Sitting of 4 April 1973

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

PETITION

  Purbrook Park County Grammar School
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of 3,000 members of the Purbrook Park County Grammar School Parent/Teacher Association and other interested residents of the area.
  The petition
  Sheweth that the Hampshire County Council proposes in its published scheme for the reorganisation of secondary education in the Havant and Waterloo area to change Purbrook Park County Grammar School to an 11–16 comprehensive school, removing a coeducational sixth form of 270 pupils with whose teaching every full-time member of the staff is involved.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House may act so that Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Education and Science may consider alternative schemes for comprehensive reorganisation which will provide for the continuation of sixth form education at Purbrook Park and thus avoid the disadvantages to pupils inherent in the dispersal of an excellent staff —disadvantages which are aggravated by the inadequacy of provision for post-16 education and the consequent lack of any parental choice, and which are likely to become increasingly severe in the light of the planned expansion of the area.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Geriatric Beds (Fife)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the need for the provision of more geriatric beds in Fife, and public anxiety on the matter, he will take immediate steps to alleviate the problem.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): A programme of building schemes which will meet the need for more geriatric beds in Fife already exists and planning is in hand. A scheme providing 34 psychogeriatric beds is nearing completion and work on two small projects, providing 49 additional geriatric beds, should start this year; construction of the major schemes will start as soon as planning can be completed.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware —and is the South East Regional Board Hospital Board aware —of the increased and increasing anxiety in Fife about the inadequacy of provision of geriatric beds in the Fife area? Will he ask the regional board to speed up its programme in Glenrothes? What is the estimated cost of the unit at Glenrothes, and is that unit on schedule? Will the Minister get going with the regional board and tell it to get on with the job?
    Mr. Monro: I was glad to have a chance to talk with the hon. Gentleman yesterday about the schemes in Fife and I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and other hon. Gentleman next week to discuss the matter further. The programme of geriatric provision in Fife is substantial and when completed should be adequate for all needs in the area. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that I should like to see everything going ahead as fast as possible, and this is part of what we shall discuss next week. The total scheme at Glenrothes, excluding the health clinic, will cost about £500,000.
    Sir J. Gilmour: When calculations are made of the number of beds required, will my hon. Friend take into account the overspill arrangement between Glasgow and Glenrothes?
    Mr. Monro: I would have to check that, but I am under the impression that that is the case.
    Mr. McElhone: I would not wish to detract from the problems in Fife, but may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that the humane answer to this serious and growing problem is not to keep on building geriatric units as we are doing all over Scotland but to expand the home help service and the home nursing service and to ensure that the social services work and keep many of these elderly people at home?
    Mr. Monro: I agree. That is why the Government are spending so much money on all the matters about which the hon. Gentleman speaks, including sheltered housing and so on. I agree with the objective behind the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I must emphasise that we are getting on with the job.
    Mr. Hamilton: In view of the urgency of this problem, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Irvine Development Corporation (Housing Costs)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the amount of high-cost subsidy that will be given to Irvine Development Corporation during the present financial year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I have no evidence of any widening of the differential between Irvine New Town rents and average Scottish rents significant enough to justify the payment of high-cost subsidy to the development corporation.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that the tenants of Irvine Development Corporation have been faced with further increases in rents under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act? When will the Secretary of State for Scotland step in and take action —as
    416
    he promised to do in Committee on that legislation last year —to protect the tenants of the new town corporation against further rent increases, since those rents are already well above the rent levels of normal local authority houses in the area?
    Mr. Younger: The fact that they are above the normal local authority house rents reflects the fact that most of the houses concerned in Irvine are new, in a good environment and of modern quality. The object of the high-cost subsidy is to deal with the situation if there should be a significant widening of the differential between average rents in new towns and average rents in Scottish local authorities generally, and this has not happened.
    Mr. Ewing: As the section in the 1972 Act deals also with SSHA houses, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of a widening in the gap between the rents of SSHA houses and local authority houses? Does he envisage the need to pay high-cost subsidy to the SSHA in the future?
    Mr. Younger: For the same reason, there is no evidence to show that there is a widening of the differential between SSHA tenants and Scottish housing tenants as a whole. The hon. Gentleman should not forget the effect of the rent rebate scheme here. For instance a married man with three children living in Irvine would have to have a household income of over £40 a week —£2,000 a year —before being called upon to pay the average rent of £230.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many improvement grants in the private housing sector have been approved in Scotland since March 1971.
    Mr. Younger: From 1st April 1971 to 31st December 1972, the last date for which figures are available, improvement grants and standard grants were approved for 21,796 privately owned houses.
    Mr. Hunter: I appreciate that the housing improvement scheme is contributing successfully to maintaining the stock of old houses in Scotland, but is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the money spent

    417
    for this purpose is properly allocated? Is he aware of cases where grants are given to owners whose houses have all the amenities and meet all tolerable standards and that they are improving their houses beyond their family requirements? If this is true, is it not denying improvement grants to those who need them?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the improvement grant scheme. I do not have evidence of abuses such as he outlines. This is a matter of discretion for the local authorities to exercise. If an authority thinks that an individual request is unreasonable, it has the right to refuse to make a grant. My own attitude is that every house improved to modern standards is a further house for people in Scotland to live in.
    Mr. Lawson: Since the Government have repeatedly stressed as a principle that housing subsidies were not to be paid in respect of bricks and mortar but should be paid to persons in need, how can the hon. Gentleman justify this vast expenditure on improvements without any test of means?
    Mr. Younger: A house which is below the proper standard and which therefore needs improvement is a house which has a great need of improvement, and that is what the scheme is all about.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How many of these grants have gone to property companies which have speculated in housing, obtained improvement grants and subsequently sold properties without any need to repay hard-earned cash from the Exchequer?
    Mr. Younger: I have no figures to show what might be the numbers for property companies. But I hope that as many as possible of these grants can be used for privately tenanted houses many of whose tenants are living in deplorable conditions for the lack of improvement. The general purpose of the scheme is to get houses improved. So long as it is achieving that, I shall be satisfied.
    Mr. Ross: Of the 21,796, how many were for owner-occupiers and how many for properties with tenants in them?
    Mr. Younger: Of the figure quoted, 17,400 applications were by owner-occu-
    418
    piers and about 4,400 by other applicants including the owners of let houses.

