisance of which you complain?
The depreciation that one is considering in this part of the Bill is something different. It is any diminution in the value of the interest in the land concerned which flows from the presence of the physical factors which are described in subsection (2) of this clause. So far as my thinking goes, it does not become immediately apparent why you should not have a right to seek compensation for which this clause provides and also have your right to bring an action for nuisance. I should have thought that clearly if you had received compensation and you then brought an action for nuisance, if there was an overlap between that area covered by the compensation you had received and the damages which might otherwise be awarded to you in your action for nuisance, your right to damages would be correspondingly reduced, but they do not necessarily overlap. I think it could often be the case that the owner of an interest in land could rightly complain that his interest had suffered depreciation and he also could say in addition, "I have a cause of action in nuisance which I desire to bring". It is true to say that one is more extensive than the other. If that view is correct, or substantially correct, I should not have thought that there was adequate ground for excluding the right to compensation by virtue of subsection (6) unless the right to bring an action
154
for a nuisance is also included by the relevant statutory provisions which govern the carrying out of the work that one is concerned with.
LORD SANDFORD: Perhaps I could deal first with the point made by Lord Stow Hill by spelling out in rather more detail the philosophy underlying Clause 1(6) which is I think the part that concerns the noble Lord. The broad policy is that the subsection specifies that, except in the case of highways, compensation shall not be payable unless immunity from action for nuisance is conferred in relation to the public works by a relevant Statute, for example, in the case of aerodromes, Section 41(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949. As the noble Lord knows, since 1845 it has been a principle of the law of compensation for injurious affection that compensation is payable only where the right of action has been taken away by Statute.
The fact that compensation under Section 68 of the Lands Clauses Act for injury caused by the construction of works is only payable in the circumstances referred to by Lord Blackburn in the Caledonian Railway case of 1882, namely,
"compensation is confined to damage arising from that which would, if done without authority from the legislature, have given rise to a cause of action",
means that logically compensation for the use of works so constructed for which we are providing in Part I should be payable only in similar circumstances. Thus the Bill will not apply to works constructed and in use in circumstances where statutory powers afford no protection. In the absence of any express provision in a Statute, the question depends upon the facts of each case and the construction of the relevant statutory provision and, beyond what I said, no general construction can be given to the question whether an action is maintainable against a particular authority. The noble Lord will find, as we go on, that what I have just been saying here as relevant to this particular clause will be modified and expanded in a variety of ways.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde who asked how the compensation will be assessed, the base is of course the valuation. Where there is an obligation to pay it the Lands Tribunal

155
come in; where it is a matter of discretion the decision rests with the authority exercising the discretion, and the general principle is, as I explained on Second Reading, market value plus a number of additions such as the new farm loss and home loss. Apart from those general remarks I think I would want to deal with specific instances as we come to them in the Bill.
LORD SOMERS: There is one point that I should like to ask apropos of this clause. In subsection (2) various factors are mentioned which qualify for compensation. Would it not be possible to include obstruction of view? If one lives in open country and suddenly has a gigantic concrete structure placed at the end of one's garden, would not that qualify for compensation?
LORD SANDFORD: No, I do not think it would be possible to draw the line in that way. The nearest factor in that field is artificial lighting which is one of the things introduced by highways and roundabouts in the countryside and things like that. To go beyond that will make it impossible to draw the line effectively.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Does the noble Lord really consider it proper that the authority responsible for causing depreciation should have the right of decision in certain matters?
LORD SANDFORD: I think I made it clear that that is appropriate in those cases where the power to pay compensation is discretionary, but not of course where it is an obligation under the Bill.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Interests qualifying for compensation]:
3.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) In this section "owner's interest", in relation to any land, means—

(a) the legal Fee Simple therein.

(b) a tenancy thereof granted or extended for a term of years certain of which, on the date of service of the notice of claim in respect thereof, not less than three years unexpired.

(c) a business tenant, who holds for a term not less than three years, with a statutory right to an extended lease.

156

(d) a tenant of a house who has a right of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act.

(e) a tenant with a lease less than three years unexpired but with an option right to extend this lease.")

The noble Earl said: Clause 2 defines the interest in land which would qualify under Clause 1 for the new compensation for injurious affection. I think this new compensation is to be very much welcomed. The purpose of this Amendment is to seek to widen those interests in land which at present are not included. There are three additional interests included in the Amendment. First, the business tenants with statutory right of extension under the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act; then the tenant of a house with the right of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act and, thirdly, the tenant with a lease of less than three years but with the right of option. The Government undertook in another place to look at this clause again to see whether it should be extended. I would submit to my noble friend that all three cases could suffer a permanent depreciation of their legal interests and of their value. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the principle of the Amendment even if he is unable to accept its drafting. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My noble friend is right. We undertook to look again into some of the matters in his Amendment. His Amendment, in paragraphs (a) and (b), incorporates two features which are already in the Bill. The item which forms part of his paragraph (d) we undertook to look into again. We are still looking into it; but the problems of providing a satisfactory solution for what has turned out to be a difficult subject have unfortunately prevented the necessary Amendment being prepared and tabled in time for this stage. If a satisfactory Amendment is feasible on the lines of the Amendment my noble friend is seeking to introduce, it will be presented at the Report stage; but it will not necessarily extend entitlement under Part I to the other two categories of persons which my noble friend's Amendment seeks to cover.
It is a normal basis of the compensation code that compensation is not paid for anticipated rights or profits unless such expectation is reflected in the value of the interest or unless it is based on some

157
statutory entitlement. That is the argument to my noble friend's paragraph (e). The rent payable under a new 50-year tenancy under the Leasehold Reform Act is based on the ground rent and is thus limited only to the value of the site. Depreciation to the value of the bricks and mortar is not covered. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the right to a new 7-year or 14-year tenancy is acquired at current market rental value which would reflect depreciation due to the use of the public works. Thus, to some extent, business tenants already have a remedy. I hope that with that explanation covering some aspects of my noble friend's Amendment, and with the assurance that we are doing what we can in respect of the Leasehold Reform Act, he will not press his Amendment now. We shall do our best but I cannot give him a guarantee that we shall be successful.
LORD DERWENT: May I ask my noble friend on what lines the Government's collective mind is working with regard to paragraph (d)? This is a peculiarly difficult subject because a person has a right of enfranchisement in certain circumstances after five years. He may not have asked for it. Is he then to come in. when compensation is about, and ask for it—when he has not asked before and when no negotiations have taken place as regards price? What lines are the Government pursuing in solving this question?
LORD SANDFORD: Those are the very sorts of point which make this a good deal more difficult than was originally thought.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving the assurance that this matter will be looked at again. Perhaps I could draw his attention to one aspect under subsection (4)(c) which deals with business tenants. I think he said that the principle of compensation would not normally cover a statutory right of renewal of a tenancy. I would draw his attention to Clause 43 of the Bill which as I understand it grants the principle of compensation to agricultural tenants on The ground of their security of tenure. With that short point in mind I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Assessment of compensation; general provisions]:
3.25 p.m.
LORD STOW BILL LORD STOW BILL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert ("and account may also be taken of depreciation due to physical factors caused by the carrying out of any works preparatory to and undertaken for the purpose of any such alteration extension or change as is referred to in subsection (1) of section 9 of this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg Ito move this Amendment which would slightly enlarge the scope of subsection (2) of Clause 4. Clause 4 provides the guidelines by reference to which the depreciation is to be assessed and the consequent compensation calculated. Depreciation in terms of subsection (2) is to be due to physical factors caused by the use of any public works and account has to be taken of the use of the works as it exists on the first day of the claim period. If one asks what that means, one must go back Ito Clause 3(2) where one finds that the claim period is the period of two years beginning on the expiration of 12 months from the relevant date. If one wants to know what is the relevant date, one must go back to Clause 1(9) where one finds that it is, broadly speaking, the first day on which the highway, if it is a highway, was thrown open to public use or, if some other building, then the first day when that building was used.
The provision for compensation is however expanded by Clause 9 of the Bill, to which my Amendment relates. This is a clause which gives a right of compensation where you find there have been alterations carried out to public works or where there has been some change of use, or some extension. Obviously, if one is going to try to apply Clause 4 and the measurement provision of that clause to that situation one has to ask oneself what in the case of an alteration or extension or a change of use is the relevant date because you must find the relevant date before you can find what the claim period is. The relevant date in the case of such an alteration, if I may so compendiously describe what Clause 9 provides, is the date which begins after the completion of the alteration.
Relating that to Clause 4, which I seek to amend, I would submit that where you get a case of an alteration of a highway or an alteration of some other public building one knows from experience that particularly in the case of a highway, frequently extensive works have to be carried out in order to prepare it for the change of use. Likewise, in the case of a large-scale building of some sort and, equally long before the alteration in the building is completed, months or even years of work may have been carried out; and the carrying out of that work, whether in the case of a highway or in the case of a building, may have given rise on a very extensive scale to physical factors of the sort we are considering. If that is the case, is it not arguable that if you are seeking to find when depreciation in the interests of some particular property owner sets in you will find that it begins when the preparatory work carried out for the purpose of alteration is undertaken? In the case of a highway, bulldozing may have been taking place for months in order to extend it or to change its track in some way or other. I am not a valuer and, as has been said, one really needs the advice of an expert valuer in this case. But I should have thought that the depreciation sets in when the work begins to be undertaken, and that a great deal of depreciation in the value of the interest of the owner has already occurred by the time the alterations have been carried out.
The submission that I make to the Committee is that if Clauses 4 and 9 remain in their present form the owner of the interest in the land concerned may lose a great deal of compensation which justly he should receive. Supposing when the claim period begins—that is to say, in the case of alterations one year after the alterations have been carried out—the depreciation in the value of his interest is found to be X, if one looks historically at the date when that depreciation set in. one may find that nine-tenths of that X had set in almost as soon as the preparatory work began to be carried out for the purpose of achieving the alteration. If that is the right view, and if expert opinion would confirm it, then I would submit for the consideration of the Government that, with the language of Clauses 4 and 9 in its present form, the owner would receive only one-
160
tenth of X, and he would lose the nine-tenths of X which was attributable to the carrying out of the preparatory work: all he would be entitled to receive would be one-tenth of X; namely, that proportion of X which he could show had set in during the year the period specified in Clause 1. That period has to elapse before his claim period begins. He has to wait for the year; then his claim period begins; and then you ask what was the depreciation at the time of the claim period.
I may be wrong on this, and if so I hope the noble Lord will correct me, but I would submit that the result might be that most of the depreciation would pass him by. What he ought to have is all the depreciation that has set in from the time when the alteration works have first been undertaken, and that should cover all the depreciation which you find has occurred up to the time when his claim period begins. If an Amendment somewhat on these lines is not embodied in the Bill, I would submit that he may get a great deal less than he should in justice receive. Those are the grounds for the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: If I may say so, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is making a perfectly valid point, but it need not be made by his Amendment because it is catered for in a slightly different way by the Bill as it stands. Before explaining it in more detail, perhaps I would ask the Committee and the noble and learned Lord to distinguish between the permanent depreciation in value which is caused by the use of the public work when altered or constructed—which is what Part I is to deal with—and the temporary depreciation which, as he rightly says, also occurs in the course of construction by virtue of the execution of the construction of the changes, which is of a temporary nature, but may in some cases lead from one to the other.
The Bill, as I hope I shall show, seeks to deal with these two separate effects in two separate parts of the Bill. The purpose of Part I is to remove the restrictions which have been placed on the interpretation of Section 68 of the Lands Clauses Act, and the intention of Part I is to provide a remedy for permanent depreciation in the value of an interest affected by the use of public works which have protection against actions for

161
nuisance at common law. It is the use of highways, aerodromes et cetera which permanently depreciates property and about which the representations have been made and for which Part I of the Bill is designed. The noble and learned Lord is quite right in saying that the actual process of construction of new public works may certainly temporarily depreciate property; but that particular kind of depreciation stops when the construction work stops.
The Bill alleviates construction nuisance—and I have tried to distinguish between the two—in a number of ways, but not in the Part of the Bill that we are dealing with now. The comprehensive acquisition powers provided for in Clauses 21 and 25 should prevent properties situated next to public works which are being constructed or altered from being seriously affected. Remedial works to minimise construction nuisance can be undertaken as provided for in Clauses 22 and 26. The sound insulation provisions under Clause 19 (all in Part II) will in relation to highways enable sound insulation to be installed to minimise construction noise, as well as the noise arising from the use of the public works.
I am tabling a new clause to follow Clause 26 which proposes that the expenses of persons moving temporarily because of the construction works will be refunded, and where there is negligence or works are carried out in an unreasonable manner there is a right of action at common law against the contractor. So in all those ways the Bill deals with the points which I think are concerning the noble Lord. Actions for injurious affection can already be taken where a person's legal rights have been physically interfered with by the construction of public works which have protection at law; and where they do not have protection, actions at common law for nuisance, trespass et cetera can be taken. Claims have been upheld under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 in respect of works obstructing rights of way, interfering with the right of ancient lights or causing flooding—all things to which the noble Lord has referred—and claims might also be made in respect of nuisance caused by the deposit of mud, dirt et cetera on somebody's property.
I hope that with that explanation the noble and learned Lord will see that
162
we have not been unmindful of the effect of these kinds of preparatory works, and have in fact provided for them. But we have provided for them separately and differently, because I think the depreciation which they cause is separate, different and temporary as compared with the depreciation caused by the use of public works, which is permanent and is therefore dealt with in Part I.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that careful and full explanation. I hope he will forgive me if I say that it does not altogether convince me, and I would ask the Government to think about this a little longer. The basis of the noble Lord's answer really constituted a contrast between temporary depreciation and permanent or long-term depreciation. His argument was that if you look at other provisions of the Bill—for example, Clauses 21 and 22 with regard to insulation—you will find that that temporary depreciation is already catered for. He said that, in any event, existing actions for nuisance, depreciation and so on were covered. With great respect to the noble Lord, is that quite right?
Is there really any real distinction in the case of the depreciation we are considering, between that which sets in when the road work is first undertaken, and that which remains when the reconstructed road is thrown open to use? This is a matter for a valuer. I am sorry that I do not have the expertise to enable me to express a view about that. If a person has a house adjoining a highway, and it is obvious that the highway is going to be completely transformed because a host of workers and implements are brought upon the scene and they begin to enlarge it or change its character altogether, as from the moment they begin that work is it not then apparent to all would-be purchasers of the house in which the relevant interest resides that the house has permanently and finally depreciated in value? From the point of view of the prospective purchaser, it is not much consolation to him to know that under Clause 22 insulation proceedings will be instituted in relation to that house.
The action for nuisance I thought was excluded. I would doubt whether an action for injurious affection under the

163
1845 Act would cover that loss of depreciation. It relates to something different. All I am asking the noble Lord to say this is obviously a highly technical matter) is that he will give it further thought in. case it is the result of the language as drafted by accident—and I accept it is not intended—to exclude from the ambit of the compensation that may and should be justly awarded what in individual cases may be nine-tenths of it. I know that the noble Lord would not want that result to eventuate, if that is the result of the existing language. I should be content to withdraw my Amendment if the noble Lord is able to tell me that he will give it some further thought.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am a little puzzled by the reply which the noble Lord made regarding the Amendment of my noble and learned friend when he suggested that sound insulation under Clause 26 would provide a remedy. In all probability the unfortunate person who is adjoining these works will not know until the works begin that his house is going to be drowned with sound and that he will not hear his correspondent speaking on the telephone. By the time sound insulation is put in perhaps the works will have already been completed. Surely this is not a remedy.
LORD SANDFORD: It is not a remedy in that particular case but there are other cases where the construction work might well go on for a considerable time and the remedies to which I have referred would be valuable and useful. I can give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, the assurance that I will look into this matter again and make sure that his point is fully met. My present advice and belief is that it is.
I would ask the Committee to recognise that, although there may be many cases, it might be the most usual case where the first thing that happens is a lot of noise, mess, dirt, smell and fumes occasioned by the construction of new works, followed by noise and fumes and general depreciation caused by the new use of public works. But this is not always the case. There may be some cases where people who will in due course suffer from the new use suffer nothing at all as a result of the new construction. There will be other cases where people
164
suffer a temporary depreciation from the new construction works, but, when they are finished, suffer no depreciation from the new use resulting from those works. It is for these considerations that we have found it necessary to make separate provision for a total episode which may in many cases look as though, as the noble and learned Lord indicates, it is all one part of one single piece of depreciation, starting in the first case with temporary depreciation caused by the construction works, followed by permanent depreciation caused by the use of the works. I will certainly look into this matter again.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 4, I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 5.
3.45 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 40, leave out from first ("be") to end of line 42 and insert ("or could have been carried out, or in respect of which a grant could be or could have been paid, under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) above have been carried out but, in a case where the authority having functions under that provision have a discretion whether or not to carry out the works or pay the grant, only if they have undertaken to do so.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4. In view of what the Chairman of Committees has just said. I and in the hope that the Committee will agree to the Amendment I am moving, I would point out to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull that it is the view of the Government that his Amendment is unnecessary because the purpose my noble friend seeks is achieved already. Two points are covered by Amendment No. 4: one of them arises from a suggestion made by the Opposition in another place. In applying the powers for sound insulation in Clause 19 the Government's present intention is to provide in the first set of regulations (which will deal with noise from highways) for an entitlement where a road has come into use since October 17 1972 (the White Paper date), and also a discretionary Power for authorities to sound-insulate where a road has come

165
into use up to three years before that date. This three-year retrospection reflects the three-year retrospection in relation to Part I compensation claims provided for in Clause 1(8).
During the Committee stage in another place it was suggested that in applying the permissive powers of Clause 19 it would be wrong to provide that Part I compensation should be based only on the assumption that the works had been carried out, which is what the clause at present states, but that there should only be an assumption that the works could be carried out in cases where the authority had given an undertaking to do so. Secondly, if it were not to be assumed that insulation had been carried out where it could have been there might be incentives for people to refuse insulation and hold out for injurious affection compensation instead, which could then be spent in other ways—such as a holiday in Majorca. This would be especially unwelcome where the landlord might refuse insulation which benefits his tenants, and the housing stock, so as to pocket the compensation. The Amendment achieves both these objects.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I support my noble friend's Amendment and thank him for giving the assurance that Amendment No. 5, which is in my name, is unnecessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Assessment of compensation: assumptions as to planning permission]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No 6, I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 6A.
3.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 4, leave out from ("above") to end of line 6 and insert ("; and, if planning permission has been granted in respect of the relevant land or any part thereof for such other development, it shall be assumed that the planning permission has not been granted in so far as it relates to development that has not been carried out.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. This is little more
166
than a drafting Amendment. The concluding words of subsection (4) were intended to exclude the value attributable to any planning permission already granted for development other than existing use and which had not actually been carried out. This Amendment is to remove any doubts and ensure that the development for which planning permission was granted has been carried out. The value will be part of the existing use value unless it was carried out after the relevant date, that is the date when the works first came into use, when it will be excluded by Clause 4(5).
In view of what the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has said, should perhaps say this to my noble friend: planning permission is ruled out by subsection (4), as if the development takes place the value will normally be enhanced and if it has to be revoked compensation for planning restriction may be payable. Certificates—mentioned in Amendment No. 6A, tabled by my noble friend—are only relevant in acquisition cases to protect claimants where land is required for non-remunerative use. Even if they were relevant it would not be right to have regard to them as they are not issued for loss of development value. Compensation is not payable, for instance, for refusal of planning permission or for the imposition of planning conditions or restrictions. If it were, it would undermine the Bill.
I thought I owed it to my noble friend, whose Amendment is pre-empted by mine, to give him that explanation. I hope my explanation of Amendment No. 6 will satisfy the Committee. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Perhaps I might again thank my noble friend and apologise for the rather late Amendment that I tabled yesterday. My purpose in tabling Amendment No. 6A was really again to consider this matter which was considered in another place during the Committee stage. I fully appreciate the view of the Government that the basis of compensation should be on existing use; but again the purpose of raising this matter is to ask the Government whether they would not consider this to be a rather harsh attitude. Indeed. I wonder why it is considered that the principle of compensation would be fully