    Glenlivet Estate
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the report of the working party set up by the Crown Estates Commissioners on the balance which should be maintained on the Glenlivet Estate; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The working party was set up by the commissioners to advise them on matters of estate management which are within their responsibility and the question of publication does not arise. However, I am sure they would be glad to assist my hon. Friend with information on any aspect in which he is interested.
    Mr. Baker: Before the plan is implemented will my hon. Friend assure the House that full and proper consultation will take place with all interested parties on the Glenlivet Estate?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand that certain consultations have taken place already and that the commissioners will continue to consult individual tenants about any changes which may affect them.

    Council Rents
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total additional rent paid by local authority tenants in Scotland in 1972; and what he estimates the further total increase to be in 1973.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): This information is not available, and there is no basis for making estimates. It would be necessary to make assumptions about such matters as the state of housing revenue accounts, the composition of families of tenants and levels of earnings. The Housing Act 1972 restricts the amounts per year by which local authorities can increase rents.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he does not know the effect that the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 has had on

    419
    local authority tenants in Scotland and that he is not worried about the effect that the Act will have in Scotland in future years? Is he aware that many large burghs are now estimating that the total increase in rent revenue paid by local authority tenants will verge on £1 million per annum and that this can only come out of the pockets of local authority tenants at a time when they are being asked to hold back on wage demands?
    Mr. Campbell: As I have said, there are restrictions on the increases which can be made in rents each year. There are also the rebate and rent allowance schemes. The figures are not available for 1972 and estimates cannot be made because all the facts are not yet available. I can, however, give figures for previous years. In 1969 the average percentage increase in local authority standard rents was 18·2, in 1970 it was 14·8 per cent. and in 1971 it was 6·8 per cent. In the case of Glasgow the average increase in the six years from November 1964 to November 1970 was 193 per cent. and in the two years from November 1970 to November 1972 it was 0·1 per cent.
    Mr. MacArthur: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much less in rent will be paid by the many tenants who will benefit from the Government's generous rent rebate scheme? Will my right hon. Friend either circulate or publish figures in HANSARD showing what effect the Act will have on reducing rate poundages throughout Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: We have given some estimates already. There are large numbers of tenants who will benefit from the rebate and allowance schemes. But we cannot make further accurate estimates without knowing about the circumstances of individual families. This information will become available in due course. When it is available we shall inform the House.
    Mr. Sillars: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the percentage figures of increases which he read out and ask him whether I am right in thinking that he disapproved of them and would not tolerate them under his own Government?
    Mr. Campbell: I was giving the House the facts which are available and also
    420
    undertaking that when similar information becomes available, as it will later in the year, it will be made known to the House.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My right hon. Friend will recall that at the last count the average council house family in Scotland paid about four-sevenths of the proportion of its income on housing which the average council house family in England paid. What is the ratio today? Has my right hon. Friend any information?
    Mr. Campbell: Not without notice. But the facts have been made plain as they were by the Allen Committee which reported on rates some time ago. Rates have been very high in Scotland while rents in the public sector have been low, and this was not so in England.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: When will the right hon. Gentleman stop dodging the issue and admit frankly that the vast majority of local authority tenants in Scotland will pay greatly increased rents despite the rebate scheme?
    Mr. Campbell: The annual rent increase which is permissible is laid down in the Act, so increases can take place only by gradual steps. I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the 5½ years in which his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was Secretary of State the average local authority rent in Scotland was doubled precisely.

    Timber
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate he has made of the expected out-turn of Scottish forests in the years 1974 to 1980; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Forestry Commission's out-turn of timber in Scotland will amount to 670,000 tons in 1974, and is expected to rise annually by about 30,000 tons to 850,000 tons in 1980. According to the latest estimates the corresponding figures for private forestry are about 430,000 tons in 1974 rising to about 490,000 tons in 1980.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite this increase there is now a shortage of timber in Scotland? In view of the importance of integrating agriculture and forestry in Scotland, is

    421
    there not a need to look again at the proper allocation of land between these two essential services?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend will know that we import about 90 per cent. of our timber requirements. I assure him that in our review of forestry policy we will look closely at the question of proper land use and proper integration between, for example, forestry and hill farming.

    Confederation of British Industry (Meeting)
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish Council of the Confederation of British Industry on 16th March 1973.
    Mr. Younger: The main items raised on this occasion were the IMEG report on the possibilities for participation by British industry in oil developments; the way in which industry can most usefully participate in local government after reform; and the CBI's recently revised attitude to the regional employment premium.
    I found the discussion useful and informative.
    Mr. Smith: Regarding the CBI's revised attitude to REP, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware thai since the meeting the Confederation of British Industry calculates that if REP is withdrawn there will be extra unemployment of between 20,000 and 50,000 people in the development areas? Is he further aware that if REP is withdrawn Scotland will lose £40 million? Will he tell the House what he and his right hon. Friend are doing for Scotland to try to save this £40 million?
    Mr. Younger: First, the delegation which I saw from the Scottish CBI made it clear that it had always considered that REP had great shortcomings as a regional development aid. It said that it had in recent weeks come to the conclusion, however, that it should be carried on until 1978 because it was becoming concerned about its removal. The delegation also spoke to me about its ideas as to what should be done about replacing or phasing-out REP. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have undertaken to con-
    422
    sult the CBI and the TUC about the methods of doing this in due course. I assure him that we will take into account the views expressed by all these bodies in considering phasing-out and replacing REP when the time comes.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Was my hon. Friend able to tell the Scottish Council whether, if the Government decide as a result of representations which have been made to continue REP until 1980, the Common Market Commission would allow us to do so?
    Mr. Younger: This matter was briefly touched upon, but it was not considered to be a bar to taking sensible action to consider how REP can best be phased out and what steps can be taken to help the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Douglas: How did the Minister justify the ending of the regional employment premium in 1974? What devices did he put to the CBI for some form of labour subsidy? On the IMEG report, may I ask how he justified the non-implementation of the proposal for the setting up of a petroleum industry supply board?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the representatives of the CBI told me that they are examining the practicability of a regional VAT subsidy scheme as one suggestion for what might replace REP in due course. My justification is that, as long ago as six or seven years, the Labour Government decided that this scheme would run until 1974 and we said that it would be phased out thereafter. We are merely carrying out what we said we would do.
    I have not yet received a letter of congratulation from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) or his hon. Friends on the fact that this very week we have abolished SET, which was the most greatly resented tax on the service industries in Scotland.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: While recognising the drawbacks to REP, may I ask my hon. Friend nevertheless to pay careful attention to the latest report of the OECD on British regional policies which confirms or tends to emphasise what many of us have believed for some time: namely, that our regional development policies are far too capital-intensive oriented?
    Mr. Younger: We shall certainly pay close attention to that and to all the other views that have been expressed.
    Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) that the withdrawal of REP will mean a loss of £40 million a year to Scottish industry? Does he also accept the figure given by the CBI that the withdrawal of REP will result in an increase in unemployment of between 20,000 and 50,000 in the development areas? That being so, and as the hon. Gentleman agreed about the need for some labour-intensive subsidy, may I ask what the Government propose to put in place of REP if they are now to phase it out? I remind him that on 27th October the Chancellor said that it would end, not be phased out. We are glad to know that there is some amelioration of the position.
    Mr. Younger: I am sure that we are all glad to have a few words from Mr. SET himself in this particular week. I cannot confirm or agree with the figures that have been quoted. Some are very speculative. I cannot confirm them as being necessarily correct. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we would not wish to phase out REP without consulting the CBI and the TUC. We must do so and we have said that we will do this.
    Mr. Ross: I do not want REP to be phased out at all in view of the precarious position of employment in Scotland. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department publishes the amount that Scotland receives per year in REP, and that £40 million is the figure? In fact, the last figure was £40 1 million. Why does he not accept this? Why does he underrate the importance of this matter to Scottish industry?
    Mr. Younger: I do not underrate its importance at all. It has been clear for many years what we were going to do about REP. Indeed the Labour Government made clear what they were going to do about it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that the balance of measures which he introduced involved the inclusion of REP and SET. SET was greatly resented in Scotland because it hit hardest on the service industries. The right hon. Gentleman should be thanking us for having removed it.

    Further Education (Handicapped Children)
    Mr. Alexander Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the opportunities for further education for physically handicapped school leavers provided in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Monro: Many physically handicapped school leavers can attend further education colleges in the ordinary way and are encouraged to do so. For those who require special facilities and residential care there is one college with 34 places at Crossbasket in Lanarkshire. Handicapped young people from Scotland also attend residential colleges in England.
    I have asked the Committee on the Secondary Education of Physically Handicapped Children to consider whether the present provision for the further education of the physically handicapped in Scotland is adequate.
    Mr. WilsonI find that answer completely unsatisfactory. It shows a lack of feeling for these young people. Is the Minister aware that these children have already had fragmented basic education due in most cases to medical treatment and hospitalisation? What are his plans for extending the facilities which should be available for further education for these children? Is he prepared now to act on the basis of the Melville Report which is in his possession? Will he tell the House what action he proposes to take on that report?
    Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman must be clear in his mind about what he is asking me to do. I have explained that the majority of handicapped children are able to go on to further education colleges in the normal way. I am sure we would all wish them to be treated as normal children. We have set up the McCann Committee. It would be foolish to make major changes before that committee reports this year. The Melville Report is in the hands of my right hon. Friend and we are considering it. We have not yet reached any final decision. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the Government take this position very seriously. There is no question of underrating the importance of helping disabled children.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of extending the scope of the committee by making it a continuing committee to keep a general watch over the situation in future as opposed to a committee with a specific remit which will conclude after its report is published?
    Mr. Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I think that perhaps we should allow Baillie McCann and his committee to report and discuss it with him afterwards.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last week I visited a constituent of mine who is in the Princess Marina centre run by the Spastics Society and that I was greatly impressed by what I saw? May I ask when he will set up a similar centre in Scotland so that Scottish people do not need to go to England for such treatment?
    Mr. Monro: I shall give this whole matter careful consideration when the committee reports.