167
stretched if this Amendment were accepted.
The reason I say that is because it seems quite possible that in future a number of hardship cases will arise. One has only to consider the case where someone purchases a property—it may be a house; he purchases that property with the benefit of planning consent, for, say, a shop or offices. The house value may be £6,000 and the shop value may be £10,000. It is then decided to build a motorway and the purchaser claims injurious affection, and although he has established a market value of £10,000 he will only receive (as I understand it) injurious affection for £6,000. It seems an odd principle of compensation that in order to alleviate—which the Government do under Part I—the injurious affection claims, they seem to be creating a host of other hardships that will arise from this new compensation principle.
The other point on which I should like to seek clarification from my noble friend is exactly at what stage is existing use value established? For instance, if we take the case of the house being converted into a shop, would existing use value run from the moment when the first brick had been laid for the shop or would it have to be fully converted before it would be eligible for the injurious affection claim? I hope my noble friend can reply to this point and perhaps say whether the Government would consider the aspect that I have raised.
Finally, perhaps I may say that under the certificate of alternative user, which comes under the Land Compensation Act 1961, it seems to me the principle has been established that where land is compulsorily acquired—say agricultural land—and the owner is able to establish alternative user he could well receive development value for it. Therefore I think this is a close parallel to the case of injurious affection under Part I.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think there is some considerable disquiet about the Government's approach to this matter. This is one of the occasions when I could wish I were a lawyer. I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said and I have tried to understand the position as the Bill is affected by this Amendment. It
168
would appear to me that there is to be exclusion of compensation for loss of development value. This seems to indicate quite clearly that the Bill has been drafted in a Department that is taking a purely departmental view of things, and it might have been better if it had been drafted by someone who was concerned with considerations of justice rather than limited to what may seem best in terms of public policy. It may be that I have it wrong. I shall certainly not be at all put out if I have. But I have tried to put clearly my understanding of the position, listening to the noble Lord and reading the Bill as best I can. I think possibly again and again we shall be returning to this question of justice, and it would seem novel, if I am right, that compensation for loss of development value is going to be denied.
LORD SANDFORD: Of course the noble Lord is quite right: this Bill was prepared in my Department; but that does not mean that it was prepared without taking into account, and giving full weight to, a whole variety of opinions that were consulted in the course of its drafting. One has only to look at the nature of the Bill to see how wide consultation would have to be, and has been, in this particular case.
In answer to the particular question asked by my noble friend, existing use value is value at the date of the claim. That derives from Clause 4(3)(a). Dealing with the points made by both noble Lords, Clause 5 requires, as they both recognise, the making of assumptions which have the effect of restricting the value of an interest in the land for the purpose of compensation, to its value for the purpose of existing use on the date of the claim. The decision to limit compensation to existing use value follows logically from the decision to limit eligibility for compensation under this part of the Bill to those who may be suffering hardship in their existing situation. Hardship is what we are seeking to alleviate. Furthermore, to pay compensation for loss of development value in this context would not square with the other fundamental concept of planning compensation that no payment is normally made for the refusal of planning permission.
My noble friend asked me a number of more detailed questions, but I really

169
cannot do better than to draw his attention to Clause 5(3) which sets out in full detail a number of modifications and extensions of that broad principle which have just enunciated, and I cannot do better than use the words in the Bill. hope noble Lords will be satisfied that it is because we are anxious to do justice here without breaching any other basic and fundamental principles of planning that we have drawn the line where we have.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Reduction of compensation where other land is benefited]:
4.0 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 19, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 25 and insert ("The compensation payable on a claim shall be reduced by an amount equal to any increase in the value of—

(a) the claimant's interest in the land in respect of which the claim is made; and

(b) any interest in other land contiguous or adjacent to the land mentioned in paragraph (a) above to which the claimant was entitled in the same capacity on the relevant date,

which is attributable to").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7 and to link with it, and speak at the same time to, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. All three Amendments are technical and the latter, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, are consequential on Amendment No. 7. All that is necessary for me to say is that Amendment No. 7, together with Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, is necessary to enable any increase in value attributable to a road scheme—and sometimes there is an increase in value—to be taken into account as well as the depreciation due to the physical factors. Without this provision, compensation might become payable where no actual loss was suffered. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: I am a little puzzled by this Amendment. I am sure that there must be cases of the sort which the noble Lord has in mind because he has indicated that that is so. As Clause 6(1) at the moment reads, the compensation in respect of depreciation in an interest in land is to be reduced by reference to any increase in the value
170
of adjacent or contiguous land. That seems to me to be perfectly good sense. The object of the Amendment is to expand that and to provide that compensation is to be reduced not only by reason of an increase in the value of contiguous or adjacent land, but also by reason of an increase in
"the claimant's interest in the land in respect of which the claim is made;".
I had assumed that no claim ex hypothesi could possibly lie unless it could be shown that there was a decrease in the claimant's interest in the land in question. Supposing that the land in one sense depreciates to the extent of £10,000 but that that depreciation has been mitigated by a corresponding increase in valise from some other aspects, to the tune of, say, £5,000. I should have thought at the outset that the claim could only be a claim for £5,000, and I do not see in what circumstances this Amendment could operate.
In what situation does the noble Lord contemplate that a claim might be brought where there was an increase in the interest in relation to which the claim was brought, which wholly wiped out the loss? There must be a loss and surely that loss can be calculated only by a balance struck between any decrease in value and any increase in value of the same asset, the same interest in land. I do not see in what circumstances the Amendment could operate. It seems to me that the existing provision is the more reasonable one, but I should be perfectly content if the noble Lord could give an example in which that sort of situation could arise. Supposing you are considering a house; you could say that in one respect it has increased in value but in another respect that it has decreased, and you must deduct the decrease because otherwise there would be no loss at all. Nevertheless, a claim brought in respect of that would arise. Can the noble Lord give an example?
LORD SANDFORD: Certainly. I apologise for not having dealt with this fully in the first place because it would have saved time. Subsection (1) of Clause 6 provides that, where a claimant is entitled to an interest in other land contiguous or adjacent to the claim land, any increase in the value of that interest which is attributable to the existence, use of, or prospective use of, the works, is

171
to be set off against any compensation payable. This "set off for betterment" provision does not set off betterment to the land in respect of which a claim is made. Thus the bringing into use of a highway, for example, may substantially increase the value of a plot of land since that land may, as a result of the works, have access from a road and could be used for housing or some other development. In fact the public development could substantially increase the net value of his interest in land, but without this Amendment no account could be taken of any such increase. As at present worded, it would also be open to claimants to parcel up the "claim land" and the "adjoining land" in such a way as to defeat the purposes of the clause. I hope that that explanation meets the query raised by the noble and learned Lord.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful for the explanation. I still have some slight doubt as to whether, if you have a house which in consequence of the opening up of a road has doubled in value, you could ever seek to bring a claim for depreciation in the value of that house, but I shall not press it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Sections 4 and 5 above shall not apply to the assessment, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, of the value of the interest mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 29, leave out from ("claim") to ("land") in line 30 and insert ("an increase in the value of an interest in").—(Lord Sanford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 38 after ("acquisition") insert (",not being an acquisition in relation to which secton 8(6) below has effect,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, a technical Amend-
172
ment required to avoid double compensation being paid. Clause 8(6) to which this Amendment refers, provides that where an interest in land has been injuriously affected in circumstances giving rise to a claim for compensation under the provisions of Part 1, and the interest is subsequently acquired compulsorily for the purposes of the same scheme by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers before the payment of the claim, to which I have just referred, compensation for the acquisition will be assessed by reference to market value disregarding the effect of "the scheme" so that the undepreciated value will be payable. It also provides that the compensation payable under Part I, which is for injurious effect of the scheme, will be deducted from the compensation payable on acquisition. I think that your Lordships will see that without this Amendment there is the possibility of double compensation and that possibility has been excluded by the Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Exclusion of compensation]
4.8 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 24, leave out from ("£50") to end of line 25.
The noble Lord said: We have been dealing with compensation and with reduction of compensation, and in this clause we are dealing with the exclusion of compensation. The clause is a very brief one. It reads:
"Compensation shall not be payable on any claim unless the amount of the compensation exceeds £50, and if the amount exceeds that sum shall be payable only as to the excess."
It may be that a case can be established for not entertaining or not encouraging claims for sums below £50 for loss of amenity. So far as that goes, it may be reasonable to exclude them. But since claims in excess of that figure of £50 are to be allowable, what case in justice can be advanced for not allowing the first £50, when the people themselves are in no way responsible for the situation that has developed and in which they find themselves? If the Government are

173
anxious to persuade people not to submit trivial claims, what is to be said when a claim of £60 is submitted with the first £50 excluded, which leaves a claim for £10: even, say, it was £100. It may well be suggested that the trouble and the possible expense of dealing with claims up to £50 are not justifiable.
But the clause goes much further than that, and one asks what justification or justice is there in the clause as it is now drafted. To exclude the first £50 appears without question to be intended to deter—and I venture to suggest that the clause is worded to deter—a great many people from making claims that are not too greatly in excess of that figure. To suggest that a £50 claim is trivial is one thing, but to eliminate the first £50 of any figure in excess of that is quite another matter. Once a figure is agreed as justifying a claim for loss of amenity, if that claim is supportable it surely ought to be met in full.
When the Bill was at Committee stage, the Minister for Local Government and Development said in the other place that a sense of injustice would be felt by those with smaller claims: that just because a man had a larger claim he would be getting his first £50. The unwillingness to consider claims of £50 and below is surely not based on any consideration of the justice of the claim, but merely on the triviality of the claim. The effect of the clause as now worded seems calculated to deter those who feel that claims not greatly in excess of £50 should not be presented solely because the first £50 is not allowed. One might as well argue that the first £50 of any claim for restitution might be ignored, and I fancy if that were suggested there would be a public outcry. I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment, because I believe there is no good case at all for the clause as it now stands. I beg to move.
LORD JANNER: I should like to support the appeal that has been made to your Lordships by my noble friend. A person might be able to gauge that his claim is not likely to be sufficiently large to justify the steps that he has to take in order to ascertain what compensation he is likely to receive. I am not too
174
happy even about that, because if a person has a claim, even if it is below £50, that is not a real justification for refusing to admit that claim. Everything depends entirely upon the individual concerned, what his means are and so on. But accepting the fact, as my noble friend has dote, that claims should not clutter up the proceedings in relation to any scheme that is suggested, what earthly reason can there be for refusing to meet the whole of claims—after excluding what might be regarded as trivial or shall we say unreasonable, claims—in excess of the figure that has been fixed in respect of claims which cannot be accepted.
It is a ridiculous position. A person has to go to the expense of deciding whether his claim is above a certain amount. Of course, if a limit is fixed, to a certain extent, I suppose, one has to accept that. There can be no earthly reason at all to reduce a claim which is considered not to be a trivial claim. That is really what is at the root of this; the £50 is considered to be a trivial claim, or a claim which ought not to be considered because it would be unreasonable to admit claims of that amount. But you have fixed a limit, and having fixed that limit surely a person whose claim exceeds the amount of that limit is entitled to have compensation for the full claim he is making. I just cannot for the life of me see what reason or logic there is in refusing that, All it is doing is saying that although we in our wisdom, or otherwise—and I think otherwise—will not admit a smaller claim, we are not prepared to admit a claim in excess of that amount.
I do not know whether your Lordships appreciate that there is an expense attached to the individual's inquiring and research into whether he has a claim and on what grounds, and I think it would be a shocking thing to refuse to let him have what he is obviously entitled to. If he has a claim, he has a claim, and, therefore, the decision would be that he has to lose a certain sum of money. If that sum of money is in excess of £50, where is the logic in refusing the legitimate evaluation of a claim, losing the first £50 of it? Whatever may be the reasons, or, shall we say, the unreasons of the first £50, certainly nobody can suggest, or should suggest, that just for the sake of depriving a person of £50 which he is

175
entitled to, he should have only the balance. It does not make sense to me. In the circumstances, I hope the Government will realise that it is not an appropriate thing to do, to deprive a person—that is what it means—of £50 of a claim which he has legitimately made and to which he is entitled.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I support the Amendment, and I hope my noble friend may be able to accept it, because it seems to me that the words which the noble Lord opposite wishes to exclude are both unjust and unjustifiable.
LORD SOMERS: Is not this clause as it stands a perfectly plain statement that no claim will be paid in full? If a claim is for only £100, it will be cut in half; if it is for £1,000, certainly it will not be cut in half. None the less, no claim will be paid in full, and it is quite obvious that anybody making a claim will claim for £50 more than they should in order to gain what they should have.
LORD SANDFORD: This clause requires two points to be met. First, there needs to be a threshold below which it is really unrealistic to ask valuers to make a valuation. In selecting the figure of £50 we have probably already gone too far and made the job of the valuer too difficult, in asking him to make an assessment as precise as this in the kind of valuation exercises which will be involved in this part of the Bill.
Second, we have to produce a reasonable balance of justice between various claimants, and particularly between the claimant whose claim is refused at £49 and the one whose claim is accepted at £51. The whole matter is very much one of balance and judgment. We are not by any means sure that so low a figure as £50 is practicable from the point of view of the valuer. But I am happy to tell the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that we are persuaded that once a claim has been substantiated and goes over the threshold, whatever it might be, the balance of argument is in favour of granting the whole of it. For that reason, and bearing in mind what I said earlier about the actual figure of £50, I am happy to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I probably represented the feeling of everyone in
176
the Committee in expressing appreciation to the noble Lord for being so forthcoming. I am extremely grateful and appreciate very much the straight forward manner in which he has dealt with the situation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I am sorry, that is the last thing I want to do. The noble Lord took me somewhat by surprise. It may be that as the Bill goes on I shall get used to my Amendments being accepted, and shall not make such a slip again.
LORD SANDFORD: The noble Lord may not get many chances like this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Other restrictions on compensation]:
4.22 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 38, leave out from ("compulsorily") to end of line 3 on page 10 and insert ("acquired, then, if—

(a) the value of that land has been diminished by the public works to which the claim relates; but

(b) the compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition falls to be assessed without regard to the diminution,

the compensation in respect of the acquisition shall be reduced by an amount equal to the compensation paid or payable on the claim or, if the acquisition extends only to part of the land, to so much of the last-mentioned compensation as is attributable to that part.")
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is really a piece of redrafting, but it is a rather technical matter which ought perhaps to be explained briefly. It relates to the situation where land has been bought and used for, say, a road, and there is some property alongside on which a Part I claim has been made under this Bill. Then, later, the moment arrives when the property enjoying the Part I claim itself falls to be acquired compulsorily in whole or in part. There is the complication that, in certain cases of compulsory acquisition, you have to leave out the rest of the scheme for the purpose of assessing compensation. If you are buying land for a new town, you do not take into account the extra value created by the whole concept of the new town when you are calculating the compensation for

177
compulsory purchase of each bit of it. You work only on the basis of what the planning assumptions would have been without the introduction of the new town.
Where a road is constructed and compensation is paid under Part I in respect of the land next to the road and then that land is in its turn acquired, we could have a situation where, on the acquisition of the second piece of land, we would, normally speaking, disregard the effect of the new town, including the road which had already been put there which has already enjoyed the Part I claim. Therefore, one has to see that the second piece of land being acquired, which has already enjoyed the Part I claim, does not get double benefit by then being acquired without taking account of the Part I claim that has already been paid. We are therefore providing for compensation for the acquisition of the second piece of land to be assessed without regard to the diminution in value of the interest attributed to the use of the new road, which was part of the new town development and which has to be disregarded, even though compensation for the depreciating effect of that road had already been paid under Part I. So the Amendment provides that the amount paid in Part I compensation shall, to avoid duplication, be deducted from the amount paid on any subsequent acquisition where, under the existing law, one has to disregard the road scheme as part of the new town. The meaning of "public works", as defined in this Bill, is wide enough to embrace something like a new town and other matters which are dealt with in this way in Schedule 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1961.
In addition, under this Amendment it will be possible to apportion the amount of Part I compensation over the land, so that it is not necessarily spread evenly, bit by bit. If one bit were more affected by the original public works than another, then one could attach more of the Part I claim to that than to another bit which is perhaps farther away and less affected. That is why the Amendment includes the words
"… so much of the last-mentioned compensation as is attributable to that part".
If necessary, that enables the compensa-
178
tion to be spread unevenly over the land. This is a redraft of a technical matter which I think is an improvement. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Alterations to public works and changes of use]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 31, leave out ("or aerodrome").
The noble Lord said: It might be convenient if we discuss with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 14, 16 and 17, which are consequential. This clause was amended during the Committee stage in another place, clearly as a result of an afterthought by the Government, not that it appears to be a particularly happy one judging by the debate which is reported in cols. 90 to 114 of Hansard for Standing Committee A on December 12 last year. No one but the Minister seemed to see any virtue in the Amendment which he proposed, to bring in a highway or aerodrome. When the Committee divided it was carried by only one vote.
This Amendment does not touch the matter of the change of use of highways, although I think everyone in the Committee will know that the change of use of highways can have a tremendous impact and can result in very considerable loss of amenity. I almost feel like apologising to the Committee for not including highways as well. Like many who sit in this House, I know what can result from changes of use and I wonder why they should be inflicted upon us. Suddenly, we find that one-way traffic schemes or other changes are introduced, and huge juggernauts of fantastic length come into streets that, formerly, were quiet residential areas, bringing sudden and quite undesirable loss of amenity. That is bad enough, but it seems to me that the situation in regard to aerodromes can, in the long run, sometimes amount to something much more serious.
To a degree, I suppose I have some interest to declare, since I live not too far from Gatwick to be unaffected by what goes on there; and what goes on there affects others, who live closer than I do, much more. Some of us know

179
how intensification of use—the addition of new terminal buildings, improved facilities at an airport or a change of planes—results in loss of amenity of one kind or another, disturbing us at night and fouling up the atmosphere. It is one thing to watch the beauty of a plane at high altitude leaving behind it streaks of white vapour in the sky which, when dawn is breaking, I have to say, change to a lovely pink as the sun rises; but it is quite another matter to hear the incessant noise and to have to put up with the pollution of the air which follows from intensive use by jets and Jumbos incessantly landing or hovering.
What is going to happen at Maplin is anybody's guess, except that we know that another vast area of our precious land may well be condemned ultimately to no one knows what. If I understand correctly what the Minister said in column 104 on December 12, the Government accept that claims can be made under subsection (5) where there is an alteration in the carriageway or in the runways; but we know that loss of amenity can follow as easily from a change of use. I can well recall the days when Gatwick was unnoticeable. Now it is quite another story. Again, it seemed to me that the Minister in the other place acknowledged that the strengthening of a runway is an alteration which would attract a claim if intensification of use followed. Then why not accept that intensification of use should of itself attract compensation? Who can doubt or question that the more intense the use of an aerodrome the greater the loss of amenity and the greater the reflection on the value of the residence one occupies? I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have to start, I am afraid, with a slightly technical point, because when one is talking about a change of use in this context one is talking about a planning change of use. I will deal with, or attempt to deal with, the noble Lord's argument about intensification of traffic or the introduction of larger aeroplanes or lorries, or something of that sort, in a moment, but what we are in fact involved in here in the case of this Amendment to Clause 9(1)(c), and certainly in the case of Clause 9(7), is a change of use which constitutes a change of use under plan-
180
ning law. The argument that the noble Lord has directed does not in fact go to this point at all. If you have a road, it is a road, and however much you use it as a road you will not get a change of use which constitutes development under the Town and Country Planning Act. If you have an aerodrome and you go on using it as an aerodrome even more intensely—I am not talking about using it as a racetrack, or something like that—then I cannot see any situation in which the use of larger planes or the more frequent take-offs or landings would constitute a planning change of use; that is to say, development. That is the technical situation, and if the noble Lord wants to catch an intensification of use of the sort that he is talking about then I do not think he can go about it in the way that these Amendments do because they do not really bite on that situation at all.
The noble Lord said that we put in subsection (6) of Clause 9 as an afterthought at the Report stage in another places. I do not know whether that is unhappy or not, but the fact remains that, certainly when one is dealing with aerodromes, we have extended the situations in which people can get compensation for the carrying out of new public works, such as extending or strengthening runways. I have some personal experience of this in the planning field, where a quite short extension of runway in fact allows very much larger aeroplanes to land and take-off, and where one can easily imagine a case where large extensions of the apron would increase the throughput of the airfield by allowing more aeroplanes to park, to unload their passengers and that sort of thing. So we have gone some way to meet this.
The difficulty the noble Lord has been talking about is really one where you have something like a road or an aerodrome and, over time, it gets used more and more. It gets used by larger aeroplanes and certainly at the moment, perhaps, noisier aeroplanes, although we hope that this will not continue too far into the future. Or, if it is a road, it gets used by bigger lorries or noisier lorries in greater numbers If the noble Lord looks at Clause 4(2), he will see that when one is dealing witht a Part I claim for compensation under this Bill, one takes account of the use of the works as they exist on the first day of the claim period