    School Building Allocations
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his education allocation for the next grant period.
    Mr. Monro: I shall notify education authorities of their school building allocations for 1974–75 as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of urgent expectation among local authorities on this matter? Cannot he tell us what will be the global figure for Scotland, particularly for school building? Is he aware that the much-vaunted primary school building programme is urgently required in Lanarkshire? When will he make it known to the local authority that it can build the primary schools which are still urgently required and the secondary schools which are urgently needed to carry out the comprehensive education programme?
    Mr. Monro: When the Government are disbursing such a large sum as about £38·5 million for school building, including nursery school building, we must look very carefully at how we allocate the money to each authority. This is why it has taken a little longer than last
    426
    year, but I shall announce the plan as soon as I can.
    Mr. Ewing: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to my remarks in the debate on the rate support grant on Tuesday of last week, when I described the serious difficulties encountered by Stirlingshire Education Committee in that the school population in the Falkirk/ Grangemouth area is increasingly rapidly and said that an extra allocation should be made to the committee for this purpose? Can he comment on this?
    Mr. Monro: Certainly, the Scottish Education Department looks at population trends and the special requirements of special areas when we are making up the allocations. I am sure that this will be taken into consideration.

    Highlands and Islands Development Board
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the meetings he has had with the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Since becoming Secretary of State, I have had one formal meeting with the board and I have also met members of the board on a number of occasions. In particular I am in close touch with the board's chairman and from time to time discuss with him the work of the board. In addition, since June 1970 other Scottish Office Ministers have met the board on four separate occasions.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the Secretary of State accept that there is considerable disquiet about the board's performance, which is not unrelated to the fact that former servants of the board find it remunerative and profitable to take jobs outside not unrelated to their former activities with the board? How much land has the board in terms of options or ownership which might be used for offshore oil supply purposes?
    Mr. Campbell: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that a former member of the board who was deputy-chairman —a retired civil servant, he was appointed deputy-chairman at the age of 60 by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock

    427
    (Mr. Ross)—over five years later, when he has left, has taken up an appointment with a development company. There is nothing in the rules governing the question of going to such a company from a public board such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State recall that, when the selective employment tax was introduced, the former Highlands and Islands Development Board made representations to the then Secretary of State that it should not apply to Highland hotels and that the Labour Government responded favourably to that request? Has he had similar representations from the present board about the impact of VAT on the Highlands, particularly on the Highland tourist industry? If not, why not? Will he have discussions with the board at once about this?
    Mr. Campbell: I well remember a long campaign in which I took part to try to get the previous Government to relieve hotels and the tourist industry from the obnoxious SET, which in the end they reluctantly did, dividing Scotland up into a curious chequerboard so that there was relief in some areas but not in others. I have not received representations of this kind on VAT.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Reverting to the question of further employment of members and former members of the board, in view of the remarkable responsibilities given to the board by the previous Government is there not a serious case for subjecting its members to the same rules regarding employment after quitting public service as apply to civil servants, and ensuring that they are enforced more effectively than they have sometimes been on civil servants?
    Mr. Campbell: This is a matter that needs consideration. I was informing the House of the present position.
    Mr. Strang: Is it not remarkable that even merchant bankers are now criticising the Government's oil policy for a lack of planning? If they are not yet convinced of the urgent need for a comprehensive land policy for the north of Scotland, will the Government at least make a statement on their attitude to the taking of options on large areas of
    428
    strategically-placed land by private companies backed by Scottish financial institutions?
    Mr. Campbell: That is quite a different point. The hon. Member will recognise that it was merchant bankers themselves who were being criticised for their activities last Friday. We are making good progress in Scotland in respect of undersea oil, and the onshore activities are all welcome developments. None the less, this seems to be an area in which each sector criticises the other.

    Mental Welfare Commission
    Mr. Ronald King Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to seek an increase in the powers of the Mental Welfare Commission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Monro: The commission's powers in relation to the taking of evidence were recently extended by the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972, and I am not aware of any need for additional powers.
    Mr. Murray: Is the hon. Gentleman really content with present arrangements for Secretary of State patients at the State mental hospital? Can he, for example, tell us what percentage of such patients receive psychiatric treatment? Will he consider whether the excellent work of the Mental Welfare Commission could not be usefully supplemented by mental welfare tribunals to which complaints by such patients and other patients who are detained in hospital could be referred?
    Mr. Monro: I certainly join the hon and learned Member in praise for the Mental Welfare Commission, which does an exceptional job in Scotland. With respect to him, he may be thinking of the Mental Health Review Tribunal in England, which only advises the Home Secretary. In the same way as my right hon. Friend has to make the final decision on discharge of Secretary of State patients at Carstairs, the Home Secretary has to make the final decision in England. It would not help to add to the powers that we already have.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Mental Welfare Commission satisfied with the present position of out-patients, since the local authorities are responsible for them

    429
    while the commission has a visiting responsibility?
    Mr. Monro: I will make inquiries and write to my hon. Friend. Certainly there were some difficulties as insufficient people were coming forward to offer to look after out-patients, but I shall write to my hon. Friend about the immediate position.
    Mr. John Smith: While the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the question of the rights of patients, whether mental patients or other patients, will he explain to the House why he accepted an amendment in Committee on the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972 relating to the powers and duties of the Health Commissioner, which were taken out of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill dealing with England which is at present before the House?
    Mr. Monro: This in no way affects the position of the Mental Welfare Commission, which we feel needs to be retained in a strong position in Scotland.

    Housing (Estimates)
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the highest annual figure in the parliamentary Estimates for housing during the period 1965 to 1969; and how this compares with the parliamentary Estimates for 1973–74.
    Mr. Younger: The highest annual estimate between 1965 and 1969 was £30·2 million in 1968–69. The estimate for 1973–74 is £101·6 million.
    Mr. MacArthur: Does my hon. Friend realise that I am almost speechless? Is he aware that these remarkable figures make nonsense of the mischievous and alarmist housing stories spread about Scotland by those sour and prattling hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Younger: I have no illusions that even figures like these could make my hon. Friend speechless. Of course he is right: Opposition Members who made a great thing a year ago about the Housing Finance Act cutting subsidies have been proved totally and absolutely mistaken. I should have thought that they would have had the grace to admit it.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if anyone is speechless, it is
    430
    the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who are confronted with the escalating prices of houses about which the Government are doing very little?
    Mr. Younger: I should have thought that, whatever one may accuse the Government of doing or not doing, doing very little about inflation is the last accusation that could possibly be levelled against us. The hon. Gentleman knows that until inflation is conquered that sort of thing will go on. This Government have taken bigger steps than any other Government this century to do that.
    Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend emphasise on every possible occasion that the excellent figures which he has just quoted include the fact that there arc literally thousands of people in Scotland who, under the new Act, will live rent free from now on?
    An Hon. Member: Nonsense.
    Mr. Younger: That is a very important point. We have always maintained that more money could be made available for housing in Scotland provided that it was concentrated on those who need it most, which is precisely what we have done. The people concerned are very grateful about it.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How much of this total is the result of the record house building figures between 1964 and 1970? How much of the figure is due to inflation? What increase in house building does the Minister expect in the next couple of years?
    Mr. Younger: I am not sure about all those questions. But absolutely none of this figure is in any way due to any activities by Opposition Members.
    Secondly, the housing programme has received a welcome boost from the generous subsidy arrangements which were brought in by the Act. That is why local authorities had a record number of approvals to put to us, which they are now proceeding to go on and build.
    Mr. Ross: Am I to understand that the quarter of a million houses built by the Labour Government, a record number, are attracting no subsidy at all? That would be the implication of the hon. Gentleman's answer. If those houses were not there, there would not need to be any continuing subsidy at all.
    Mr. Younger: I must give the right hon. Gentleman a slide rule for Christmas because he will find that if his subsidy system had been carried on and the new Act had not been brought in, his subsidy would have produced nothing remotely approaching the figure of £101·6 million.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. On the theme of speechlessness, may I point out that 12 Scottish Questions have taken 37 minutes. I hope that we can make quicker progress.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the expected expenditure under the parliamentary Estimates for housing in the year 1973–74; and how this compares with the equivalent sums in 1971–72 and 1972–73, respectively.
    Mr. Younger: The figure is £101·6 million for 1973–74, compared with £50·1 million for 1971–72 and £61·4 million for 1972–73.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) I am speechless, but before I lose my voice altogether may I ask what steps the Minister can take to trumpet these facts all over Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: The evidence of these facts is to be seen in the balance sheets of local authorities, which find that the new subsidy system gives most help where it is most needed. It is worth noting from all these figures that of all the years under the present Government, even the lowest year is substantially above the highest year under the previous Government.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the Minister estimate how much of this new payment will come out of the rates, either for the present figure which has been given or for the figure covering the immediate future?
    Mr. Younger: None of this figure comes out of the rates. It is Government money which is devoted to housing under the parliamentary Estimates for housing. But the rates will be substantially assisted too by the fact that the
    432
    burden ratepayers now carry for housing will be more than halved over the next five years.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received about employment prospects in the light of future pit closures in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The last colliery closure in Scotland was in October 1972. No further closures in Scotland have been announced by the National Coal Board, so that questions of alternative employment have not since arisen. I shall continue to keep closely in touch with the situation in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Secretary of State aware that such a statement from him —that no pit closures are contemplated —shows that he is completely out of touch with what is happening in Scotland? Does not he agree that it is time there was a statement on how the new Coal Industry Act, and the money earmarked in it, will prevent pit closures?
    Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland there is growing suspicion that the Act and the money therein mentioned are becoming merely symbols and will not be activated by the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about this?
    Mr. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman not misrepresent what I have just said? I shall repeat it for him. I said that no further closures in Scotland have been announced by the National Coal Board but that I was keeping closely in touch with the situation because I recognise that closures could be announced in the future. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry made a statement about this in the debate on 21st December. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear it he can look it up.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is too late to do anything about a particular area when the announcement of a pit closure has been made? We are asking that Section 9 of the Act be applied to see whether

    433
    some of the collieries which we hear—only hear—axe contemplated for closure need not be closed if there were an application of the money which the Government keep for this purpose.
    Mr. Campbell: It has been made clear that the future depends upon the industry's success in selling its product and on changes in productivity. The coal industry as a whole and miners recognise this and have been making special efforts. I must point out also that the National Coal Board has a good record of giving adequate notice before closures. But in the closure of October 1972 I am glad to say that of the 448 men employed, 310 were transferred to other collieries and of the other 138 who were made redundant a very large number were over 60 or in their late 50s.