181
—and they would have to be comparatively recent works of course for this to bite at all—and one takes account of any intensification which may then be reasonably expected. The noble Lord will know from his own experience that those who lived around Gatwick in the 1950s I think complained very bitterly about the use of Gatwick as an aerodrome at all. There was a very stormy inquiry, if I remember rightly; and certainly in recent days, when the second runway at Gatwick was being considered (or even quite small extensions at Gatwick, which was an inquiry which actually took place) for the purposes of saying how awful it would be, everybody was assuming the greatest possible intensification of the use of that runway. I am afraid it is a fact of life that people do this.
Now we are saying that compensation under Part I will be assessed on that basis, on the reasonable intensification that one can foresee. There may be a runway or a road opened, and in early years it carries comparatively little traffic. But what we have done is to allow people to claim compensation on the basis of what the reasonably anticipated intensification will be over the years. The Government's case on this is really that this is the only line that one can draw. We have a time-scale on this. We have certain public works which are caught by the Bill and others, further back, which are not. One cannot get away from this. One cannot be endlessly retrospective, although we have tried to be retrospective. We have this assumption which allows people to look into the future and make their claim on this basis. Where else do you stop? If, regardless of the fact that the road is exactly the same or the runway and the airport are exactly the same, you allow any person who lives anywhere near it to go on claiming compensation every time one of the major airlines turns over to a different sort of aeroplane or every time one of the large foreign companies turns over to some bigger scale of trailer or produces a bigger juggernaut lorry, where do you stop? This is a Bill which is intended to be generous, but it has to be based on certain principles. We have based it on principles which constitute new works back to a certain date and the reasonably anticipated intensification of use of them, so you can look into the future and get a once-for-all payment.
182
Although I sympathise with what the noble Lord was saying, I cannot see where any other line can be drawn if you are not going to involve all uses of existing facilities of this sort of a greater degree than they are at any given moment to class for compensation under Part I. The noble Lord may think that this is right; but it means that you will never have any finality, that you will open up the question of all existing roads and of runways built many years ago. It may be a pity that this Bill was not law at the time, but it was not. It would mean reopening all these matters over and over again—not once, but many times, as lorries and planes got bigger and bigger and some other detriment got worse. One cannot go beyond the border, beyond the principles that underline this Bill fundamentally, those that I have been talking about.
I hope that it will be thought that we have gone some way—even if the noble Lord is not happy—to meet the aerodrome point under subsection (6). There is then the whole question where a claim is made of sound insulation. This is going to be helpful. I have to ask the Committee to support the Government in drawing the line where we have, even if there are hard cases outside. Compensation always brings about hard cases. I have always known of border lines beyond which you cannot go; and this is one of them. I would ask the Committee to agree that we have drawn the right border line in this case despite the problems that Lord Garnsworthy has mentioned.
4.42 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I should like to probe this a little further. The noble Viscount, as he always does, made a convincing case. I entirely understand the difficulty he adumbrates about a never ending examination of the process of change and so on. That is one side. I accept and appreciate the difficulties. But on the other hand, what is the material we are dealing with? We are dealing with a situation in which people live in the vicinity of an aerodrome, where happenings may take place which make their life in their homes virtually impossible. I should have thought that, as a measure of justice we ought in that situation to err perhaps in the direction

183
of risking claims which, on investigation in the future, may turn out to be tiresome or even unsubstantiated. This is human material and we should be extremely sensitive to it. These are people who are in no way to blame, people who are the victims of the evolution of modern society, modern techniques and modern science. I would submit to the Government that the tilt should be rather in the other direction; though I accept, as always, what the noble Viscount has said.
My noble friend Lord Garnsworthy really spoke to a number of Amendments here. He spoke to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 and coupled with them in his argument Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. It is No. 17 that deals with intensification. Perhaps I might address my argument first to the question of intensification. The noble Viscount pointed out that in Clause 4(2) there is already provision that in assessing depreciation you should take into account any intensification that then may reasonably be expected. The Government, in a sense, have gone halfway towards what my noble friend is asking with regard to intensification. Clause 9 says that intensification is not to constitute a change of use. The implication, I suppose, is that if it were not for subsection (7) of Clause 9, intensification would constitute a change of use. I should have thought as a matter of common sense that it ought to do so. If there are different types of aircraft, if there is a wide proliferation of use of aircraft—perhaps a large number of smaller aircraft crammed into a day's schedule far in excess of the number possible at the moment—and if one refers to other changes of technique, then aerodromes might be used in quite a different way from the way in which they have been used heretofore.
If you look at Clause 4(2) you must try and guess what the measure of intensification would be. Is it not better, as a matter of justice to people who will suffer if there is or if there turns out to be a major intensification in years to come, to look at it at the time when it arises, to assess its degree then and to form a view at the time when the intensification really becomes noticeable, as to whether it is substantial? That is the sort of change of use that Clause 9 seems to be designed
184
for. That, as a matter of justice, should be the approach that is likely to produce over the years some reasonably accurate assessment of the inconvenience that adjoining occupiers suffer.
Let us suppose that you have a Clause 4 assessment in the year 1976, and that in the year 1976, in an attempt to assess the degree of depreciation, an estimate is made of the intensification which (within the meaning of subsection (2)) may then, in 1976, be reasonably expected of the use of the works. In 1980, that estimate, which was made four years before, may be wholly falsified. It is likely in this present age that it will be so; because modern science progresses so rapidly that it is probable that changes of use, in the sense of a greater intensification of use, will from time to time devolve on us and subject people who, in 1980, will be living in houses close to the aerodrome. Therefore, dealing first with the Amendment which would seek to leave out subsection (7), I would press the Government to give this a little more thought. That is just the sort of happening, a massive intensification of use, which could constitute the sort of thing that Clause 9 is designed to deal with. That is the first point.
Then, in answer to my noble friends argument the noble Viscount said that really all you are considering when you are looking at Clause 9(1) is planned change of use. No doubt, alteration or something pursuant to planning permission, is what he had in mind. The answer to that is that subsection (1) is completely general in its terms. What my noble friend was arguing and what I would support him in is this. He said that as Clause 9(1) is at present drafted, the aerodrome is wholly removed from the scope of a change of use within subsection (3). I should like to see that brought back, if the aerodrome is brought back into subsection (3) then automatically, as a consequential Amendment subsection (3) and also subsection (6) should go because they depend on that exclusion.
The way in which I would respectfully put the argument to the Government is this. What is the case for excluding the aerodrome from the ambit of change of use? There may be all sorts of changes of use apart from intensification. There may be a new terminal built which will be an inconvenience to people who live nearby. There may be various different

185
circumstances which eventuate and give rise to what could be regarded as a change of use. I would submit that the aerodrome should be brought back within the scope of the subsection (3) so that where you find a change of use because of a new terminal that should be applicable in the case of an aerodrome just as it is in the case of any other public works. I submit that the exclusion of an aerodrome is an irrational one. I am not certain what aerodrome one is dealing with. If one looks at Clause 74, it provides that Part 1 is not to apply to any aerodrome in the occupation of a Government Department. I am not quite sure what the expression "in the occupation of a Government Department" there means. Does it include Heathrow, which I should have thought is not in the occupation of a Government Department? I should have thought the answer to that is, "No". At any rate, all aerodromes other than those in the occupation of a Government Department are included within the scope of Clause 9. Why should not change of use from a new terminal, for some other reason which wholly recasts the role of that particular aerodrome in the shifting of air traffic in this country of in and out of the country, be a subject which within the meaning of Clause 4 could be taken into account for the purposes of assessing compensation?
I think that we all have the same objective in view. We have in mind the private citizen whose interest in land, his dwelling house or whatever it may be, is adversely affected through no fault of his own and he has to suffer for the common benefit. It is not as if he could prevent the change of use; he has to put up with it. Elementary justice requires that the community should look to that man and say, "You should not personally suffer what may be, for you, a major loss in order to bow to the common interest". I submit that it is desirable to have regard to the private citizen who is, after all, powerless in the face of these gigantic concerns that one is considering, and see to it that he is adequately protected.
At the moment subsection (3) greatly limits the sort of alteration which is relevant when you are talking about aerodromes. It is alteration only.
186
"in respect of physical factors caused by aircraft unless the alterations are runway or apron alterations."
Why limit it? Why not any alteration as in the case of any other public building? There is other legislation, I know, which affects civil aviation. But so far as I know—I hope that the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—private citizens will not find an adequate remedy in that other legislation. It is in Clause 9 or it does not exist. I ask the noble Viscount to say (this being a matter, as I think he said, of balance and consideration on both sides of the line, which I accept at once) that he will consider further whether the balance ought not to weigh down in favour of the private citizen whose whole happiness may be at risk as a result of something which he cannot control, and in which he is a completely helpless factor.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am afraid that we are beginning to get a little adrift on this matter. I must ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to cast his mind back to his very long and distinguished experience with the law on planning and ask him to try to remember the particularly difficult brand of enforcement notice cases which related to intensification of use. The sort of thing one used to deal with was a field in which there were two or three caravans and the owner brought on another 25 and said, "This whole field has been a caravan site for a very long time." Let us say more than four years at the stage when the four-year rule applied to use. The owner might say, "Therefore, the whole field is a caravan site and I can put as many caravans on it as I like."
The noble and learned Lord will remember perfectly well that one then had a situation where one had to decide, or rather the Ministry of Housing and Local Government of those days had to decide, whether, as a matter of fact and degree, the increase in the number of caravans was something which constituted a change of use, and therefore development, so that the enforcement notice could, after all bite. The way in which this Bill is drafted at present deals with changes of use of this sort. The noble and learned Lord will remember also that

187
the other sort of development is buildings. So building a new terminal is not a change of use, it is the other sort of development. Change of use relates only to using the physical attributes of the land and any buildings on it exactly as they are, but for a different purpose. So here we cannot get involved in any question of building, although I will come on to buildings in a moment. Therefore, we have to make certain that what we are talking about is an intensification which constitutes development under the planning Acts because it is held to be a change of use.
At the moment, the Bill does not apply this concept to highways, or to aerodromes, at all. The noble and learned Lord is suggesting that it should. But I ask him to draw on his own experience. I expect that probably he will have been involved also in cases relating to aerodromes. I ask him to consider whether he would be able to contemplate a case where, without changing the strength or the length or the width of a runway, or buildings or pavings or aprons, or anything of that sort, such a change of its use by aircraft could take place that you could have what is, in law, development by virtue of change of use.
The usual situation would be that you might have a grass aerodrome. Nobody can land a fully laden Jumbo Jet on a grass aerodrome. Before you started to try to do that you would have to put down a properly strengthened and concreted runway. Therefore you would not be talking about a change of use but about a physical development of the building sort. Equally, if you have a fairly small aerodrome with shortish runways, you cannot (as the noble and learned Lord, I am sure, will know from his experience) land very big aeroplanes unless, they are totally unladen, nor can you make major changes in the type of aircraft using that runway without strengthening or lengthening it. There have been many rows about exactly this sort of project, where what appeared to be a quite small extension to the length of the runway in fact enabled the operators of the airport to bring in entirely different, much bigger, heavier and possibly noisier aircraft.
I cannot think of a situation where, without a physical change of this sort,
188
you would get that degree of change in the use of the aerodrome which in planning law would constitute a change of use. In these circumstances I think the argument on the technicalities of the planning law, and on one's knowledge of what happens on consideration of the planning degree necessary to allow a change of planning use, does not apply in the case of aerodromes. I am quite sure that it does not apply in the case of highways. I can imagine no circumstances whatever where, without some sort of physical enlargement such as turning a single carriageway into a dual carriageway—which is caught by the Bill in any case—you could change the character of the use of the road in such a way that, in the Town and Country Planning Act terminology, you would have a change of use. That is why, when looking at this question of change of use, I applied my mind to other sorts of public works. If we get away from aerodromes and highways there could be uses of land or buildings constituting public works which could be changed and then developed. That is caught under 3(1)(c), except in the case of intensification; and when I consider what one might have by way of intensification of existing public use other than highways and aerodromes of such a type as to constitute development, neither I nor my advisers could think of any. I am willing to contemplate any which the noble Lord or any other noble Lord might care to suggest, but at the moment I cannot think of any which are within the reasonable bounds of possibility. Therefore we have the situation where I think, at least in practice, in relation to aerodromes, Clause 9(3) and (6) are what matter.
I would say to the noble Lord in parenthesis that the reference in Clause 74 to a Government Department is in fact a reference to the Ministry of Defence aerodromes. Heathrow would not be included; it belongs to the Civil Aviation Authority I think, so that is not really what we are talking about. In Clause 9(3) and (6) we are talking about the physical alteration to the buildings, the sort of developments which increase the noise. A terminal of itself does not necessarily, or probably at all, increase the noise that is made by the airport as a whole. It may increase the comfort of the passengers. What increases the

189
noise, what brings about the greater degree of traffic, the heavier traffic, the noisier traffic, is extensions of runways and extensions of apron facilities so that you can park bigger planes and handle more planes and so on. They are not change of use; they are ordinary development. They are dealt with under Clause 9(1)(b) and subsections (3) and (6), and they are the things that will affect the public.
I agree with the noble Lord that when there are alterations of this sort then one ought to take them into account, and the Bill does take them into account. These sort of alterations would attract Part I compensation claims, and they would attract them to the ultimate use of that extended runway or that increased apron size. If you know anything about aircraft—landing weights and distances which aircraft have to run under the rules that govern their taking off and landing—you will know the degree and the size and the noise that they are likely to make in the future because this is a pretty skilled art and there is a good deal of knowledge stored up in many places including the records of a number of professional people who are experts in sound; places like the Institute of Vibration at the University of Southampton know a great deal about this. One will be able to forecast what the effect of this sort of extension will be, and this is what the Bill catches. If one simply goes overboard on the idea—I am not suggesting that this is what the noble Lord is doing; I am sure he is being concise about this—and if one abandons that sort of precision there is no end; there is no method of measurement; there is no way of saying, "The situation has now arisen where there are two or three more jets a day going over this house and therefore we should bring into operation machinery for claims under Part I."
There is no other line that can be drawn. We have drawn the line in relation to aerodromes on the things which actually cause the increase in noise, in annoyance and in discomfort to the people who live round about. I hope with that rather long and somewhat technical explanation that the noble Lord will agree that we have attacked the problem in the right place and in the right way, and in accordance with what
190
does make sense under the planning laws, and that he may think that after all we are not being so unjust to the individual as at first sight I agree we might seem to be.
5.4 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: I have listened to the noble Viscount's arguments as to the difference between extensions to runways and aprons, on the one hand, and the small changes in use that might be made of an aerodrome without the extension to those facilities. If I may say so with great respect, I think that theoretically he must be wrong because it is quite possible that in the future noise regulations will not be sufficiently restrictive to prevent the introduction of aircraft with higher decibels than the DC.8 and the 707 which we have to put up with at the moment. I am thinking in particular of Concorde. I realise that the manufacturers say that by the time the aircraft comes into production the noise levels will be comparable with those of present day subsonic jets, but they will still be a great deal higher than the high by-pass ratio of jets which are now being introduced into service, the Jumbos, the Lockheed TriStars and the other wide-bodied jets which we are now seeing coming into service in increasing numbers.
I would ask the noble Viscount at least to entertain the possibility that people living near Heathrow would find a material change in their circumstances, having received some blessed relief from the general reduction of noise levels consequent upon the introduction of the Jumbos et cetera, and then finding in 1975 or 1976 the Concorde coming into service, thus going back to the situation from which they hoped they had escaped. I do not think it is only Concorde that one has to consider in this connection. There could possibly be the greater frequency of helicopter operations at certain airports which would obviously not require an extension of runways, terminal facilities, aprons and so on. They could quite well operate from a section of the airport earmarked for that purpose. In the United States, quite a number of the airports have special helicopter services for people travelling into the city centre. I know we have not reached that stage yet. I was merely asking the noble Viscount whether he would not entertain the theoretical possibility that this might occur. A more

191
obvious one is the question of the incidence of night flights. I know that the Government have this matter very much in mind and are proposing to reduce still further the permitted total of night flights at certain airports during the summer. But this can be reversed at any time if public opinion will allow it and I think the noble Viscount will agree that that does constitute a very material change of use.
Let us take the noble Viscount's example of caravans, which of course would not occur now because of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. He was speaking about the old days when if you had a few caravans on a field—I think the figure he gave was three—you could increase it to 20 and then there was an argument as to whether this constituted an intensification sufficiently great as to be a material change of use. Let us take the number of movements of aircraft. If there were X movements of aircraft from an airport during the day and the Minister of the time at some future date allowed the same number of movements at night so that movements were doubled, I would contend that this did not constitute a doubling of the nuisance. It would be very much worse than that, because what people might be able to put up with during the day, when in any case a great many of them would be away at work, would be quite different from what they would be prepared to put up with at night when they were trying to go to sleep. Certainly from the point of view of people in the neighbourhood of those airports this would constitute as much a material change of use as an increase in the number of caravans which was contemplated by the noble Viscount in the example he gave. There could be circumstances in which one would find the subsection we are discussing too restrictive. I hope the noble Viscount at least will be prepared to think about this again before Report stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The best that I can do for the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is to say this. I do not want to be tiresome, but we are in danger of getting right away from the whole concept of planning into the control of airports, which is operated by the Department of Trade and Industry. The whole question of night flights is, I know, an intensely felt local issue at places like
192
Luton, and many others as well, where it arouses the most passionate feelings for reasons that I can very well understand. But I am not at all sure that the Committee would wish to try to deal with this particular matter, which is subject to an entirely different form of control, by means of amendments to a Land Compensation Act.
I suspect that the reason why this Amendment has been drafted so as to exclude highways and aerodromes from the whole concept of change of use is that the planning idea of intensification and change of use just does not apply to an aerodrome. That is the planning concept. I can understand that to the ordinary man in the street it is very easy to say: "Oh, yes; the whole operation of this aerodrome has altered out of all recognition over the last ten years. It is not a bit the same as it used to be." But I am still not convinced that this is a change of use in terms of development control. I very much doubt whether it is. It may be that the example of the caravans was silly, but you can see them on the ground and you can see the actual area of the field which they cover. But when it comes to aircraft using an airfield, they go along the same runway, and if the runway is not increased they go along the same bit of the same runway. All that happens is that they do it at different times of the day and in different numbers. I do not think that the concept of change of use under the Town and Country Planning Act is at all easy to apply to this sort of thing. One must bear in mind that increases in noise, certainly at Heathrow, can be dealt with to some extent by changing the boundaries of the area where you get sound insulation under the Civil Aviation Act. So there is some remedy where you have an airport covered by that sort of provision.
The best I can do is this. I am sure the Committee will agree—I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will agree, too—that one has to draw the line somewhere. It is no use backdating Part I claims to the day when Fairey Aviation test airfield at what is now Heathrow was taken over for a bomber station some time in the course of the last war. We cannot go that far back. I do not know how far back we can go. I should have thought that the Committee would agree that the date

193
that we have chosen, 1969, is as far back as one should go in legislation of this sort. Therefore, one cannot take account of changes in the type of user of a place like Heathrow which do not involve physical developments which have happened since that date: at least, I do not think we can, because otherwise I think we breach the whole concept of the Bill and we find ourselves lost in the bounds of antiquity with no firm base line to go on.
If noble Lords can produce some sort of definition of what they consider to be the sort of change of use that everybody has been talking about (but which is not a planning change of use), and will tell me what should be the measure of user which gives rise to compensation and what should be the measure that does not—the threshold, as it were—indeed, as is apparent, it is not my Department's Bill—and which is measurable in law and as a matter of valuation, as it must be, I cannot promise anything, but I think it would be reasonable for me to say that I should be glad to look at it. I cannot promise that it will be adopted. I think noble Lords will find that it is a very difficult problem, but I would invite them to apply their minds to it. Those who have spoken have great experience of planning—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has experience on the aviation side—and I do not want to turn down good ideas. However, at the moment I think that all this is getting a long way away from the ideas of the Town and Country Planning Act and land compensation, which have always been enmeshed together, and that we are getting into realms of entirely different sorts of control and different legislation which it could be easily a great mistake to confuse with the particular sort of measure with which we are dealing at the moment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: First of all, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for the extremely courteous and thorough way with which he has dealt with the arguments which have been advanced in support of this Amendment. I think that probably we are all a great deal wiser than we were before we started, in that the noble Viscount has confronted us with problems that have to be surmounted if we are to satisfy
194
him that the Bill can be amended to meet the points we have raised. For our part, I hope that we have reminded the noble Viscount (he probably knew most of it, if not all of it, before) of the problem not only as we see it, but as a great many people who live near aerodromes see it. I am sure I am right in my recollection that reference to highways and aerodromes was inserted in the other place. If the matter was as important as our debate would seem to indicate, I am rather surprised that those words were not included in the original drafting. I must confess that the feeling I had from reading the debate in the other place was that there was considerable disquiet there.
The noble Viscount has invited us to do some thinking and to see whether we cannot produce some ideas. I started off this afternoon by regretting that I had no legal training, and I am beginning to regret that I do not have the experience of planning law possessed by the noble Viscount and my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill. I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend, as I am to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because it seems to me that they have put their fingers on points of considerable importance. The noble Viscount says that if we seek to remedy the matters about which we have expressed concern we ought to go about it in a different way. I think a great many people will need to give a good deal of thought to this. But the noble Viscount says: "Where do you stop? The Bill is intended to be generous, and you have to stop somewhere." A great many people do not feel that the Bill is all that generous. But when he asks, "Where do you stop?" by way of compensation, many people are asking—and I think it is right and proper that we should ask it this afternoon: Where is the change of use that affects people so drastically, that reduces amenity so savagely, going to stop? Quite rightly, the noble Viscount says, "Carry on thinking about it." I would make the point that the Amendment is limited to aerodromes. I did not include highways—it was probably my fault for using the example of juggernauts using our roads and what they could do. I think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in drawing attention to what can happen in the way of supersonic bangs and the intensive use of helicopters, has pinpointed the