    Family Planning
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future development of family planning services in Scotland.
    Mr. Monro: From April 1974 family planning will become a normal part of the health services, with advice and treatment provided without charge. Contraceptives will, like other drugs and appliances, be supplied as appropriate under the National Health Service. The standard prescription charge will be paid for each item supplied and the usual exemptions from charges will also apply. The overall effect of the changes is likely to be a substantial expansion of the services provided in Scotland as a whole.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Under-Secretary aware that some local authorities in Scotland provide a free comprehensive family planning service and that the impact of his announcement today means that these will not be allowed to continue? Will he, however, change his mind on this and allow area health boards to continue an existing service or to adapt new services under Section 8 of the 1972 Act? How much more will it cost in Scotland to give a completely free service as opposed to the arrangements which the hon. Gentleman has announced today?
    Mr. Monro: I could not tell the hon. Gentleman the cost of a completely free service, but he knows that the United
    434
    Kingdom figure is about £3 million for removing any prescription charge. The hon. Gentleman and I appreciate what has been done in Aberdeen and that if we are to go on to the National Health Service for the whole of Scotland it would be unreasonable to continue local authority services, or something equivalent to them, because they will cease next April.
    The present plans are the most satisfactory. I am always willing to listen to discussion. The Bill is at present going through the House and I shall willingly listen to what anyone has to say.
    Mr. W. H. K. Baker: How can my hon. Friend justify expenditure by the Exchequer on family planning, which surely should be the responsibility of families and not of the State?
    Mr. Monro: I must disagree with my hon. Friend. There are over 100,000 abortions each year and over 70,000 illegitimate children. If that number can be reduced by constructive help of the family planning service, it is to the great good of the country.
    Mr. Carmichael: On the question of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, the Minister may remember that he gave an undertaking on Report stage that health boards in whose area there were local authorities which operated a free family planning service, for both advice and appliances, would be allowed to continue this service. Will he look back at the Report stage and realise that he is changing the attitude of the Government on this point?
    Mr. Monro: Certainly the policies laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services are marginally different from what was before the House a year ago. But the hon. Gentleman can raise this matter at a later stage. I am always willing to listen to argument, but I do not think that it is right for a local authority scheme to be perpetuated in the new national scheme under our policies.
    Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend agree that Aberdeen deserves the greatest tribute for its pioneering, progressive system in this matter and that its successful example has been in large measure responsible for the change in public attitude and the new policy which has

    435
    now been put forward? However, will not many of those who are at present receiving the free system in Aberdeen continue to do so because of the new exemption methods which are proposed?
    Mr. Monro: Yes. I gladly pay a warm tribute to Aberdeen Town Council, because it pioneered this policy from 1946. It has obviously been successful. I agree with my hon. Friend in that Aberdeen's thinking and what it has shown in practice is in some way responsible for the policies of today. But I agree with my hon. Friend, too, that a large number of people attending clinics will continue to receive the same free service as they obtain now.

    Shandy (Sale)
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek powers to prohibit the sale of the product shandy from non-licensed retail shops.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend proposes to await the Clayson Report before considering possible changes in the licensing laws.
    Mr. Stewart: In view of the delay in production of the Clayson Report, will the Minister take action in the meantime to prevent the sale of this product containing alcohol, however minimal, by retail shops?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The use of the beverage might help any speechlessness that there might be in the House. It is not fair to say that there are any real delays over the report. It is a big subject which arouses a lot of controversy in Scotland and the committee has not been sitting for an undue time. We expect to receive the report shortly. As for the beverage, we have certainly received no representations about it and I am not aware that it does any particular harm.

    Secondary Education (Edinburgh)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the representations he has received seeking an early decision on the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have received representations from Edinburgh Education Authority and from some Edinburgh parents pressing for an early decision. Some hon. Members have also approached me on this subject. I shall announce my decision on whether the authority's proposals can be approved in their present form when all the implications have been fully considered.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome very much the important assurances he gave us last week on this matter but that notwithstanding those assurances we feel that the decision is long overdue? Can he assure us that he is not deliberately holding back his announcement until after the municipal elections?
    Mr. Campbell: I am not sure whether the assurances to which the hon. Member refers are the same as some of the comments that I saw in the Press. However, I have made clear that this is a matter on which I cannot take a hasty decision because the proposals would have a far-reaching effect on the provision of education throughout the city, and all their implications must be carefully considered before decisions are reached.

    Perth Road Bridge
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the proposed new road bridge at Perth; and if it will be a toll bridge.
    Mr. Younger: The estimated cost is £4 million. The bridge will not be subject to tolls.
    Mr. Doig: Is the Minister aware that this is a form of discrimination between one route and another? Is he not aware that the effect of this will be slightly to shorten the route at Government expense? There will be no tolls for traffic travelling on one route but there will be tolls for traffic going the other way over the Tay Road Bridge, which is at present the shorter route. Has the Minister considered the effect this will have on the revenue of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board?
    Mr. Younger: That will have to be considered when the bridge is constructed. This Government's policy is the same as that of the previous Government: that tolls are levied on major new

    437
    estuarial crossings which provide exceptional benefits to the users in the saving of time and expense. Tolls are charged throughout the country on such crossings of estuaries. I hardly feel that this bridge could be described as crossing an estuary.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Can my hon. Friend say how long it will be before the bridge is connected to the existing motorway system?
    Mr. Younger: I cannot, because this is the subject of planning procedures upon which objections have been lodged. All I can say is that we are trying to resolve them as quickly as possible but at the present time it is not possible to determine how long this will take.
    Mr. MacArthur: There is a pressing need for the new bridge. Will my hon. Friend give any indication when it is likely to be completed?
    Mr. Younger: That depends how long it takes to resolve the planning and objection problems which have arisen. The bridge is expected to take about three years to build once a start has been made, which we hope will be next year, but that depends on the resolution of legal proceedings.