195
kind of thing that can happen and about which there is so much concern.
If the noble Viscount is able to think further on this, or to get his advisers to do so, in order to endeavour to meet our concern, we should be grateful, because I am sure that the resources available to him and within the Department responsible for this Bill are much greater than we can put our hands on. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, hoping that your Lordships feel that the debate we have had on it has been throughly justified. It is probably a matter that we can come back to again at a later stage of the Bill or at some other time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 25, leave out from second ("if") to end of line 28 and insert—

("(a) the location, width or level of the carriageway is altered (otherwise than by re-surfacing); or

(b) an additional carriageway is provided for the highway beside, above or below an existing one;

and the reference in subsection (2) above to depreciation that would not have been caused but for alterations to the carriageway of a highway is a reference to such depreciation by physical factors which are caused by the use of, and the source of which is situated on, the length of carriageway which has been altered as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, as the case may be, the additional carriageway and the corresponding length of the existing one mentioned in paragraph (b) above.")
The noble Viscount said: This is another drafting Amendment to clarify something which is not plain at the moment. The intention is that depreciation caused by the noises, smell and horridness of traffic on the whole width of a widened length of carriageway should qualify for compensation. As drafted at present, Clause 9(2) will admit claims in respect of a highway that has been altered; but what we do not do is pin down the area of land which can benefit by the claim so that it corresponds with the part of the road that has been altered. In other words, it is possible at the moment to have a piece of road which is not widened on the immediate frontage of a house, not to the left of the house, but to the right of the house, somewhere farther down the
196
road. It would be wrong to allow a claim regarding the widening to the right of the house, the traffic on which is inaudible from the house, although the same traffic then comes past the house on the piece of road which is not at that point widened. We think it wrong that a claim should be made in respect of the alteration farther away which has no appreciable effect upon the house. Therefore what we do is to try to pin down the widening, and the claim that arises out of it, to the land adjacent to the widening and not to any other part of the road. I beg to move.
LORD SOMERS: I am very grateful for this Amendment. I had intended to comment on the wording of paragraph (a) since the method of increasing road and traffic capacity is very often to lay a second carriageway, in which case the original carriageway—technically speaking—has not been altered. This Amendment covers that in paragraph (b), which says:
"an additional carriageway is provided for the highway beside …".
Therefore I feel that meets the question.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: The noble Lord's point is already there in Clause 9(5). But if they put an additional carriageway somewhere else, not opposite the house on which the claim is being made, the principle I was trying to explain would still apply under the Amendment. The noble Lord's point is already provided for in the Bill.
LORD AVEBURY: I wonder whether the noble Viscount could advise me on the exact interpretation of this Amendment so far as the meaning of the word "carriageway" is concerned. It would be possible for a section of road to have hard shoulders added, or a slip road put in, which would not, within the meaning of the word "carriageway", be part of it, but which nevertheless could increase nuisance to adjoining occupiers. The hard shoulders or the slip road—if used, for example, for a lorry drivers' pull-in—would enable vehicles to come closer to houses.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Subject to correction, the slip road would certainly be a new carriageway. The addition of a hard shoulder would be the alteration of a carriageway and would

197
therefore come within the ambit of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Action for nuisance following unsuccessful claim where relevant authority have disclaimed statutory immunity]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, which is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 22, leave out ("relevant") and insert ("responsible").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Interpretation of Part I]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 16, line 1, at end insert—
(""the appropriate highway authority" means—

(a) except where paragraph (b) below applies, the highway authority who constructed the highway to which the claim relates;

(b) if and so far as the claim relates to depreciation that would not have been caused but for alterations to the carriageway of a highway, the highway authority who carried out the alterations;").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment in moving Amendment No. 1. I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that, if I was wrong in what I told him about what an appropriate highway authority was in Scotland, I would correct myself now. I am glad to say that I was correct. The definitions here, and the way they are framed, only reflect the difference between England and Scotland and the fact that there are differences. Draftsmen representing the Scottish Office thought it was as well to have "highway authority" defined, but those in England and Wales thought it unnecessary. The new definition of "the appropriate highway authority" covers England, Scotland and Wales. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I accept that it would not appear to be wrong that the new wording, "appropriate highway autho-
198
rity" should apply over the whole country because the authority which has to pay compensation was defined first of all as the responsible authority, and later on the responsible authority was defined as the highway authority. I do not think that the noble Lord is correct—or that his advisers are correct. We now have two definitions in this clause. We have the definition of the appropriate highway authority, which I have just been told applies to Scotland as well as to England. But there remains in the Bill a definition of a highway authority. It says that a highway authority in relation to Scotland has the meaning assigned to it in the said Act of 1970. The result of the first Amendment, the paving Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, has been to remove from the Bill any reference to a highway authority. We are now defining something which does not exist in the Bill. The only thing which is in the Bill now is an "appropriate highway authority", which is defined in the Amendment he now moves. I suggest that you cannot define something in a Bill which has been removed from it.
The Scottish Office have perhaps slipped up in not realising that bringing in this reference to an appropriate highway authority to apply over the whole country makes their definition of a highway authority in Scotland no longer appropriate. I therefore invite the noble Lord's comment on that. I have no objection generally; in fact, I prefer to have a different definition for Scottish conditions where necessary. But I object to having one which does not seem to make sense.
LORD SANDFORD: I would much rather not comment any further. I will certainly undertake to look at this matter. If a further Amendment is needed, we will incorporate it at the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 16, line 26, at end insert—
("(3) In the application of this Part of this Act to a highway which has not always been highway maintainable at the public expense defined above—

(a) references to its being open to public traffic shall be construed as references to its

199
being so open whether or not as a highway so maintainable;

(b) for references to the highway authority who constructed it there shall be substituted references to the highway authority for the highway.")

The noble Viscount said: Here we have the same trouble about the adoption of private streets. There are many private streets which are not maintainable by the highway authority at public expense, but are still used as highways. They are maintainable by the frontagers until the street is adopted. As the Bill is drafted, the adoption of a highway of this kind would create eligibility for a grant under Part I, as from the date of its adoption.
We think that this is wrong because it is an artificial distinction, and it is wrong that depreciation could arise simply from the action of a highway authority in adopting that road which has been used for public traffic for a long time but repaired by the frontagers. What we therefore do by this Amendment is to seek to retain the period of eligibility—that is, the three years under Part I—from the date the highway was first open to public traffic (this would be, probably, in this case under its private ownership) and not from the date when the highway became maintainable by virtue of the adoption and then continued to be used for public traffic. So we do not cut out the case of a road which is taken over after originally having been private and adopted by a public authority, but we put a time limit on it so as not to create what would otherwise be an artificial and I think a ridiculous distinction. I beg to move.
LORD SOMERS: This is quite appropriate when it comes to private roads in towns, but it could be, by a stretch of the imagination, applied to, say, a rough country lane which leads to a cottage and on beyond it, which was later converted into a perfectly good metal road and adopted. That would change the character of the house considerably, whereas, of course, the mere adoption of a private road in a town would not. I wonder whether the noble Viscount could say something about that?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I should have thought that if that happened the chances are that there would be more than a simple adoption of the
200
road. The usual thing that would happen in this case would be that the road would be substantially improved by the highway authority, and this would be a different matter altogether. What I am simply talking about at the moment is a street which is, although technically private, still used by through traffic, then technically taken over, and continued to be used by through traffic, so that there is an artificial distinction. I think that the noble Lord's point would probably relate to a different state of affairs, and a little grassy road would not be adopted without substantial alterations and probably widening by the highway authority.
LORD SLATER: Might I ask whether this is an extension of the Private Street Works Act to the highway authority? As is well known, you have the highway authority responsible for private streets. Does this come within that category? They must come under their specification before they will take them over as their responsibility as a highway authority.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: They would of course use one of the two Codes under the Highways Act 1959 if they were going to adopt the road. This would mean, if it was not already made up—which it might well be because, for instance, under Section 40 agreements under the Highways Act, a new estate road is built and owned privately in the first place and then in due course, if it is properly made, it is taken over by the highway authority. That is one way of doing it. There are other private roads. I can think of one in Dulwich which is a perfectly good road, perfectly well made up, but it happens to be a private road. It has through traffic on it already. Whether any works would have to be done under either of the Codes before it was adopted, I would not know. In any particular case one would have to look. Sometimes there are some, and sometimes there are not. But you can still have roads which are perfectly adequate from the highway point of view but are private. We are trying to deal with these in the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Acquisition of land in connection with highways]:
5.35 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 18, line 22, at end insert ("or for improving the appearance of the highway and its surroundings and the enjoyment thereof by the pubic at large.")
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Henley asked me to express his apologies to the Committee for not being able to be here this afternoon, but he has asked me to look after this Amendment, and Amendment No. 24, for him. The Council for the Protection of Rural England and other amenity societies which are concerned for the preservation of the English countryside have for a long time been concerned that highway authorities—and I include in that the Department of the Environment so far as trunk roads and motorways are concerned—have not had the power compulsorily to acquire land beyond the limits of the highway for landscape purposes. This has, as we think, put a severe limitation upon road designers and landscape architects in carrying out their tasks. On this account we very much welcome this Part II of this Bill, which appeared at first sight to go a long way, if not all the way, to remedying what we have thought to be a defect. At first sight, as I say, it appears to afford some substantial relief.
If I may just briefly summarise the three things which this Part of this Bill achieves, I would say they are these. First, it allows a highway authority compulsorily to acquire land beyond the limits of the highway itself; secondly, having acquired the land in that way, it permits the highway authority to carry out works on such acquired land; and thirdly, it empowers the highway authority to enter into agreements with interested persons—persons interested in the surrounding land—for the purpose of restricting the use of the surrounding land. But those three powers are subject to one precedent and overriding condition, and that is that the land can only be acquired and built upon and dealt with in that way, and those powers can only be exercised, for the purpose of mitigating any adverse effect which the existence or use of the highway may have on the surroundings of the highway. The question which I seek to raise here this afternoon is whether that
202
precedent condition is in fact too narrowly drawn.
Perhaps I could illustrate the point best by posing two different questions. The first is this. Who is actually concerned in mitigating the adverse effect of a highway and the building of a highway upon the surrounding land'? I suppose the obvious first answer is that the people primarily concerned are the people who live and work in the surrounding land or near the surrounding land. The second class of people who might be said to be concerned in this matter, I suggest, are the public at large to the extent that the public are interested in the beauty and pleasantness of the surroundings of the highway. But if you go on and ask a rather wider question, and inquire who is concerned that our highways should be as beautiful and attractive as they can be made, then I suggest that a third class of persons comes into the picture. That is the public at large in their capacity as users of the highway. Do not the public in that capacity have a special and identifiable interest not only in the impact or adverse effect of the highway upon its surroundings but also in any impact of the surroundings upon the highway itself? Or to put the matter, if I may, rather differently: Should not the highway authorities have the power to acquire land outside the limits of the highway. not only for the purpose of mitigating any adverse effects upon the surrounding land but for the purpose of making the highway itself as attractive as it can be made? May it not be the case—and very often I suggest it is the case—that in the process of highway landscaping the architects may wish to acquire land outside the limit of the highway itself for the accomplishment of the overall design, for the purpose of making the best job they can, and they may not be able to justify the acquisition of that land on the ground that they are doing so in order to mitigate any adverse effect on the surroundings?
If I may take a precise example, what will be the situation if this Part of the Bill becomes law and a highway authority planning a new road in fact wishes to take over some part of the surrounding land and compulsorily acquire it? The owner of the land which is sought to be acquired who is aggrieved by this then goes before the appropriate tribunal to try to resist the compulsory purchase

203
order. Surely he will be entitled to say to the highway authority, "What do you want my land for?" If the answer is, "We want this land in order to make this highway as splendid a thing as possible", he will no doubt retort, "That is all very well, but you are not asking for it for the purpose of mitigating the adverse effects upon my land; you are seeking to acquire it for a different purpose." In those circumstances, I should have thought he would undoubtedly win his case because, of course, where we are dealing with the taking away of private property rights we always have to construe a Statute in the most favourable sense to the aggrieved person.
I ask the Minister this question. Can he give any assurance that the Bill, if it becomes law in its present form, will not in fact be interpreted in that restrictive form? I myself doubt whether he can give us such an assurance, because the interpretation of a Statute is not a matter for him or for the Government but for the court. Therefore, the purpose of this Amendment is a simple one. It is to add at the end of this clause, that is, at line 22, these words—and perhaps I may read it as a whole so that the sense of it will emerge:
"… a highway authority may acquire land compulsorily or by agreement for the purpose of mitigating any adverse effect which the existence or use of a highway constructed or improved by them, or proposed to be constructed or improved by them, has or will have on the surroundings of the highway."
Then the Amendment adds:
"or for improving the appearance of the highway and its surroundings and the enjoyment thereof by the public at large".
I hope the Amendment speaks for itself.
Strangely enough, those words which we seek to add by this Amendment are reproduced in substance in the next clause of the Bill; namely, Clause 22(3), and I understand that these words, which I am about to quote, were inserted in the Bill when it was going through another place. It is provided there that:
"A highway authority may develop or redevelop any land acquired by them under Section 21 above"—
that is the clause which allows for the compulsory acquisition of land—
"or any other land belonging to them, for the purpose of improving the surroundings of a highway in any manner which they think desirable by reason of its construction, improvement, existence or use."
204
There we have provision made whereby once a highway authority have acquired land under Clause 21 they can then take action not only to mitigate any adverse effect upon the surroundings but also to improve the surroundings of the highway for the benefit of the highway.
It might be that at first glance that really meets our point, but I suggest it does not, for two reasons. The first is that those words allow a highway authority to do works on surrounding land for the purpose of improving the highway and the surroundings of the highway, but only after they have acquired it under the terms of Clause 21. Therefore, before they can do such works for the improvement of the surroundings of the highway they have to justify the acquisition of the land in the first place for the purpose of mitigating the adverse effects on the surroundings. Therefore they might find themselves in this situation that they cannot implement subsection (3) because they cannot acquire the land and they have no justification for acquiring it.
The second reason why I suggest that subsection (3) does not give us a remedy for the grievance which I am speaking about is that the words enable the highway authority to do such works only on land that they have already acquired. It does not permit them to acquire land for the purpose of improving the surrounding land. I notice that the Minister is nodding his head, and I dare say he will agree with me that subsection (3) does not cure the defects to which I have been drawing attention. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister can tell us about this and what assurances he can give. I beg to move.
5.48 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for moving this Amendment because it gives me an opportunity of expounding the Government's view on the whole business as well as dealing with particular technical matters raised by his Amendment. I think it might be convenient if, in speaking to this Amendment, I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 because they are all related to the same general objective which I think we all share, which is that when we are constructing these new roads, and particularly major new roads in the countryside, everything possible should be done to make the

205
very best use of the entire opportunity, and as the noble Lord is a distinguished member of one of our National Park bodies we might perhaps have a National Park in mind, and the situation where my own Department, being responsible for a trunk road, is improving one in a National Park.
Here there is a major consideration to be applied, because if a road has to be improved for any reason it is important—and particularly in sensitive countryside—that it is done in the best possible way and that all considerations are taken into account, including the enjoyment of the public who are in the park to see its beauties; the necessity to provide for the traffic and the opportunity to make provision on the road for picnic sites, and so on. All these factors come into play and I believe everybody will share the noble Lord's wish that everything possible should be done to make the road fit into its surroundings well, to make it beautiful and to enable those who are travelling along it to enjoy the view, and also to make provision (where appropriate) for them to stop to picnic or to admire the view in a more leisurely way. But rather than give all these functions, some of which are not appropriate, to a highway authority and to the highway authority that is doing this work, the important thing is to make sure that each particular authority involved has the necessary powers to do those particular pieces of work, planning, and management which are appropriate to it.
Here, in a Bill to do with land compensation, we are concerned with what a highway authority needs in addition to its already existing powers to fulfil the Short Title of the Bill, which in this Part is
"provides for the acquisition of land, the execution of works by public authorities for mitigating the adverse effect of certain public works on their surroundings".
That is the purpose of this Bill. Highway authorities have other functions and the provision of a picnic site, for instance, would be carried out under powers under the Highways Act of 1971. The acquisition of further pieces of land outside the envelope of the road is, I submit to the Committee, a job which may well need to be done, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is perfectly right about that; but it is not appropriate to the highway
206
authority in every case, and particularly not if the land in question is not contiguous to the road. But planning authorities have powers under Section 112 of the planning Act of 1971 to acquire land for the improvement of the surroundings of the highway and it is the local authority in that capacity which should use those powers for this purpose.
In the case of a trunk road through a National Park there will also be other authorities involved. There will be my Department constructing the road; the highway authority of the county in question, responsible perhaps for alterations to highways below trunk road status connecting with it; and functions for the National Park authority acting as the planning authority in the area. But I do not think that because of the necessity to deal with this whole business of the improvement of a trunk road through a National Park it is right to blur the responsibilities of the particular authorities in the way in which the noble Lord is suggesting.
There is a great deal more that could be said on the details of this matter, but that is the broad proposition: that the powers to do what he is seeking to do are not conferred in this Bill and in this clause because we are dealing with the narrower business set out in the Short Title of the Bill. I confirm that what he is seeking to do is provided for by powers that are already available. As I say, it would be possible to deal with his point more extensively if the Committee wished me to do so, but perhaps I could sit down having given that broad and general assurance and see what members of the Committee feel about it.
LORD FOOT: May I ask the Minister one question arising from that reply? I do not want to trouble him to give me chapter and verse for what he has told me and told the Committee about the powers of planning authorities, and so on, to undertake this sort of acquisition; but may I ask him, where a planning authority or a local authority—whoever it may be—acquires land contiguous to or adjacent to or surrounding a highway for the purpose of improving the highway itself, whether it would not be appropriate to have something in this Bill, which is a Bill dealing with compensation, to enable the local authority or the plan-

207
ning authority to pay compensation? Surely that is something which would be appropriate to this particular Bill.
My experience in the Dartmoor National Park Committee is that the resources that we have available for paying compensation for this sort of thing are almost non-existent. I do not know of any powers that we have to pay out compensation upon any substantial scale such as would be involved, for example, in the making of a new road through a National Park, or indeed through the countryside. Could the Minister give me some reassurance about that without my asking for the details of the different enactments under which this situation could be met?
LORD SANDFORD: I can probably do that. First of all, I want to refer to Clause 23 in the Bill, which gives highway authorities the power to enter into agreements for restricting or regulating the use of land and specifies that any such agreement
"may, in particular, make provision for the planting and maintenance of trees, shrubs or plants …"
That is the most economic way of doing what the noble Lord is suggesting because it does not involve the acquisition of the land, and in view of that it is not likely that compulsory powers will be needed. It would be going too far, and certainly too far within the terms of this Bill, to give highway authorities compulsory powers to acquire land to provide cosmetic treatment to highways, either in towns or in the countryside, to facilitate enhancement, whereas it is appropriate in this Bill to give them powers to acquire land, if necessary by compulsion, in order to mitigate their adverse effects.
There is one particular case in Clause 23 where there is power to enter into agreements, not necessarily to acquire the land but to use land for mitigating the adverse effects of roads by such things as planting trees and shrubs, which is what I think the noble Lord had in mind. But it would be going too far in this Bill to confer additional powers on highway authorities to acquire land by compulsion to make the sort of improvements about which he is talking. That is not to say that I do not think these improvements are desirable, and not to say that
208
I do not think they can be secured by agreement under Clause 23 or, if need be, by compulsion in the exercise of planning powers.
LORD FOOT: I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for that explanation, and unless anyone else wants to say anything about it, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.58 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: May I ask the Minister one question on something about which I am a little uncertain? Clause 21(4), which deals with the exchange of land, begins:
"Where under the powers of this section a highway authority have acquired, or propose to acquire, land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment …"
Should that read:
"… part of a common, open space or fuel allotment or field garden allotment"?
I do not quite follow this. I seem to have heard the expression "a fuel allotment", but I am not quite certain that I have heard the expression "a field garden allotment". Is there possibly an error there? Would the Minister be so kind as to say whether he would look at it? I am sure that it is capable of some simple explanation which I am afraid has by-passed me.
LORD SANDFORD: I shall hazard an explanation, subject to correction, and if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord immediately. I think that all this phrase is designed to do is to distinguish, for the purposes of clarity and to avoid any doubt, between a fuel allotment and a field, an ordinary garden allotment. I think that that is the only reason. I do not think that there is anything wrong with the clause as it stands. I agree that it is rather unusual phrasing because one usually talks about ordinary garden allotments and there is no necessity to make the distinction.
LORD STOW HILL: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD HUGHES: As the noble Lord has given an explanation which appears to have satisfied my noble and learned

209
friend, could he satisfy my other noble friend Lord Garnsworthy and myself and tell us what is a fuel allotment?
LORD SANDFORD: It is just an allotment which one keeps for the purposes of fuel—wood.
LORD HUGHES: That is a peculiar reason for getting an allotment.
LORD SANDFORD: There are all sorts of reasons. One can also keep livestock on allotments. But the one we most commonly see is the allotment where one grows flowers and vegetables.
LORD RAGLAN: May I ask one question, of which I am afraid I have not given the Minister prior notice? It is connected with the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, but it is not exactly relevant to his Amendment. There are a number of cases where, in the making of highways, the contractors need more earth fill than can be obtained by cutting out in the next section, and, therefore, they have to use what are known as borrow pits. They have, therefore, as the legislation stands at the moment, to enter into negotiations with neighbouring farmers. In an instance which I know of they conducted a kind of auction—I do not know whether Dutch or otherwise—between various farmers as to who could supply fill, earth, that is, at the cheapest price. In this case that I know of, and think I know of others as well, it ended with quite a good deal for the farmer concerned. On the other hand, it ended also with a very adverse effect on the scenery, because a great hole was carved in the side of the hill and the hill does not look as well now as it did previously.
Also it seems to me that the public purse could sometimes be saved. If, when the highway authority are designing a road, they could compulsorily acquire a certain area of land, a suitable place to be used as a borrow pit, they could go to the contractor and say: "This is where you must take your fill from. This is the best place; and you can have it at a certain price", thereby the price of the contract would be diminished. May I ask the Minister whether under this Clause 21 the highway authority would have power to designate a certain area of land from which contractors may take their fill?
LORD SANDFORD: Certainly the noble Lord has a good point here, but, as with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, it is not met in this particular Bill. The opening up of a borrow pit, and the winning and working of aggregate for that kind of purpose, does require planning permission; so the control over the damage this operation might do to the environment is exercised in that way. But we have by administrative means gone one stage further. We now have this practice. The last time that I am aware that we exercised it was in the construction of the M.62. There the contract went out to tender on the basis that the tenderers had to submit tenders for collecting the material they needed for fill from, in this case, a particular derelict site which needed to be cleared. You got two tenders, one based on getting the material from the cheapest source for which planning permission could be got, and the other for collecting it from an area where it might be more expensive but there would be greater environmental gain. Wherever practical, this is the way we proceed.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Execution of works in connection with highways]:
6.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: This is a small probing Amendment. It is really to ask whether there is a definition of the words "develop" or "redevelop" and whether these words would give the highway authority power to alter or improve property. It has been suggested that there may be cases where the highway authority acquire land which includes possibly blighted property, blighted houses, and they will find that they do not have the power to improve that blighted property. As I say, this is only a probing Amendment. Perhaps my noble friend could advise us what the answer is. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 33, after ("redevelop") insert ("alter or improve").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to respond to this, and I would confirm that the word "redevelop" does embrace the words "alter or improve" so that the

211
Amendment is not, strictly speaking, necessary. The power to develop or redevelop the remaining land acquired under Clause 21 and left over after mitigating adverse environmental effects, and to deal similarly with any other land owned by the highway authority, would cover the purpose of the Amendment. But once again I would confirm that that redevelopment by a highway authority would be subject to the ordinary controls of the planning authority.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.7 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 21, line 37, at end insert—
("(4) A highway authority may enter upon land and carry out works thereon either compulsorily or by agreement for the purpose of improving the appearance and surroundings of a highway constructed or improved by them or proposed to be constructed or improved by them.")
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to draw attention to a small practical problem upon which I should like to hear from the Minister. May we assume that a housing authority, in laying out a highway, have taken advantage of the powers conferred upon them under Section 21—that is to say, that they have seen fit in building the highway to acquire some surrounding land in order to mitigate the adverse effects of the construction of the highway on the surrounding land? Then let us assume that they have paid proper compensation to the owner of the land and have carried out works in order to mitigate the adverse effects. And then let us assume they are left with ownership of that piece of land not forming part of the highway.
They may have no useful purpose to which they can put it—that is, the highway authority, the local authority or anybody else; they may not have the facilities to manage the piece of land, but they have got it. The original owner may not wish to reacquire it because of the alterations made to it, and there may be nobody else interested in acquiring it. The purpose of this Amendment is to
212
try to meet that practical problem. What is suggested here is that there should be an additional subsection to provide:
"A highway authority may enter upon land …"—
not acquire it, but enter upon land—
"… and carry out works thereon either compulsorily or by agreement for the purpose of improving the appearance and surrounding of a highway constructed or improved by them or proposed to be constructed or improved by them."
The effect of that would be that they would not have to acquire the land. They could, compulsorily or by agreement, enter upon the land and the ownership of it would remain with the original owner. He, of course, we foresee, would be paid proper compensation.
The Minister may say it is going a bit far to empower a highway authority compulsorily to enter upon a man's land. If he takes that view I would be prepared to withdraw a step and say we should be satisfied if there were provision only that this could be done by agreement. It would be of some advantage if there were power to enter into negotiations with the owner to see that suitable works could be done which did not involve acquisition of the land by the authority. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: Once again we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that it is desirable that something like this could be done if need be; a similar point was raised in another place, I think on the inspiration of the Greater London Council. My right honourable and honourable friends there indicated their sympathy with it, and undertook to consider putting down an Amendment. But when we went into the matter we found that it was not really necessary, because something very close to the powers for which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is asking are already there. We take the view, as he suspected, that it would not be right to go quite so far as to give powers to a highway authority to acquire land compulsorily in order to provide for these cosmetic works; it would also go beyond the scope of the clause if we enabled improvements to be made by the conferring of such powers. We agree with the noble Lord that giving powers, if necessary by compulsion, to acquire a right over land instead of title to it would be quite proper, but an Amendment is not needed

213
because it transpires that Section 47 of the Highways Act 1971 does exactly that, and highway authorities can agree with frontagers the right to carry out tidying works of the sort envisaged. In cases where the owner is not known, compulsory powers could also be used.
Use of these powers has been limited administratively in the past, and a distinction has been drawn between prevention or reduction of damage to local amenity and enhancement. In line with the spirit of the White Paper, as carried forward in the Bill, the carrying out of cosmetic works made necessary by the construction or improvement of a highway—whether by use of compulsory powers or by agreement—will be appropriate to the Department's own schemes and will be eligible for specific grant on local authority principal road schemes. So I think I can say that the noble Lord's point is almost entirely met, in a different way from what he intended but just as satisfactorily.
LORD FOOT: I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and I shall of course to-night study the Highways Act to see exactly what it says. I do not know whether he can tell me off-hand whether the Highways Act specifically authorised and empowered a highway authority to enter upon land and do works simply for the purpose of mitigating the adverse effects of the highway upon surrounding land. The noble Lord may not be able to tell me that off-hand, but that is what I am immediately concerned about.
LORD SANDFORD: If the noble Lord will be studying the Highways Acts in detail, I ought to be a little more comprehensive. The sections concerned are Section 214(8) of the Highways Act 1959, and Section 47 of the Highways Act 1971.
LORD FOOT: That is my latest law tutorial and I am very much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Agreements as to use of land near highways]:
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 21, line 45, after ("for") insert ("the carrying out or contribution to the carrying
214
out of works for restoring and improving the appearance of such land including").
The noble Earl said: The Committee will be aware that Clause 23 gives powers to a highway authority to enter into agreements—such as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred to earlier—with owners of land adjoining highways, in order to landscape and plant trees and generally lo improve the appearance. The purpose of this Amendment is really to explore with my noble friend whether the present drafting of this clause is a little narrow, and to ask whether it would cover a contribution to maintenance and planting. I shall be grateful if my noble friend can say whether a highway authority would have power to make a contribution not only to buildings but to general improvements, as well as to the planting of trees. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I really cannot say more than I have said to almost all of the Amendments in this Part so far. We believe we have gone far enough in conferring additional powers on highway authorities to meet the purposes of the Bill, which are to provide for the acquisition of land and the execution of works by public authorities and for mitigating the adverse effect of certain public works upon surroundings. I hoped I had shown that the very laudable and worthwhile purposes, which we all recognise need to be met, can be met under other legislation conferring other powers on highway authorities, or on other authorities who will need to work in concert with them. But for the reasons that I have given, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the fairly wide extension of the powers of highway authorities under this Bill, which my noble friend's Amendment would confer. I hope that with the explanations that I have already given, to which I cannot add, he will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I certainly do not feel it necessary to press the Amendment. In fact, all I am doing is asking for a little information. I know that everyone welcomes these new powers, but what is a little unclear is exactly how far they go. My question is whether, under this clause, highway authorities will be allowed to offer a contribution to adjoining owners.
LORD SANDFORD: I do not think I can go beyond what is stated in Clause

215
23(1). That gives them powers to enter into an agreement for regulating the use of the land, and it makes provision for the planting and maintenance of trees. Any agreement which serves those purposes falls within the powers conferred.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: So one can assume that a highway authority would have power to offer a contribution to an adjoining owner?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes. But that does not mean that I can accept the Amendment, because it goes a long way beyond the terms of the clause as drafted. But provided that the agreement and any financial arrangements under it fit in with the clause as drafted. I can give my noble friend the assurance for which he is asking.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for my noble friend's clarification, and I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 26 insert the following new clause:
Power to pay expenses of persons moving temporarily during construction works etc.
("Expenses of persons moving temporarily during construction works etc.
—(1) This section has effect where works are carried out—

(a) by a highway authority for the construction or improvement of a highway; or

(b) by a responsible authority for the construction or alteration of any public works other than a highway,

and the carrying out of those works affects the enjoyment of a dwelling adjacent to the site on which they are being carried out to such an extent that continued occupation of the dwelling is not reasonably practicable.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3) below, the highway authority or responsible authority, as the case may be, may pay any reasonable expenses incurred by the occupier of the dwelling in providing suitable alternative residential accommodation for himself and members of his household for the whole or any part of the period during which the works are being carried out.
(3) No payment shall be made to any person under this section in respect of any expenses except in pursuance of an agreement made between that person and the authority concerned before the expenses are incurred: and
216
no payment shall be so made except in respect of the amount by which the expenses exceed those which that person would have incurred if the dwelling had continued to be occupied.
(4) In this section "public works" and responsible authority" have the same meaning in section 1 above."
The noble Lord said: This new clause will provide a discretionary power, which hope the Committee will welcome, for highway authorities and other responsible authorities to pay to the occupants of dwellings, which are seriously but temporarily affected by the carrying out of highway or other public works, those reasonable expenses incurred in providing themselves with temporary alternative accommodation. It fulfills an undertaking given, when this matter was discussed in another place, by my honourable friend Mr. Eldon Griffiths.
The intention is to deal with those cases where the effects of the carrying out of the works are so serious as to cause physical hardship such as to make the continued occupation of the dwelling unreasonable in the short term. Clauses 21(2)(a) and 25(2)(a) provide powers for the authorities concerned to acquire land by agreement where the enjoyment is seriously affected by the carrying out of the works over a longer term. Entitlement under the subsection is limited to the occupiers of dwellings, since these will be the vast majority of the hardship cases involved. The restriction to "adjacent to the site of the works" follows broadly the line adopted on sound insulation, where entitlement is related to the use of the new highway or other public works. There is a good deal more that could be said on this new clause, and if any Member of the Committee wants to draw me further I shall be happy to expand on it, but I think that what I have said indicates well enough the broad intention; and, on the whole, the rest of the clause speaks for itself. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: This is one of the occasions on which one could have wished that there had been more time to consider the numerous Amendments submitted by the Government. As I understood the noble Lord, he used the term "discretionary power", and I notice that subsection (2) says that the highway authority "may pay". I want to ask the noble Lord whether this means what he said, that it is a discretionary power,

217
and whether the highway authority can please itself. I think this is a matter of some considerable importance. I should have thought that to say that the highway authority "shall pay" would be better than "may pay". That is a matter to which we may want to return at Report stage unless the noble Lord is able to satisfy us on that point. It seems to me that when a person living in a house has to move out because, as a result of the work which has been undertaken, living in the premises has become unendurable, not merely ought there to be no question of an opportunity to make a claim but, it seems to me, there ought quite clearly to be the right to have a claim met when it has been established.
It seems to me that the proposed clause, the principle of which I welcome, certainly improves the Bill, but it does not strike me as being generous if the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, bear the meaning that they usually do. In addition to that, I think we ought not to underestimate the considerable difficulties that can arise when people have to move out. There is the very big problem of finding suitable alternative accommodation, and there is a point, I think, at which people have a right to expect that the alternative accommodation will provide comparable amenities. If in point of fact they are going to have to endure hardship because the alternative accommodation is lacking in amenities which their own house provided, surely there ought to be some recognition of that.
There are all sorts of things involved here. There is the question of fuel use, as to whether more fuel is required. How long will it take before claims for these things can be dealt with? It seems to me that if a family is living very much on a hand-to-mouth basis there is need for speed in deciding how it should be treated financially. I have the feeling that the new clause as drafted is probably rather tighter than it ought to be if undeserved hardship is to be avoided. It may well be that the noble Lord, having offered to give more information, will be able to satisfy us on the points that I have raised.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not think that what he has said really requires me to
218
expound the clause itself in any more detail, but to make a rather different point. Of course, if the rights of private individuals affected in this kind of way were met, protected and safeguarded only by this clause standing on its own, it would be quite inadequate, and the mere power of discretion would be totally insufficient. But this has been introduced as providing for the authorities concerned an alternative to, for instance, outright acquisition. It may be that the circumstances are such that it is quite impossible for the occupier to stay in the house over a period of two or three weeks while some particular constructional operation is going on, but that if that particular three weeks could be bridged he would be glad to go back, the highway authority would be quite happy to get him back and the particular reason for his having to move out would have passed. But without this clause the highway authority, willing as it might be, and the occupier, willing as he might be, would not be able to come to terms in this fashion. That is why the discretion has been introduced. I think that, looking at it in that context and against that background, there are other rights on the owner-occupier and there are other powers available to the highway authority which could meet the case as well; this additional discretion is desirable and not ungenerous. I would certainly confirm that it enables the highway authority concerned and the owner-occupier affected to come to an agreement which will lead to the owner-occupier knowing the terms under which he is going to be recompensed before he incurs any additional expense.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. We shall look very carefully at what he has had to say. I think I understand what he has said, but perhaps I ought to reserve the position and say that we shall study his remarks very carefully and, if need be, come back to this matter. Perhaps he himself will look at whether the word "shall" might be substituted for "may" in the second line of subsection (2). I appreciate, on the basis of what he has just said, that he probably thinks it is not at all necessary, but no harm will be done if this matter is looked at again. I think I can say that this has been almost sprung on us rather suddenly. It has

219
been quite a business, preparing for the Committee stage of this Bill; but I am grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation he has just given.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Right to home loss payment where person displaced from dwelling]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 27 I have to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that if Amendment No. 27 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 28 or 29.
6.30 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 25, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I think it may meet the general convenience of the Committee if, in speaking to Amendment No. 27, I were to cover Amendment No. 28, although I appreciate the position that the noble Baroness, the Deputy Chairman, has just mentioned. Clause 27 provides for the making of payments to persons displaced from dwellings in consequence of compulsory acquisition and of the making, passing or acceptance of certain orders or undertakings under the Housing Acts; and the persons entitled are those who have been in occupation for not less than five years.
Amendment No. 27 is tabled with a view to giving the Minister an opportunity of telling us why any time limit at all for a home loss payment is included in the Bill. If the aim is to prevent speculators from moving in and benefiting, that is quite an interesting situation. I think the Committee generally would welcome that. But if that is the case, then cannot the Government with all the array of legal talent that they have, find a better solution? I think it is quite fair to put that to the noble Lord, in view of the fact that not long ago we on this side were told that the way to deal with the problem was not the way we were suggesting but that we might apply our minds to finding an alternative method of dealing with it. If the aim of the Government is merely to prevent the kind of speculation I have mentioned, it would seem to me, speaking as a layman,
220
that they could find some way of going about it other than to have the clause worded as it is at present.
At what point does one establish a home? How many years does it take to establish a home? What period of time? Does it really take five years?—because when the Bill was before another place originally it was seven years. It was in response to considerable pressure that the Minister reduced the period to live years. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will know that there was a very considerable demand in the other place that the period should be less than the five years that is now included in the Bill. I welcome the provision for compensation generally, as I appreciate that the Government have reduced the period of occupation when a person shall have been in residence as set out in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b), as I have said, from seven to five years as the qualifying period for establishing a right to claim.
I do not think that the Government have come up with the right answer. I think they could have accepted that genuine, bona fide residence of any length justified a claim. But if the Government are unwilling to accept the justice of that approach then I ask them to accept that three years is long enough to meet all their requirements to establish claims in good faith and based on acceptable terms. It is a concession that I think the Government could well make and I am persuaded that it would be welcomed in all quarters. I am prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 27 if the Minister is able to indicate that Amendment No. 28 is acceptable. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee and would save a little time if I now spoke to Amendment No. 29 which is in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Henley, and myself, and which is the same in principle as this one. Indeed, the three Amendments are variations on the same theme. They imply that the period of occupation before a person is entitled to home loss payment should be less than five years. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be good enough to comment on my Amendment when replying to this one.