    Schools (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the degree of consultation with parents and teachers which he regards as appropriate in cases in which local authorities are promoting major reorganisation schemes or school closures.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The need varies with the circumstances and it would be impracticable to lay down a particular pattern, but I would take up with local authorities, as I have done, any case in which I thought their consultations were inadequate.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the consultation over the closure of the selective schools in Glasgow consisted of the issuing of one circular letter to the parents of the children a day before the schools broke up for their holidays telling them that the schools were to close and inviting them to speak to the headmaster if they had problems?
    438
    The headmasters were about to go off on a two-months' holiday. If that kind of consultation which my right hon. Friend has approved for these schools were applied on the shop floor, there would be a general strike within days and many Glasgow folk would feel inclined to join in.
    Mr. Campbell: In March last year I insisted that Glasgow Corporation should carry out consultations with the parents and teachers and it did that in June. It wrote to all the parents of pupils substantially affected, and that gave parents the opportunity of expressing their views. I agree that Glasgow Corporation could have done more. But when I pressed the corporation, it did in the end carry out consultations.

    Scottish Economic Council
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next take the chair at the Scottish Economic Council.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: On 13th April.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the members of the council why in the economic review section of the Scottish Economic Bulletin there is only one passing reference of one sentence to North Sea oil and its effect on the Scottish economy? Is it fair for us to regard this departmental omission as an indication of the well-recognised fact that on matters of oil policy the Secretary of State's influence in the Cabinet is negligible?
    Mr. Campbell: No, the hon. Member is talking nonsense. The Bulletin has a purpose which is well recognised. It was not on that occasion dealing with North Sea oil. The question of undersea oil has been dealt with in various ways, including a publication from the Department of Trade and Industry, and it will be dealt with in the future. It is a continually changing situation and the Government will be issuing information in the most appropriate forms on the many different aspects of this important subject for Scotland.

    Employment (School Leavers)
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to create further employment

    439
    opportunities for unemployed school leavers in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 31st January to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Since then the substantial downward trend in unemployment in Scotland has continued and this affects young people as well as adults.—[Vol. 849, c. 1131–3.]
    Mr. McElhone: Notwithstanding that reply, is the Minister aware that 32 per cent. of all unemployed school leavers in Scotland are in Glasgow? May we have an assurance that the Secretary of State is pressing as hard as possible in the Cabinet that Glasgow and West Central Scotland get their share of the Civil Service jobs being dispersed under the proposals of the Hardman Report?
    Mr. Younger: I share the hon. Member's concern about unemployment of young people, which is one of the worst features of unemployment and one we all want to eliminate. The hon. Member will know of the Community Industry Scheme, which has two particular centres in Scotland, of which Glasgow is one. We are anxious to encourage this and we are doing all we can to see that Scotland receives its fair share of projects under the scheme. The hon. Member would not expect me to anticipate publication of the Hardman Report, but the views of all interested bodies in Scotland have been well considered by all those concerned with the discussion.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that since 1969 there has been a gradual decrease in the number of apprentices being employed by Scottish industrialists and that if it had not been for the increase in the school leaving age the situation would be more precarious? In those circumstances the Scottish Office must accept some responsibility. In Lanarkshire 7 per cent. of the insurable population is still unemployed. What will the Government do about it?
    Mr. Younger: I will not go into all the measures taken to relieve unemployment. It is sufficient to say that unemployment has been substantially reducing for a full year, and everyone is extremely pleased about that. The main remedy is to get the economy as a whole expanding. As we are all very glad to note, the econ-
    440
    omy seems to be expanding at an annual rate of about 5 per cent., a rate undreamed of under previous Governments.
    Mr. McElhone: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, and the fact that the Secretary of State has not given the assurances for which I asked, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

CONTROL OF MOTOR RALLIES BILL
3.31 p.m.
Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the control and regulation of motor rallies.
The numerous complaints I have received from constituents have prompted me to introduce the Bill, which is an attempt to resolve the conflict between the interests of the rally enthusiasts and those people who reside in areas that are suitable for rallying.
Rallies take place at night. As country roads provide the best tests for motorists, those people living near such roads, who are accustomed to quietness at night, find that the noise of a rally is a great nuisance. There have been complaints about dangerous driving, rudeness and abuse from rally drivers, but the major complaint has been about noise.
The present controls come under the regulations that came into force in April 1969. Those regulations largely follow the recommendations in the Report of the Advisory Committee on Motor Rallies, published in 1964. The regulations give to the Royal Automobile Club the power to authorise rallies. Any motor club wishing to stage a rally applies to the RAC and pays it a fee. Paragraph 10 of the relevant statutory instrument requires the RAC to notify the chief officer of police of any area where it is proposed to hold an event, and to consult the appropriate highway authority. This arrangement of consultation and notification is far too loose. The power still lies with the RAC.
Paragraph 11 requires the RAC to have regard to
"(a) whether in all the circumstances it is likely that the conditions, subject to which