221
There is very little doubt that this Bill was conceived with the best intentions but, due to a long period of gestation and many Amendments in another place, I feel that parts of it have become slightly muddled and there seems to have developed a certain confusion between the intention and the Bill as amended so far. I think that criticism applies to this clause in particular. I think it is important that we should agree the principle behind the home loss payment. Is it a consolation payment for the grief incurred at losing one's home, or is it to be regarded more as a quantified payment for disturbance? The White Paper states that when people's homes are acquired for public developments, the occupiers who are obliged to uproot themselves suffer personal upset, discomfort and inconvenience. From that, I would interpret that the payment is to be one for consolation for grief—in which case I cannot see why the distress should be that much greater after five years than after two or three years. One can envisage cases where a great deal of work has been put into improving the house and garden in the first year and where there has been all the expenditure on the original fittings, furniture and carpets. Acquisition in the third year would mean that the occupier had hardly had any time to enjoy the fruits of his labour. In this case it would be more of a burden for him then than it might be if after five years he was going to decide to move house anyway. As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, reminded us, the qualifying residence period was reduced in another place from seven to five years. It seems to me both logical and equitable that the period should be further reduced.
LORD MIDDLETON: I share the noble Viscount's doubts about just what it is that the home loser is being compensated for. Home loss was described in the White Paper which preceded the Bill as a mark of recognition of the special hardship of compulsory dispossession from a house. As such it is to be welcomed. There may be financial hardship; there almost invariably is. I think that this is a more practical way of looking at the matter than to treat this form of compensation, as did the Minister in the other place, as an attempt to compensate for feelings of loss and grief by the home owner who is turned out, or as compensation for what the noble Lord,
222
Lord Sandford, described during the Second Reading debate as "distress" because you have to move from your home.
Whether the special hardship be material or mental, why should it be any less in a period under five years from the date of occupation? There may be cases where a person becomes the owner of a house because it is near his work or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, mentioned, cases where the owner has had to provide furnishings and fittings necessary for that particular house. The hardship for these owners may be all the greater through dispossession after a short period. The Government have already recognised this to some extent by reducing the period from seven years to five years. I accept that there may be a minimum period of two years necessary in order to avoid attracting speculators, but I would support any Amendment to reduce this qualifying period to three years or to two years.
LORD STOW HILL: May I just contribute one short point? The justification for a qualifying period has been that speculators must be kept out. With that we would all agree. How realistic is the risk of speculators when you bear in mind that under subsection (2) there is not only the time qualification but also the qualification requiring the occupier of the house to have been in occupation by virtue of an interest or a right to which the subsection applies? If one then looks to see what is the interest or right, one finds that set out in subsection (4) under four subheadings. There must be either an interest in the dwelling (I suppose a leasehold or a freehold interest) or there must be a right to occupy as a statutory tenant under the Rent Act 1968 (and that is a right which is difficult to acquire) or there must be a similar right under Scottish legislation. Finally, there must be a right of occupation of the dwelling under a contract of employment.
The submission I would put to the Committee is this. The requirement that the person in the house must be able to show that he is occupying it by virtue of one of those interests or rights to which I have referred would, in the vast majority of cases, make it extremely difficult for the speculator to put himself in possession

223
of the house. The quantum of the payment is set out in Clause 28. It is either seven times the rateable value, if the displacement is before April, 1973, or three times if it is after 1973, subject to the £1,500 maximum and the £150 minimum figures. I submit that in those circumstances very few speculators are going to be able, or think it worth their while, to go through the prolonged process—as it may well be in many cases—of qualifying in the sense of possessing themselves of the relevant interest or right.
I advance that argument in support of those already advanced by noble Lords. I submit that the reasonable thing would be to say that there should be no qualifying period at all, or that it should be not more than three or—if I may say so to the noble Viscount—two years or even one year. I do not want to repeat arguments already used, but surely it is the common experience of the vast majority of respectable people—I hope we may consider ourselves a respectable community—that before you move into a house you incur a great deal of expense. You may have had to wait a long time before getting the house. It is the house of your choice, and the crux of the history is when you first go into it; when the lady of the house proceeded to alter the curtains, the carpets and all the rest of it. That is when the expense is incurred, and that is the time by which the solemn and firm resolution of the household has been taken that that is where they want to live. I submit that in those circumstances, even if there were no qualifying period at all, there would be very little abuse and it would be much fairer to the dozens of households where there are perfectly respectable people who are happy in their home and who suddenly find that they have to go. I hope the Minister will be able to withdraw the qualifying period altogether, or in the alternative substantially to reduce it either to three or two years, or even less.
LORD SANDFORD: No one would be happier than I or any of my colleagues if one could be as generous as everyone would wish on occasions like this. But the fact is that one has a certain finite amount of resources and money available to underpin Bills and
224
enactments of this kind and make good this kind of compensation. The question is what to do in order to ensure that what is available goes to the people who deserve it and need help most. That is what we have been trying to do.
I think it would be helpful, as my noble friend Lord Davidson suggested, if I were to speak, as we have been doing, to the three Amendments that bear upon this together—Amendments Nos. 27. 28 and 29—because the arguments that I have to put forward apply to all of them. The first thing we have to remember is that we are talking about something that is paid after the main compensation has been paid at full market value. As my noble friend Lord Davidson said, the home loss payment is a special, additional and new type of payment designed as a consolation for the personal grief of residential occupiers who are forcibly displaced from what have become their homes. Clearly, all noble Lords are right who say that it is extremely difficult to give an actual figure to the emotional attachment that people feel towards their home, created over the years within the fabric of the building. It varies greatly from one person to another; and the grief which forcible displacement causes will vary also because that moment may coincide with a whole variety of circumstances. Nevertheless, I am sure the Committee would agree that it is fair to say that, in general, a person's attachment to a particular property as his home, as distinct from the purely physical protection and comfort that it affords, takes some time to form.
What we are seeking to deal with is that which derives from having lived in a particular house for some time, or in a particular area. It is for this reason that eligibility for a home loss payment is limited to those people who have occupied their homes for a certain minimum number of years. That would be my main argument for resisting any proposal to eliminate it altogether. It is fundamental to our concept of this new provision, which is in addition to what there has been before, that there should be some cut-off point; and it is necessary as noble Lords have inferred—though this is not the main reason for it—to deter the speculator. I will come back to that in a minute. The choice of five

225
years' occupation as a qualifying period has been made to ensure that those occupiers who were likely to suffer the greatest amount of distress through being displaced from their homes would benefit, while at the same time keeping the cost within reasonable limits. As I say, the funds available for all this are not in practice limitless, much as one would wish that they were. The resources available for mitigating this grief and suffering will, if the period is kept at live years, go to those who are subjected to the greatest hardship.
Many public works take quite a time to plan and to prepare, and even with the cut-off period at five years there will be several occupiers who will have been aware at the start of their occupation that they were likely to be displaced, if necessary by compulsory acquisition, in the foreseeable future; and for whom, therefore, the personal upset on displacement will not be as great as if they had taken up occupation in expectation of remaining there until they chose to move. To reduce the qualifying condition to three years would bring in many people who knew that their period of occupation was likely to be of limited duration. Although there is nothing marginal in the choice of five years as the cut-off period, the emotional attachment to a dwelling as a home, and hence the degree of distress on displacement—however difficult it may be to quantify—is certain to be greater after five years than after only three years. I do not think any member of the Committee would quarrel with that, although we might disagree about the actual figure we should attach to it.
If it is argued—and it has been—that logically there should be no qualifying period at all, because some people form a strong attachment to their home quickly. I think I would give two answers. First, as I and other noble Lords have said, it would encourage speculators to buy property which they knew was likely to be taken for public works in the near future. Most of the property involved in schemes is slum property which is very easy to buy up, and that would be made desirable if the occupancy qualifying period were reduced to one or two years, or if there were no qualifying period at all. It has also been argued that the distress
226
from displacement is often at its most acute after the first year of occupation when all the work has been done to make the home to the taste of the occupiers. Clearly this can be so, but reversibly once again the cost of reducing the qualifying period in this way would be very high and the benefit to those who really need this new home loss payment would be correspondingly reduced if the benefit had to be spread in this way. It is chiefly in order that the funds available for this should be concentrated upon those whose grief is undoubtedly the greater because they have been in their house longer, that the Government want very much to leave the figure at five. I hope that your Lordships, after reflecting on what I have said, will see that this is where justice lies though if there were no limit to our generosity—which I am afraid in the hard practical world there is—it might well he better to dispose differently. But in the circumstances where there are limits—and I am sure all noble Lords will agree that this is the case—it is better, for the reasons I have given, to keep the figure at five and give the benefit to those who need it most and require it most. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for the care he has taken in presenting the Government's point of view. I am sure he was doing himself no less than justice when he said that nobody would be happier than he if he could be generous and accept the Amendment. Nevertheless. I have the feeling that the argument he has advanced is very little different from the one that was advanced originally in support of seven years, and I would ask him to reflect whether three years is not quite a reasonable term of years, having regard to all that he has said. I should like to express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, for what they had to say. When I moved the Amendment I did it as briefly as I could. I think they dotted the i's and crossed the t's, and certainly they reinforced the argument which I endeavoured to advance. I think the Government will be making a mistake if they underestimate the strength of feeling that exists on this matter.

227
It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Stow Hill really touched on a number of matters that were not disposed of when the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, replied. I thought he had established the fact that the situation was very thoroughly secured by all the references he made to things that are contained in other clauses in the Bill, and I would suggest that whereas Amendment No. 27 asks that there shall he no period for qualification, the Amendment to which I attach the greater importance is one that represents a compromise, a compromise that is not even cutting the figure into half. I am not going so far as his noble friends behind him: they want two years. The noble Lord keeps talking about spreading the available money more thinly. Can he tell us what limited sum is available to meet this situation? If there is a limit to the sum that can be available, is there any reason why that figure should not be exceeded? In any case, having regard to continuing inflation, is it really suggested that a figure which is laid down to-day will be adequate for all time to come? I would ask that further consideration be given to that point. I believe that acceptance of Amendment No. 28, while it would not remove all injustices, would introduce a greater area of justice and would ensure a better balance.
I hope that the Minister is not going to indicate that the Government's mind is made up and that they cannot be persuaded on this point. As I said, I am quite willing to withdraw Amendment No. 27 provided that the Government will accept Amendment No. 28. I want to make it quite clear that although I should very much like to go as far as his noble friends behind him and bring the figure down to two, in an attempt to meet the Government and to be as reasonable as possible I feel that I must press the issue of three years in substitution for five.
LORD SANDFORD: I hope the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to do that after what I have said. He asked me about the amount of money available for all this. I think I mentioned on Second Reading that through this Bill we are increasing the amount of compensation to people affected by all this in various
228
ways by about £50 million, which I should have thought was a very considerable and generous advance. Within that, it is necessary to do what is just and fair between all those who are affected, and it is this desire to arrive at a figure which is roughly just—and we cannot do more than that when we are talking about the grief and compensation for the loss of a home; we cannot put a figure on it—which dictates the choice of five years which is in the Bill at the moment as the result of a compromise arrived at in another place. So it is not as though the Government were taking a firm and inflexible position. All the arguments which have been adduced this evening were adduced before, and my right honourable friend has considered them carefully and compromised to the extent of reducing the figure to five. But when we get down to the figure of three we are coming into the situation which I described, where we shall be benefiting some people who knew that their period of occupation was likely to be of limited duration when they originally moved in, and the degree of injustice as between some people who benefit and some people who do not—some who benefit without deserving to and some people who do not benefit but do deserve to—will become much more acute.
It is for those reasons that I am resistant to any further change, but that is not to say that we approach this Committee stage or the Report stage with our minds closed; certainly not. All the things which noble Lords have said in the course of this debate will be considered and weighed once more with all that has been said and considered before on this subject. My mind is not firmly made up any more than my right honourable friend's mind is made up. It is open to persuasion by what has been said in the debate so far. What I hope the noble Lord and the Committee will agree to do is to withdraw the Amendments which have been moved to-day, in the light of the explanation I have given, and on the understanding that the matter remains for us to consider and weigh between now and the next stage: and of course it is possible for any noble Lord who wishes to return to it at the next stage to do so. If the noble Lord does press the Amendment now, I shall have to invite the Committee to resist it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said. There are one or two points that I should like to raise. First of all, with regard to the offer that he made, I should like to think about it if he can say he will lot me know well in advance of the Report stage what the decision is so that there can be ample time to do so. I have heard assurances such as the noble Lord has given on other occasions, and although they are given in good faith there is really no firm undertaking that we can expect an Amendment from the Government. The noble Lord spoke of the £70 million available as though that were a limited sum of money. Maybe somewhere I ought to have picked it up, but there was no reference to the time schedule. What does £70 million mean in terms of time? I think that is important.
The noble Lord laid great stress on people taking up occupation knowing that houses were going to be acquired. I did not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I should have liked to deal with people who wait seven years, five years or three years to get into a house, and after years and years of searching and waiting they find somewhere that they think is going to provide them with a home. I wonder whether that has been balanced? I wonder whether due consideration has been given to the grief that is going to be caused when those people lose their homes? I think the term of three years, although of course not completely satisfactory, is much more satisfactory. I cannot believe that the amount of money involved is so much that the Government need to be firm on this issue.
LORD SANDFORD: I was not resting my case entirely on the absence of funds, though I was making the point that £70 million per annum is a substantial addition across the board for compensation of this kind. I was deriving the figure broadly from page viii of the Explanatory Memorandum, which has been subject to one or two minor adjustments of the kind that I announced on Second Reading. The second leg of my case is that whatever the amount—and it is conceivable that it could be marginally increased this is a period of time which is also more just than the shorter period of three years, in that it applies the resources that are available for making good the damage, if it is the figure I have spoken of or a little
230
more, more fairly between those who deserve to receive this compensation and those who, because their attachment is less and not so strong, deserve it less. It is, I think, a fair figure.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Is the noble Lord giving me an assurance that I will know in ample time before the Report stage?
LORD SANDFORD: I apologise to the noble Lord. I will certainly undertake to let him know as soon as we have reached our conclusions on the reconsideration of this in the light of what has been said.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I asked the question about £70 million because, as he will appreciate when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, he gave no time for it, and I think it is as well that we have it clear. In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are both technical Amendments necessary to include within the scope of the clause persons displaced by an authority possessing compulsory powers by virtue of a private Act which does not involve the making of a specific compulsory purchase order. I beg to move Amendment No. 30.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 21, leave out ("coming into operation of the compulsory purchase order") and insert ("date on which the acquiring authority were authorised to acquire that interest").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 31. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to say what I should have said before, that Amendment No. 36 is linked with this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 11, leave out from ("and") to end of line 12 and insert ("the authority (if not authorised to acquire the interest compulsorily) had been so authorised on the date of the agreement.")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 26, line 20, at end insert ("and 'redevelopment' includes a change of use").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows and embodies the proposal made by the Opposition in another place. The purpose of it is to provide that, where a person is displaced from his home in consequence of the change of use of a building, after it has been acquired by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, he has the same entitlement to a home loss payment as a person displaced in consequence of redevelopment (which normally involves demolition). It is designed to cater for the situation where, for example, an authority acquires a dwelling and changes its use to, say, an office, thereby displacing its occupier. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Amount of home loss payment in England and Wales]:
7.8 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 34, leave out ("multiples") and insert ("multipliers").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON VISCOUNT DAVIDSON moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 26, line 43, after ("value") insert (",unless such rateable value shall have been reduced as a result of a proposal made to the valuation officer or of a finding of a local valuation panel under the General Rate Acts 1967 and 1970 by reason of physical factors mentioned in section 1(2) of this Act when the rateable value shall be the higher rateable value as certified by the valuation officer without regard being had to any of the physical factors (whether existing before or after the date of the coming into operation of this Act) which gave effect to such reduction of the higher rateable value").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is really a probing Amendment. The matter was raised quite briefly in Standing Committee in another place and the Minister undertook to look at it and do something about it. In fact, at columns 310 and 311 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committee A a case was quoted where
"As a result of trunk sewer works adjacent and close to people's homes, with their noise, dust and nuisance, the residents applied for a reduction in their rateable value to offset or compensate for the nuisance. Within a year or 18 months, that group of houses will be
232
the subject of a compulsory purchase order due to road development plans."
I shall expand on that in a moment. In reply, the Minister admitted that the honourable Member who had put this point had put an interesting argument, but that unfortunately he had prepared an argument against another argument, and he, the Minister, was therefore unable to give a satisfactory answer. The reason for this Amendment now is to ask the Minister to look into it more closely at this stage.
The point here is quite a narrow one and does not really concern a great number of people. I will not delay the Committee by going into details, but the cases I have in mind are of those people who have already suffered from depreciation caused to their property as a result of one or other of the nuisances covered by this Bill. They were able, under the General Rate Act 1967, Section 19, to claim a reduction in their rateable values. Now however, faced with dispossession due to further expansion of the development, they find that the home loss payment will be determined as a multiple of a rateable value which has already been reduced as a result of that same nuisance. It could of course be argued that they have already benefited on the revenue account, as it were, and cannot have it both ways. But I do not think that that argument really accords with the spirit of this Bill, and I hope therefore that the Government will give serious consideration to what I feel is an anomaly, and an unfair one at that. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, but I am not quite certain that I have fully digested the purport of his Amendment as it appeared rather late. But I can say this. There are two quite separate circumstances in rateable values affecting home loss payments. The first concerns a reduction in rateable value which is made as a result of events outside the scope of the scheme for which the dwelling in question is ultimately acquired. The factors which are taken into account in assessing rateable value are many and varied and it would be quite wrong, not to say impossible from a practical standpoint, to attempt to add on to an existing rateable value an amount which purported to make allowances for factors which resulted in the

233
rateable value being set at a level lower than it might otherwise have been. The other circumstance in which a reduction in rateable value would affect the amount of a home loss payment is where a reduction is made as a result of depreciation caused directly by the scheme for which the dwelling is ultimately to be acquired. In practice the number of occasions where this occurs are very few and far between.
To cater for them would, on practical grounds, be extremely difficult. For example, where a re-rating has been carried out the assessments will have been made in the knowledge of any scheme involving the compulsory purchase of the properties in question and the scheme will have been one of the factors taken into account in arriving at a valuation. To offset any notional reduction in the assessment which was made it would be necessary to carry out a fresh valuation of the property and in practice this would be virtually impossible. Moreover it should be remembered that the person concerned will have an element of choice in the matter. It will rest with him to judge whether to seek a reduction in his rateable value and thus pay a little less each year until he is displaced instead of receiving an undepreciated home loss payment, or whether to bear the existing cost of his rates and benefit in full from the home toss payment provision on displacement. Reductions in rateable value in the circumstances on the few occasions when they would be made would be likely to be very small and even when multiplied by three for the purpose of calculating a home loss payment they would scarcely be large. He would in any event receive not less than £150. I hope that that explanation will be sufficient for my noble friend for the time being, but, if not, we can perhaps continue the matter by correspondence.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply. It was slightly technical, and the whole problem is rather a technical one. But, as I said, this was a probing Amendment and it dealt with something that was not properly dealt with in the other place and I am glad it has been aired. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Amount of home loss payment in Scotland]:
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 21. leave out ("multiple") and insert ("multiplier").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Supplementary provisions about home loss payments]:
7.14 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 25, line 30, after ("rooms") insert ("whether or")
The noble and learned Lord said: Thi, Amendment raises a short point. Subsection (4) of Clause 30 deals with a qualifying period. It enables an occupier of a dwelling to count as part of his qualifying period a period during which he lived in another dwelling in the same building. Supposing a house is converted into flats and, say, a young family lives in one flat for a period of time then perhaps children come and the couple move down to a rather larger flat on a lower floor, or something of that kind. They are entitled by virtue of subsection (4) of Clause 30 to count as part of their qualifying period for the purpose of Clause 27(2) both periods during which they lived in the two flats. There is a restriction on that right, however, which requires that the two dwellings should not have been dwellings constructed structurally as separate dwellings.
I submit to your Lordships that that is a rather unreasonable limitation. I should have thought that the actual case that would arise over and over again is that of a Victorian house, perhaps, which has been converted into flats on each landing and the flats are given separate front doors; in other words, they are constructed as separate dwellings. If the family in question moves from one to another of those flats in the same building they could not count both periods for the purpose of their qualifying period of five years; they could, however, if they did not have separate front doors for each flat. My Amendment seeks to

235
remove the provision that if there are separate front doors they cannot count both periods. It can be said, perhaps, "Well, what do you mean by the expression ' the same building '?" It could be said that there might be the case of a large block of flats and of a family moving from one flat to another in that large block. That might be the case, but it would be the rare case. A very common case would be the case I instanced of the private dwelling-house converted into a number of flats on each floor.
I do not quite know what other difficulty could arise. It could not, I should have thought, be said that, for example, terraced houses in a single terrace formed one building; they are obviously separate buildings. They are constructed as separate curtilages. I should have thought that there could be no practical difficulty in implementing that subsection if it were amended as I seek. If any difficulty arises from the use of the word "building" and it is necessary to find some different expression to limit it to what we normally think of as a separate house, I should have thought that that was something for which skilled draftsmen could provide; and I would hope that the attempt would be made. As the subsection reads at the moment, in my submission it would exclude a number of deserving cases by accident where the lessor has thought it desirable to give each family a separate front door. I should not have thought that was the Government's intention. It would be very hard on individual cases of persons who needed this home payment and I would hope that the Government could see their way to accept this Amendment or, if they cannot accept it, to say that they will consider it with a view to finding some expression to replace the words "same building", which would exclude, say, the case of terraced houses or something of the kind where physically the bricks and mortars are juxtaposed side by side with each other. It cannot be too difficult to find some expression which is limited to what in ordinary terms we think of as a separate house.
LORD SANDFORD: Everyone will have sympathy with the noble and learned Lord's point, but, as with a number of other cases concerned with this Bill, our
236
view is that it is difficult to meet it because it is not possible or practical to draw the line firmly other than where we have drawn it. But perhaps I might just go back to the main purpose of Clause 30, and particularly subsection (4). It is to provide that where persons move from one room to another in the same house they are not on this account deprived of a home loss payment. I think that is well worth securing. The justification for the subsection is that a person who has occupied different rooms in the same house, whether furnished or unfurnished, for five years may have an attachment to the house—and after all that is what we are talking about—rather than the room that he actually occupies at the time in question. The same cannot be strictly said when the room or the rooms are self-contained. The attachment is then to that particdar unit. In that case they become, in effect, flats of one or more rooms.
If one were to admit the case which the noble and learned Lord is asking us to admit into the home loss scheme there would be no logical point left at which to draw the line, because then one would have to consider all the different flats within a block of flats, and although it sounds fairly easy at first sight to draw a line in individual buildings it is not in fact practicable to do so. It would be difficult to resist including people who have moved next door or across the street, and then by continuing this process of reasoning, people who have moved from one street to the next street, and so on.
For this reason I would invite the noble and learned Lord not to press the Amendment because it is a matter which we have looked into most carefully. We want to extend the clause in the way I indicated at the beginning, but we must find a point at which the line can be firmly drawn and held, and we believe we have got this right in the clause as it is at the moment drafted.
LORD STOW HILL: In view of what the noble Lord has said, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 39, leave out from ("and") to end of line 41 and insert ("the authority had

237
been authorised to acquire that interest before he gave up occupation of the dwelling.").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 36A:
Page 28, line 45, at end insert—
("(7) A home loss payment shall carry interest, at the rate for the time being prescribed in section 32 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 or, in Scotland section 40 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, from the date of the submission of the claim.")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment has one simple purpose, namely, to insert into this clause concerning supplementary provisions about home loss payments, that interest will be payable on home loss claims from the date of submission of the claim. This is in line with other parts of the Bill. It is in line with Part I, it is in line with farm loss payments and with disturbance payments. I submit to my noble friend that it is also in line with the fundamental principles of compensation, something to which, I have noticed this afternoon, my noble friend rightly attaches importance.
In moving this Amendment I am aware that it is laid down in subsection (3) of the clause that these payments are supposed to be made within three months, but having spoken to certain professional bodies it seems there is some doubt whether it will be practicably possible to make these payments within three months, due to such problems as proving titles and adjusting rateable values, and while it is clear that claims can be submitted it is doubtful whether they can be paid.
Again we see from a previous clause that the amount of claim is based on the rateable value and has a maximum of three times the rateable value. I understand that the maximum claim under the home loss is £3,500, and if the claims in fact take perhaps one or two years to settle, and if interest rates remain at the present level, I would suggest to my noble friend that it would be equitable that interest be payable from the date of submission of the claim. I hope my noble friend will feel that he can accept the principle of this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: The reason for the exception of the home loss payments
238
from the general provision that these compensation payments should carry interest is because the Bill requires the money to be paid within three months of the claim or the date of displacement. and I do not share my noble friend's view that it will not be practicable to meet this. Therefore in the belief that it will be practicable I would say that the amount which might be added by way of interest will be disproportionate to the administrative complications of determining how much it should actually be. I hope with my assurance that the money will be paid within the time prescribed in the Bill my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am afraid I do not agree that it is not necessary. I am sorry my noble friend cannot share the view that I tried to explain, because the evidence which I gathered was from practical people. I certainly do not intend to press this Amendment to a Division, but I shall try to collect further evidence before the next stage of the Bill, and perhaps before then I can have a discussion with my noble friend.
LORD SANDFORD: I shall be glad of that.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 30. as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
7.28 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: May I ask the Minister two short questions. The first is with regard to subsection (3). Why is the limitation included there that the occupation of the previous occupier referred to in subsection (3) should have terminated with his death? Why could his occupation not have terminated by reason of a transfer to the existing occupant? The object is to enable the qualification with regard to time of residence to be more easily fulfilled. Supposing there is a family with the father and son, and for a period the father lives in the particular premises as the owner or lessee of them; the son lives with the father and then, in the course of time, without the father dying he simply transfers the property to his son,

239
either by assigning the lease or conveying the house. Why should not both of those periods be aggregated, even though the father has not died? It seems to me to be an unnecessary limitation which again imposes an obstacle in the way of the displaced occupier being able to show that he has qualified for the existing five years.
The second point is with regard to subsection (6). What is the time, going backwards, for which a displacement qualifies? Supposing there were a displacement 10 years before this Act comes into force; then, as I read it, so long as the claim is made in the period of six months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, and although the displacement may have been 10 or 15 years before, the claim qualifies. Is that intended? Looking backwards, there is no time limit that I can see within which the displacement must have occurred. I shall be grateful if the Minister will enlighten me.
LORD SANDFORD: I shall try, but if I am not successful with this shot, we can perhaps continue in correspondence. I shall deal with the last point first. Subsection (6) is a transitional provision to cover the case where someone is displaced from his home between October 17, 1972, and the date of the enactment of this Bill and it provides that in these circumstances a claim has to be made within six months of the enactment. That corresponds to the six months' claim period in subsection (1).
Dealing with the other case, subsection (3) provides that where a person has been in occupation of a dwelling, or a substantial part of it, as his only or main residence for a period of not less than five years ending with the date of displacement, then provided (a) that he occupied it immediately preceding the date of displacement by virtue of a qualifying interest, even though he had not possessed such an interest or right throughout the five years, (b) that another person held a continuing qualifying interest or a right and had occupied the dwelling as his only or main residence, and his occupation ended with his death, and (c) that the total period for which the deceased person held that qualifying interest or right together with
240
the period for which the displaced person held a qualifying interest or right is five years or more, then the displaced person will be entitled to claim a home loss benefit. The cases where this might apply would be where a husband and wife or unrelated companions lived together in their home for, say, twenty years and the husband or companion in whose name the property was held died leaving the property to his wife or the surviving companion. If the wife's or companion's interest in the property was for less than the five years qualifying period, they would, by virtue of the period of residence in the home, qualify for a payment. I hope that has met the noble and learned Lord's point, but if it has not then I should be glad to write to him further on either of the two points.
LORD STOW HILL: I shall be very grateful if the Minister will write to me.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
7.32 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 30 insert the following new clause:
Home loss payments for certain caravan dwellers
".—(1) Sections 27 to 30 above shall, so far as applicable, have effect in relation to a person residing in a caravan on a caravan site who is displaced from that site as they have effect in relation to a person displaced from a dwelling on any land but shall so have effect subject to the following modifications.
(2) No home loss payment shall be made to any person by virtue of this section except where no suitable alternative site for stationing a caravan is available to him on reasonable terms.
(3) Section 27(2) above shall have effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted—

"(a) he has been in occupation of the caravan site by using a caravan stationed on it as his only or main residence; and

(b) he has been in occupation of the site as aforesaid by virtue of an interest or right to which this section applies."

(4) Sections 28(3) and 29(3) above shall have effect as if—

(a) paragraphs (b) were omitted; and

(b) in paragraphs (a) and (c) for the word "dwelling" there were substituted the words "caravan site together with a caravan".

(5) Section 30 above shall have effect as if for subsection (4) there we substituted—
"(4) Where any land comprises two or more caravan sites and the claimant has been

241
successively in occupation of different caravan sites on that land, section 27(2) and subsection (3) above shall have effect as if those sites were the same site."
(6) Sections 27 to 30 above shall have effect as if in any provision not modified as aforesaid for any reference to a dwelling or land there were substituted a reference to a caravan site.
(7) In this section "caravan site" means land on which a caravan is stationed for the purpose of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, the insertion of a new clause. This new clause follows an undertaking given at the Report stage in another place to include within the home loss payments schemes people displaced from residential caravans on permanent caravan sites. The conditions of eligibility for caravan occupiers are the same as for occupiers of traditionally built dwellings, modified only where necessary to take account of the mobile nature of caravans.
The purpose of the home loss payments scheme is to provide a financial consolation to occupiers of dwellings in which they have a specified interest or right when they are forcibly displaced provided that they have occupied the dwelling for a period of five years or more. To the occupier, a residential caravan is as much his home as is a traditionally built dwelling to any other occupier, and the personal grief and upset suffered when his caravan site is acquired and he is forced to dispose of his caravan may be just as acute. The main difference between someone in a caravan whose site is acquired and, say, the tenant of a house, is that if an alternative site is available the caravanner can take his home with him on displacement. He does not therefore lose his home as such, and for this reason the new clause specifically excludes him from an entitlement to a home loss payment if a suitable alternative site is available to him on reasonable terms. That is subsection (2). I do not think that there is any need for me to go more fully into the various subsections which I hope speak for themselves. I beg to move.
LORD AVEBURY: I am sorry to have to criticise this new clause which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has brought forward in response to the undertaking given in
242
another place. I entirely applaud the objectives that caravan residents should be treated on an equal footing with those who live in traditional houses. But first of all this clause is defective, and secondly it does not go far enough.
May I deal with the technical points and the defects which I see in this clause? They centre on the definition of a "caravan site" which is given in subsection (7) and which repeats the definition given in Section 1(4) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is well aware, having been immersed in these problems for some considerable time, the term "caravan site means the whole of the area within which there may be as many as 100, 150, or 200 caravans, and it does not refer to the individual pitch. Since we are connecting the home loss payments to the rateable value of the property from which the occupier was displaced, we must therefore look at the caravan and the pitch on which it is situated and not at the whole of the caravan site. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to the definitive case on the subject which was Field Place Caravan Park Ltd. v. Harding, Queen's Bench Division, 1966, Vol. II, pages 497-8, in which Lord Denning said:
"The correct proposition today is that, although a chattel is not a rateable hereditament by itself, nevertheless it may become rateable together with land, if it is placed on a piece of land and enjoyed with it in such circumstances and with such a degree of permanence that the chattel with the land can together be regarded as one unit of occupation."
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, went on to describe the characteristics of the separate unit of occupation on a caravan site which we generally understand by the term "pitch". That term will be familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I believe. It is unfortunate that we have a convenient definition of "caravan site" in the 1960 Act, to which I have already referred, but nowhere in our legislation is there a definition of the "pitch" which is the rateable unit, the hereditament, on which the home loss payment ought to be calculated. I am afraid that if we stick to the definition which we have here we shall run into all sorts of difficulties because we are proposing to insert in Clause 28(3)(a) the words "caravan site together with the caravan"

243
in place of the word "dwelling". We thus make paragraph (a) read:
"If the caravan site together with the caravan is a hereditament for which a rateable value is shown in the valuation list …"
and so on. Of course, it is not. The hereditament for which a rateable value is shown in the valuation list is the caravan together with the pitch on which it stands and that is only a part of the caravan site. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has followed my reasoning and that he will agree that the wording needs to be tidied up. We need to substitute the word "pitch with a suitable definition wherever it occurs in his new clause for the word "site".
That is not really the point of substance which I should like to make on this clause. The noble Lord said that the conditions of eligibility are the same as those for the people who live in traditionally built houses except that they have been modified—and I think I have his words aright—to take account of the mobile nature of caravans. He referred us to subsection (2) which provides that no home loss payment can be made where there is a suitable alternative site which is available to the person who lives in his caravan, on reasonable terms. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be aware that when anybody moves from one caravan site to another there are certain charges that he faces. He will first of all inevitably have a towing charge which will vary according to the distance between the two sites. Almost certainly he will have to pay a substantial siting fee for the privilege of being able to station his caravan on an alternative site.
Increasingly we find in the National Mobile Home Residents Association, of which I have the honour to be an officer, that site operators are not allowing anybody to come on to their sites unless they first buy a new caravan through the owner. The reason for this is quite plain: the owners of the land not only obtain a large fee every time a new resident comes on to the site but they also get commission through the caravan manufacturers or agents. If somebody brings his own caravan on to the site, obviously they are going to forgo that commission and will need to make up the income from some other source.
244
While the terms available on an alternative site may look reasonable on the face of it, one is limiting one's consideration to the amount of the weekly charge far the occupation of the site. The resident may be paying £2·50 where he is and moving to another one where the charge is £3, but to get there he has first to pay towing charges, £30 or £40. Then he has to pay a site fee of several hundred pounds—and I am not exaggerating; that is the order of magnitude of the charges made at the moment. Fie may not even be able to do that unless he consents to buy a new caravan from the site operator who owns the second site.
I think we need to be very much more specific in subsection (2) and to define what we mean when we say "suitable alternative site". Do we mean that it must be equivalent in its amenities to the one he occupies at the moment? And what do we mean by "reasonable terms"? Are we confining our attention, in this rather indefinite and vague clause, to the charges he is going to pay for occupation of the pitch, or are we going to look at all the surrounding factors, including siting fees and the commission he might pay to the new site operator? I do hope the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be able to consider these points, and perhaps come back with this clause at Report stage with a revised wording which will take into account the objections I have made.
LORD SANDFORD: There are enormous deterrents to trying to do anything over caravan sites, because they are so immensely complicated, but we will press on with our good work and with the benefit of what the noble Lord has said. I rather agree with him that there are a number of terms used in this clause which are quite different from the terms we normally use when talking about caravan sites in different contexts. But I am grateful to him for his welcome for the general approach, and I will look into the precise wording in the light of what he has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Right to farm loss payment where person displaced from agricultural unit]:
7.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 29, line 15, leave out from ("tenancy") to end of line 17, and insert ("that comes within the Agricultural Holdings Acts.")
The noble Earl said: We now come on to the very important farm-loss provisions under the Bill. Clause 31 provides for the making of payments to persons displaced from agricultural units in consequence of compulsory acquisition, who begin to farm another agricultural unit within three years of that displacement. I must admit that I am somewhat confused now as to the position of the agricultural farm tenant. I used to understand the disturbance claim. I think I now understand that he is entitled to a home-loss claim. I certainly do not understand the claim that he apparently will get under Clause 43, the claim for loss of security of tenure. And something which certainly confuses me is why he is not entitled to a claim under this clause.
The farm-loss payment is, I understand, a special payment for loss of profit during a move from the farm from which the farmer has been displaced to a new farm, and one has to remember that it is a move he has to make within three years. In other words, it is to mitigate an assumed temporary loss while the farmer is adjusting himself to the new farm, and, as was disclosed in another place during Committee stage, it is based on a five-year period. It is a trading-loss benefit. The question that immediately comes to mind is why, therefore, should a farm-loss claim be limited only to the owner-occupier, or indeed the tenant who is lucky enough to have more than a three-year lease left? Why is the normal agricultural tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Act, who is basically an annual tenant. deprived of this claim? This does seem very inequitable and I hope my noble friend, when he comes to reply, will be able to express sympathy and be able to adjust the situation in the Bill before it leaves this House.
I think it is generally considered among the farming community that the compensation for tenant farmers is already more inadequate than for owner-occupiers. To attempt to exclude them from this provision seems to many people quite incredible. The vast majority of tenant farmers whose land is compul-
246
sorily acquired suffer total extinguishment of their business, because they are unable to find another farm to rent. The few who are able to find another farm to rent face exactly the same loss of productivity for the three to five years as the owner-occupier does, and for exactly the same reasons.
The purpose of this Amendment is very simple: to include all tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act—and they, of course, are the majority of tenants—within the provisions of this clause. I hope my noble friend will be sympathetic to this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD DIGBY: I would urge the Government to consider very carefully the claims of tenant farmers. I welcome the help given under Clause 43, which I believe was added in another place. But surely that clause does not really go far enough? A tenant's claim to farm-loss payment must be as good as that of the owner-occupier, and in my opinion even greater. We all know the difficulty of obtaining a new tenancy. It is more than likely that there will be a hiatus when he has to give up his old farm and before he can obtain a new one. During that time he has to sell his stock and machinery; he has nowhere to house it, nowhere to feed his stock. In other words, it means a complete new start for the business. This payment may be vital to a tenant, who is unlikely to have capital resources to tide him over the early years on his new farm. That is exactly the reason for this farm-loss payment. I simply cannot understand why tenant farmers are not included. I do hope that the Government will accept this Amendment or put down another one of their own.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My noble friend Lord Kinnoull said that the subject of farm loss payments was important. He is quite right. He has failed, I think, entirely to do justice to what I consider to be the very substantial difficulty of this subject. It is the result of the building up of legislation over a fairly long period. I hope I may be forgiven, but I will do it as quickly as I can. I will run over the situation to try to explain why there is, in fact, a difference, and why I can suggest to the Committee that the difference is justified.

247
The situation about compensation for people who have a very short tenancy—year to year, or less than a year—when their property is compulsorily acquired has always been a source of frightful difficulty. It used to be dealt with under Section 121 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845; it is now Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act, 1965, which is the same thing. But this, in the case of farmers, has not over the years been considered adequate. Therefore the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 contained a new provision in Sections 9 and 12, specifically applying, under Section 12, to cases of compulsory purchase, which provided for payment of four times the annual rent of the holding. The purpose was expressed at the time to be so that a farmer could reorganise his affairs; in fact, exactly the same purpose as the farm loss payments which we are talking about now. It is a capital sum and this no doubt endows it with certain merit in the eyes of those who receive it. It is perfectly true that any other tenant if he has a longer lease will also, in theory, be entitled to this payment, but I shall come to the distinction in a moment.
Going back to the yearly tenant, who under this Bill does not get the farm loss payment, he will get an aggregate of all these things which I shall mention. He will get his normal compensation under the law as it stands at the moment. That will be the value of his unexpired interest in the land at the time of the notice of entry. In fact, this usually boils down to a loss of profits calculated over a certain period and any loss of the profit rent that he would have enjoyed for the rest of his tenure. Beyond that, he gets the ordinary disturbance payment which will cover most of the things my noble friend Lord Digby mentioned, such as storage of machinery, physically moving the stock, live or dead, and the other normal concomitants of any compulsory purchase order which are covered by a general order of disturbance. So he gets all that, at any rate. He also gets compensation for the improvements which he has made to the holding. Added to that, under the 1968 Act he now gets four times the annual rent. In Clause 43—and if noble Lords do not understand it I do not blame them, because neither do
248
I; but I hope I shall by Thursday when I have to deal with it—we have made a further concession.
This would be the wrong moment, for reasons which I have already explained, for me to go into details of what it is, but we are reversing a decision of the courts, and, to some extent, a provision in the 1968 Act itself, which gives to the agricultural tenant a notional security of tenure if he is a tenant from year to year, so that he could not be said inevitably to be displaced by the road, or whatever it may be, that will be built on his land; and, therefore, he could not claim any compensation on the basis that he had security of tenure under the Agricultural Holdings Act. We are repealing that provision, setting aside the result of the court case, and we are restoring to him the situation that, at least in relation to the project for which his land is to be acquired, he will not be considered to have lost his security of tenure. In other words, one disregards the road and one leaves him as a secure tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Act, unless there is some other reason, totally extraneous to the scheme in hand, which would serve to displace him. That is the contribution we are making, and if the amount of money that he would get under Clause 43 exceeds the total of all that I mentioned earlier, then he will get that extra payment. So he is guaranteed the four times under the 1968 Act, but if he has a further claim for more money under Clause 43, to which we shall come later, he will get that in addition.
Under this Bill, that does not apply to the owner, who is dealt with in a different way. Whether he is an owner or a tenant with a long lease, he will have an interest in the land which is likely to be of very substantial value. It will either be the capital value or it will be the capitalised value of the remains of the lease. So the likelihood is that a fairly substantial sum will come to him by way of payment for the interest in land that he owns. The fallback is that the four years' payment of rent would take the place of that ordinary payment for the value of the land, only if the four years' payment of rent exceeded the market value of the interest that is being taken. Usually, of course, the market value exceeds the four years' payment of rent. So that is only a fallback—as it were, a floor below which he

249
cannot go—and usually he will get more. So that provision for allowing him to reorganise his affairs on a capital basis does not normally, at the moment, apply to the owner or to the long-term tenant, and that is why we have decided to give them the equivalent of the standard four year payment to the short-term tenant for exactly the same purpose, to allow them to reorganise their business.
I hope that I have succeeded in explaining this provision. The reason why there is a difference is that, from the very beginning of time in terms of compensation for compulsory purchase, people with a term of one year or less have always been dealt with differently, whether it is in farming or in business or in anything else, when it comes to the compulsory purchase of their interest. This is an historical fact. Upon it has been grafted a succession of legislative measures which I hope I have accurately described, and we cannot disregard this history when we try to produce a fair deal for all sorts of agriculturists. I suggest to the Committee that the addition of Clause 43 in this case certainly ought to sweeten the pill. When one is talking about money to reorganise a business, a short-term tenant will normally rely on that four times payment under the 1968 Act which is not in practice available, as a rule, to other tenants with a longer lease or to the owner. I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with that explanation. He probably knows all about it already and, if so, I hope he will forgive me for explaining it again, but there may be members of the Committee who were not fully aware of this matter.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am indeed grateful to my noble friend. He suggested at the outset that I had failed to do justice to the problem. I would say, with sadness, that he has failed to do justice to the tenants. He cited, first of all, the fact that tenants were entitled to a farm loss claim under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. I suggest, with respect, that this claim is basically for disturbance. In my recollection, it was raised from two years' rent to four years' or even six years' rent. In other words, the basis is rent; there is no time limit and it is automatic. The farm loss claim is based on profits; there is a time limit and it is not automatic, because should the
250
last three years' farming show losses there will be no claim at all.
My noble friend then referred to Clause 33 and said that the tenant was being offered something. I am very glad that the tenant is being offered something, but I should like to know exactly what he is being offered. It was said in another place that the basis of the claim under Clause 43 would be the security of his tenure, but his security of tenure (or, rather, his lease) is not marketable. He cannot assign his lease. What value can a valuer put on his lease? I would suggest to my noble friend, in all seriousness, before we get to Clause 43, that it is a monstrous responsibility for any valuer to try to interpret Clause 43, and I hope my noble friend will be able to come to this on Thursday and look at it again. I am not personally satisfied with my noble friend's reply, but I would hope that possibly before the next stage I could have a word with him to see whether the position of the farm tenant could not be further mitigated. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 30, line 3, after ("1971") insert ("or").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 40 go together, Amendment No. 39 being a paving Amendment. The purpose here is to improve the lot of the farmer, and therefore I should think that the Committee is likely to think this a good Amendment. At the moment there is a bar, in the last few words of subsection (6), on an entitlement to a farm loss payment where part only of the owner-occupied farm is being compulsorily acquired, and this bar takes three forms. It is where he serves various blight notices, and also where he serves a counter-notice under Clause 47. It seems that it will be a little hard if, having lost part of his farm, and having proved that the rest of it is not reasonably capable of being farmed and that therefore he can serve a counter-notice—the acquiring authority should take the whole of it—in other words, where it has been shown that they have effectively messed up his farm for good and all—and he should then not be entitled to get a farm loss payment when he moves. What we are doing is restoring the farm loss payment

251
to him in these circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to move Amendment No. 40.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 4, leave out from ("1965") to end of line 5.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
8.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 31 insert the following new clause:
Compulsory acquisition of agricultural land
". Where land constituting or included in an agricultural unit is compulsorily acquired or is sold by agreement to an Authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, the acquiring authority shall pay to the person owning the unit, in respect of his owner's interest, an additional payment of not less than fifteen per cent. of the agricultural value of the land where the basis of value is existing use value."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is, I think, very clear and simple. It is to grant to owners of farms an additional 15 per cent. above the agricultural value of their farm in cases where that land is being compulsorily acquired. Theoretically, the farmer should always receive compensation which fully covers reinstatement, but in practice I think it has been proved that this is simply not so, for certain reasons. The first reason of course, is that some 70,000 acres a year are lost to farming, and the demand exceeds the supply. In the second case, one often finds that those farmers whose land has been acquired, in perhaps a New Town area, are all vying for farms within that area, and consequently the purchase price of new farms is possibly above the compensation they receive. The third point which very much affects farms is the question of the provisions of the roll-over tax, or the roll-over provisions. This is where, when the sale of a farm takes place, the farmer has to reinvest that money within twelve months or else he is subject to capital gains tax.
The new clause would, as I have said, restrict the compensation to agricultural use value only. It is suggested in the new clause that 15 per cent. should be added to this compensation figure. This
252
is not in any way creating a precedent: it will mean that we shall go back to the pre-1919 method of compensation. The Government's reply at Committee stage in another place basically was against this suggestion for the reason, I presume, that it would open up the general principles of compensation in relation to all types of property. But I believe that agricultural land is a special case. As I have said, supply cannot match demand, and it deserves special treatment. There is one other practical reason why I believe this clause would commend itself, and that concerns cases where land is being acquired particularly for reservoirs. I believe that district valuers and the statutory authorities would have a much smoother ride if farmers felt that they were receiving fair and adequate compensation. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Whatever my noble friend may have thought of the reason why the Government thought this was a bad Amendment in another place, I hope I shall leave no doubt in his mind why I think it is a terribly bad Amendment in this place. He is absolutely right: it is a major heresy which goes to the roots of all valuation practice which has been built up by Acts of Parliament over a very substantial period. It is quite true that, as a sweetener—
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: May I interrupt my noble friend? Is he referring to post-1919 or pre-1919?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am just about to refer to both. It is quite true that before 1919 (because this was not dealt with in the Land Clauses Act) the courts were in the habit of giving to those whose land was compulsorily acquired an extra 10 per cent., really for the unpleasantness of being involved in nasty things like compulsory acquisition at all. In 1919, Parliament quite firmly and definitely abolished that practice in the Acquisition of Land Act of that year. I am sure that there are many people who would wish to talk about special cases in compensation, as in other contexts popular in Parliament at the moment. But I am wholly unconvinced that there is room for more than the special cases that we at present have in the compensation code. I will remind the Committee—I think my noble friend

253
Lord Kinnoull knows this perfectly well—that the only exceptions which have ever been made by Statute are where the land has no market value, such as a church, or one or two rather difficult buildings of that sort, where you cannot get any sort of alternative and you have to go and build, and where, therefore, equivalent reinstatement is allowed. I observe there is a later clause in this Bill which allows the same principle in the cases of people whose houses have been specially adapted because they are handicapped.
My noble friend says that there is a great shortage of agricultural land. That is true: I am sure there is. I do not know how many schemes of comprehensive development or action area schemes he has been involved in when there have been pleas put forward on behalf of small shopkeepers. How often they say, "We have got our row of shops down this street, and we own them. If the land is compulsorily acquired from us, we shall have nowhere to go; or, if we do have somewhere to go, it will be shop units which will be rented to us by the acquiring authority; and goodness knows what the leases will be. What we want are our own shops, which we have got now. We like them very much. We do a good trade. We may not be immensely prosperous, but we are very useful and we ought to be preserved." That is an exact parallel to the case which my noble friend has put forward. Are they to have an extra 15 per cent.; and, if so, why? And what about all the other people that one builds on to this? No; I am sorry. It is a good try on my noble friend's behalf.
I do not suggest that we should start talking about roll-over tax, because if we are going to set down principles of compensation for compulsory purchase which relate to the specific provisions of a Finance Act which can be changed at any time, then I think we shall be on a slippery slope indeed. I stand perfectly firm on the straight principle which has stood in relation to compensation law in Parliament, in the courts and in the practice of everybody concerned in this matter ever since 1919: that we do not add sweeteners to people when their land is compulsorily acquired. I would invite my noble friend to accept this and to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: With the greatest respect to the Minister, I do not think that this comparison between farmland and a shop is correct. I think that the comparison between a farming business and a shop as a small business is correct. The fact is that you can go and build new shops elsewhere; you cannot go and manufacture agricultural land. Agricultural land is a diminishing asset in this country. We are losing it at the rate of 70,000 acres a year. Unless you make more land—for example, out of the Wash—you cannot get more agricultural land. With shops or any other business or with manufacturing industry, there is land to be built upon. That is where the 70,000 acres of agricultural land is disappearing to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I could not have made my argument plain. The analogies that I was drawing are familiar to those concerned with the redevelopment of town centres. It is true that you can go and build a lot of small shops outside the town but I doubt whether that is what the small shopkeeper who will be displaced from the periphery of the town centre or from streets off the main street is talking about. There is no alternative site in the town centre where he can get a small shop. It is the same as the farming situation. There is a net loss of privately owned land for small shops in the vicinity of the town centre. I would suggest to the Committee that this is an exact parallel which is repeated time and time again in redevelopment schemes in town centres.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am amazed at my noble friend's reaction to this Amendment and at the extent of his feelings. I can only suggest that it is due to the lateness of the hour and that perhaps he is missing something in his stomach. I would remind my noble friend that most of us have been here for six hours. I am not sure how long we are to go on. Perhaps he could advise us.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There is nothing at all wrong with me. I promise. I, too, have been going for a long time. I opened a prison block in Rochester to-day and came back to the Committee stage here. The reason why I react fairly strongly against this Amendment is that it goes to the roots

255
of everything that we have had since 1919 in terms of market value. That is the reason; and nothing more. I cannot help my noble friend. He may think that I am being firm and that it is due to my own feelings. It is not. It is based on experience nearly as long as his in the field of valuation or in connection with it. It seems to me to be a principle that we should not breach over an argument of this sort in this Bill.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I apologise for intervening. I am as fresh as a daisy and the reason for that is that I have not been here for hours. But having heard the peremptory way the Amendment was dealt with, I am rushing to the support of the noble Earl who moved it. You can build shops on ash-tips but you cannot process food from land that has not been comforted and cozened by ploughmen and farmers and their ancestors over a number of years. This is a completely different argument from that of building a shop. You can build a shop on artificial land or on a raft but you cannot produce good farmland unless the yeomen of England have devoted years to it. Consequently, I think we should have double thoughts about this and that this would be a good place at which to end the day's discussion in good temper so that we may discuss it again another day.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I did not answer my noble friend. I thought that we might manage to get to the end of this and the next two clauses because they are all on the subject of farm-loss payments.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should not have taken part. I apologise.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I still feel unrepentant on this. In view of the support that I have received I almost feel that I should divide the Committee. But that might end the proceedings to-night. I would remind my noble friend who speaks of the 15 per cent. "sweetener" that if he had been dispossessed of his farm 12 months ago he would have found that by now his land had gone up 50 per cent. and that he had lost about 85 per cent of the capital value. I am unrepentant on this
256
issue but in view of the lateness of the hour I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Amount of farm-loss payment]:
8.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON VISCOUNT DAVIDSON moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 30, line 32, after ("to") insert ("three times").
The noble Viscount said: I should like to move this Amendment on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and would suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to consider at the sam;., time Amendments Nos. 43, 44, and 45 as they are all directed to the same problem of farm loss. We have had rather a long day. I think that some of the Amendments which have been put forward have been extremely reasonable and fair Amendments, and I am disappointed at the reception that some of them so far have received from the Government. Nevertheless, I hope that as time goes on they may have second thoughts about many of the matters that have been put forward and may come forward with Amendments of their own at the next stage.
The question of farm-loss payment is quite a new one. I do not think I shall be accused of any heretical faults if I say it ought to be increased—which is what I intend to say. I think that we must all welcome the fact that the Government have at last appreciated and recognised that it is not only the capital value of land which should be compensated for when an owner-occupier is dispossessed but the loss of income from the loss of the farming business. I see that we have now got accepted the division between the business of owning the land and the business of farming which is superimposed on the business of owning the land.
I do not believe that the proposed payment, although we appreciate it in the farming industry, is anything like enotigh. I am talking purely of the farming business. The mere fact that farming is a long-term business should indicate that the working capital requirements are very high compared with those of manufacturing industries. Your Lordships will all know that if you plant a field of wheat in the

257
autumn you wil probably not sell the produce from that field until 18 months later. Meantime you must buy the seed and sow it, buy the fertiliser and the sprays and carry the harvesting costs until you get the receipts. The same goes for breeding livestock—and cows in particular—where it can be up to 4 or 5 years before you get the benefit from a decision to breed a cow with a certain bull. So it is a very long business; and it always appears to be longer when you are starting off a farm. Once you get into the rhythm the seasons go by quicker; but when you start it is a very long time before you make it viable or, to put it another way, before the receipts catch up with the expenditure.
The farmer going into a new farm is rather like the housewife who goes into a new house. However good the conditions of the house, the housewife will always require that something should be done slightly differently. In the same way any farmer going into a new farm will inevitably require to incur added expenditure, particularly on such items as drainage and other improvements.
Even by asking for the amount of payment for farm loss to be increased from one year's profit to three times one year's profit I do not see any chance of any farmer making a profit on the deal. What we are asking for is to make the loss less severe. That is the concept which is perfectly in accordance with the principle of fairness with which this Bill is basically concerned. I beg to move.
8.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There is indeed no danger of being heretical about this because we are trying to do something where there is certainly on the Government side a lack of firm information. I suppose that to a certain extent to choose one year is a matter of judgment which is supported by valuation practice in other fields. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull said that the way that this had been worked out was that one year's loss of profits was based on the assumption that the losses likely to be suffered on the move would be spread over about five years. I think this coincides with what my noble friend Lord Davidson was suggesting. But plainly, these losses would taper off as the farmer became familiar with the new territory.
258
It is to some extent a matter of judgment. In some businesses the total extinguishment payment tends to be in the region of about one year's purchase of the profits and that is the same sort of order that we are suggesting in this Bill. What we lack is the details of any examples of this sort of thing happening. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Davidson has some detailed calculations that we could look at and which we could check. I think that perhaps it is a little hard to expect Government to take the word of those who say that this or that year's losses occurred on transfer, without being given the opportunity to check up that it is so.
I am on very unfamiliar ground when I am discussing agriculture and I would welcome details of the kind of thing that my noble friend Lord Davidson was talking about. At the moment in Government we are short of information. The information that we have been given is not in a form that we can check what the subsequent events have been. I think the situation now is that the farming industry ought to help Government, if they want a change of mind on this, by the provision of information. I hope that in those circumstances my noble friend will not press this Amendment, but will accept that the onus of proving this has shifted from those who put forward one year—ourselves—to those who wish to change that provision in favour of something else. I do not know whether any Member of the Committee or anybody else can help on this, but if they can we should be grateful.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My noble friend has made an encouraging reply. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Davidson will wish to take up his offer, and will try to get evidence. I would entirely support that.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: I agree entirely and I am most encouraged by that reply. So far as getting the facts are concerned, I should have thought that a certain amount of liaison between the Departments could produce some useful figures. I am quite certain that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, would be able to produce figures.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is the trouble. We have tried hard within Government, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to

259
get the figures, and we have not any figures. I think they would have to come from the market and from experience outside.
LORD HOY: One of the difficulties has always been finding the facts. I carried considerable responsibility for the 1968 Act and the four-year agreement arrived at in that case. We were always asking for facts and I shall be most interested if the facts are given in this case. I am bound to say that my experience was that apparently the facts were difficult to produce. I do not know whether the same applies to-day. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, or the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who has a fairly strong association in his professional capacity with this kind of thing, could produce facts. But during my time in the Department, despite our ask-111E4, the facts were never forthcoming.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: I am sorry to hear that, but I take the point. I think that those of us who are involved will try to find out as many facts as we can, particularly as the Minister has been so responsive, and has admitted that he has no facts. We shall do our best. This is a completely new field for us all and certainly those organisations with which I have something to do will do their best to contribute as much as they can. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 30, line 32, leave out ("the average annual profit") and insert ("the expectation of the average annual profit to be derived.")
The noble Earl said: This is a probing Amendment. Its purpose is to cover the point where a farmer has perhaps not made a profit for the last three years. Should that be the case, how would the farm loss be assessed? I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I had not anticipated that that was the point of this Amendment. As an absolutely off-the-cuff answer, I would say that I should have thought that the farm loss payment would be nil. But I must confirm whether that is so and if I am wrong I will tell my noble friend. The difficulty about trying to
260
value on anticipated profits is that it is one of the most difficult exercises that a valuer can do. It is bad enough to try to work out the loss of profits based on past years' accounts. To have to try to do it based on hypothetical future years' accounts is something that I think valuers would shudder in their shoes to contemplate.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Except Mr. Micawber.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In that case I suspect that the answer also would be "nil", and that would be no comfort to my noble friend. On the substance of what he was asking, I must check whether my answer is right.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: While my noble friend is checking, would he also consider the situation where a farmer purchases a farm and his farm is compulsorily purchased, say within two years? In those circumstances, it would be very unlikely that he would make a profit. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: May I again probe my noble friend on the question of notional rent. Could he explain a little more what notional rent will represent? I beg to move Amendment No. 45.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 1, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think I can explain this because, after a while I understood it myself. It is a point which relates to the task of the surveyor and valuer. I feel sure that my noble friend knows this. One has two elements in the compensation that is being paid on a normal compulsory purchase. What you have is the value of the interest in land and you also have disturbance which takes account of loss of profit. Where you have an owner-occupier of land or somebody who is occupying at less than the full market lease, the value of the interest in land takes account either of the capital value or of the profit rental under which the person is occupying it. This is a separate element from the loss of profit which comes in as a matter of disturbance, and

261
in order not to get a double compensation you have to deduct the notional rent or difference between the actual and the profit rent in order to avoid that element being taken into account in the profits which are then capitalised for the purpose of disturbance. As a standard accounting and valuation practice, you deduct from the profits a notional rent which is the market rent for the land whether it is owned or whether it is on a tenancy held at below the market rental. This is all we are doing in this case in order to avoid double payment. I hope that that explains the matter to my noble friend. I gather that it is absolutely standard surveying value practice.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am most grateful for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 31, line 23, at end insert—
("and as for a freehold interest therein (or, in Scotland, an interest as owner thereof) with vacant possession;
(b) by reference to the condition of the land and its surroundings and to prices current—

(i) in the case of the land comprised in the land acquired, on the date of displacement;

(ii) in the case of land comprised in the new unit, on the date on which the person concerned begins to farm the new unit;")

The noble Viscount said: Subsection (6) of Clause 32 deals with the bases for valuing acquired land, the old land which the farmer had before, and the land where he is reinstating himself in the new land in order to reach a comparative settlement. The Bill as drafted sets out these bases. I am afraid they are not sufficiently complete and we are remedying the defect in this Amendment by providing, first, that the value of both the old and the new land should be the value of a freehold interest with vacant possession; secondly, that the value of the old land should be determined by reference to the physical state of the land and its surroundings on the date of displacement at current prices on that date. Thirdly, the value of the land in the new units should also be determined by reference to the physical state of its surroundings on the date when the claimant begins farming on that land and on current prices at that date. I think these dates
262
are the natural ones in accordance with the spirit of the Bill. I would also think that anybody who has even been concerned with farming land would know that it is important to take account not only of its physical state but also of its surroundings which sometimes can have a marked effect on its value. I beg to move.
LORD HOY: May I ask the noble Lord one simple question. In lines 2 and 3 it says:
"and as for a freehold interest therein"
which is quite clear, and then in brackets:
"(or, in Scotland, an interest as owner thereof".
Is that meant to be the equivalent of one of the freehold interests in England and Wales?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has a habit of asking me horrid Scottish questions to which I do not know the answer. I think it is meant to be exactly the same but turned into Scottish phraseology. I can see no reason at all why we should make a different provision in Scotland, but I suspect that the Scottish draftsmen preferred this form of words, and that this fits in better with Scottish legal vocabulary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Supplementary provisions about farm loss payments]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 32, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Where a person dies before the expiration of the period for making a claim to a farm loss payment and would have been entitled to such a payment if he had made a claim within that period, a claim to that payment may be made, before the expiration of that period, by his personal representative.")
The noble Viscount said: This puts right a horrid state of affairs where a person who would otherwise have a right to a claim for farm loss payment dies. We think that in these circumstances the personal representative should be able to make it on his behalf and the Amendment allows this to be done. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON VISCOUNT DAVIDSON moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 32, line 38, leave out from ("1963") to end of line 39, and insert ("from the date of displacement until payment.")
The noble Viscount said: The argument in favour of this Amendment follows much the same reasoning as that adduced in favour of Amendment No. 42 on the question of increasing the amount of farm loss payment. It is quite a simple point and I should have thought that it was fully justified in the circumstances. Whatever the rate of interest, there is little doubt that the dispossessed owner-occupier will suffer an unfair disadvantage if he gets paid only the interest on the farm loss payment from the date on which he files his claim rather than from the date of actual displacement. I am not quite certain, but I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister what the date is that is referred to in Clause 33(5). It says:
"from the date mentioned in subsection (1) above until payment".
We then go to subsection (1) and the dates are mentioned in Clause 31(1)(b). I take it that the owner-ocupier who is dispossessed could well lose up to four years' interest from the date of displacement to the date at which he files his claim, and in view of the fact that he is not being sufficiently well recompensed, as we have already discussed this evening, for the loss of his farm business, to lose the interest from the farm loss payment for as long as four years to my mind is really rather unfair. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have been through that exercise as well, and I do not think it is the date of displacement; I think it is the date when he starts farming in the new unit. That does not, I think, work out at four years; I think it is a maximum of three years. The point is that it is the date on which he starts farming in the new unit. I do not wish to sound unsympathetic about this, but one of the underlying parts of the scheme for farm loss payments is that there should be an encouragement so far as the farmers can to get on with their new farm as quickly as possible, and I do not think that as a matter of policy
264
we should wish to do something which allows them to profit from delay, which this would actually do. They would be getting the interest on a notional farm loss payment for which they have not yet qualified in achieving, and the longer they put off starting up again on a new farm the more interest they would get. I would suggest that this may not be the ideal way in the philosophy of this Part of the Bill to make up what my noble friend thinks are the deficiencies of the farm loss payments.
I should therefore think that the more hopeful approach is the one which we were discussing a moment ago. Just as a footnote to that, he will of course realise that when one gets away from farm loss payments and the interest on that, the dispossessed farmer will get interest on the ordinary price paid for the land compulsorily acquired, disturbance and all the rest of it, as from the date on which he was actually dispossessed. So to that extent the existing law covers the payment of interest from the moment when he has to leave his old farm. I would rather consider any additional benefits under the heading of farm loss payment by reference to the previous Amendment than tinker with the existing arrangements for the reason which I have explained.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: I thank my noble friend for his helpful answer because it did put the other side of the picture. I am not quite sure whether he is right in saying that by having the interest payable from the date of dispossession it will make the dispossessed farmer feel that he need not get reinstated in farming as quickly as all that. But I take my noble friend's point. I think it wants looking at closely, and with those words I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY PURCHASES AND VALUATIONS
  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY PURCHASES AND VALUATIONS
  JUDGES' LODGINGS FOR PRESTON COURTS
  JUDGES' LODGINGS FOR PRESTON COURTS
  TELEVISION LICENCE REMINDERS
  TELEVISION LICENCE REMINDERS