441
the event if authorised, would be required to be held, will be observed ".
Note the words "is likely". It also requires the RAC to have regard to
"(b) the extent to which the holding of an event might prejudicially affect the safety, amenity or convenience of members of the public, …
(d) the nature and suitability of the route …
These matters are to be within the prerogative of the RAC to decide. It is a matter of opinion on which it will judge. The arrangements are far too loose and need to be tightened up. Both paragraphs that I have quoted place far too much power in the hands of the RAC, which has been far too remote, far too off hand in dealing with complaints from the general public.
The Bill would change the controlling agency and make it more subject to local interests. It proposes that bodies be set up in each area or region of England and Wales, bodies consisting of representatives of motor clubs, motor cycle organisations, police authorities and local government. Those bodies will be responsible for authorising events, for receiving and dealing with complaints, and for supervising events.
Motoring organisations contend that "cowboys"—unofficial competitors and spectators—are often the cause of complaints. More adequate supervision by the bodies I propose in the Bill might deal with some of those problems.
The public would have more confidence, in that the complaints machinery would be more subject to their control, as they would be directly represented. We should have on the bodies people more sensitive to local feelings, as are the best motor clubs.
The Bill also provides for a semipermanent commission to meet at regular intervals—say, annually or every two years—to keep the situation under constant review and to make recommenda-
442
tions to the Minister on any changes that may be thought necessary.
The last advisory committee sat 10 years ago. It stated then:
"Although the number of events held each year seems to be fairly constant, there is some evidence that the total number of participants is growing."
The situation has changed considerably in 10 years, and a new look at the problem is needed.
That committee also recommended, in paragraph 97 of its Report, the setting up of a permanent advisory committee. The Government of the day did not think that to be necessary, but I believe the committee was right. A permanent commission is needed.
I would also mention, although it cannot be the subject of this legislation, the use of forest roads. Many of the problems could be overcome if direct grants were made to the Forestry Commission to strengthen and improve certain forest roads so that they could be used freely by the general public in the day and for rallies at night. The present fee payable for the use of the roads by motor clubs makes it prohibitive for all but the wealthiest clubs to consider using them.
I hope that the House will accept that the problem needs urgent attention, and will allow the Bill a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick, Mr. Brynmor John, Mr. Elystan Morgan and Mr. David Clark.
CONTROL OF MOTOR RALLIES
Bill to make further provision for the control and regulation of motor rallies, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 4th May and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
3.37 p.m.
The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has two principal objectives. The first is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Civil Aviation, which is commonly known as the Montreal Convention. The second is to enable the Government to seek information from and to give directions to airlines and airport authorities on matters concerning aviation security.
Hijacking and sabotage of aircraft and other acts of violence affecting the safety of civil air transport present one of today's most difficult problems. It is a problem that knows no boundaries. No State and few of us can consider ourselves immune from its risks. It is a problem that brings with it actions which can have no possible justification in the threat which they present to the safety of innocent passengers and aircrew and in the intolerable pressures they place on the unfortunate victims caught up in this violence.
It is a problem that imposes the most extreme strain on pilots. It has only been the exceptional skill, discipline and control of these men, to whom I wish to pay tribute this afternoon—and I know that the House will join me—that has averted major catastrophes in a number of incidents. It is a problem which requires the constant application of the closest cooperation between States, airlines, airport authorities and all those who fly in aeroplanes. There are no easy solutions. It is against this background that I bring the Bill before the House.
Before I explain the form of the Bill, I think hon. Members would expect me to say something about the Government's policy and their general approach to combating violence against civil aviation. Our policy has three basic objectives: first, to
444
prevent violence occurring; secondly, to ensure that we are able to deal with any violence which may arise; thirdly, to provide that when hijackers and saboteurs and the like are caught they can be dealt with effectively wherever they may be throughout the world.
The first requirement in effective prevention is to be forewarned of possible violence. The gathering and dissemination of such information is primarily, though not exclusively, a matter for Governments. We keep our airlines and airport authorities closely advised of the threat to their operations and of the measures which they might take to combat this threat. This involves a clear understanding of the responsibilities of all concerned and the closest liaison between the airlines, airport authorities and the Government.
The emphasis on co-operation is vital to our whole approach to the problem. Nothing in this Bill is intended to undermine the close contacts which have been built up between all sides of the industry and the Government, or the mutual trust and understanding which I believe exists, and which, in our judgment, is so necessary to combat the evil which we face.
The Government have the overall responsibility for aviation security policy and for the provision of the advice and guidance on the threat and the counter-measures to which I have just referred. Operational responsibiliy, on the other hand, for implementing security measures rest- with the airlines in respect of their aircraft and everyone and everything which goes on board, and with the airport authority in respect of the overall security of the airport.
The provision of advice, guidance, liaison and co-operation is achieved formally through the National Aviation Security Committee, and I know from personal experience the close attention it pays to all aspects of aviation security, through the airport security committees which complement the national committee at the local airport level and through the more or less permanent contact, on a day-to-day basis, which has been established between those involved with the problems in Government and in the industry.
I should be the last to suggest that violence can be dealt with by setting up

445
committees, but I believe that the National Aviation Security Committee, which involves the Government Departments concerned—that is the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence—and the police, airline operators, airport authorities, the Civil Aviation Authority and the trade unions, including the British Air Line Pilots' Association, complemented in the way I have described, fulfils an important function as a forum for consultation and for the regular review of the situation facing our civil aviation and the preventive measures which are continually being taken.
The preventive measures taken at our airports and by our airlines are related to two basic considerations—first, to prevent the hijacker joining an aircraft or the saboteur from placing his bomb on board; secondly to ensure that security measures are related to the threat and are concentrated on those operations most at risk. Some of these measures, notably the searching of passengers and their baggage, will be familiar to regular travellers and those hon. Members who recently had the opportunity to visit Heathrow who will know something of the security precautions which are applied there and which are equally applied throughout the country.
The House will understand why I do not intend to catalogue the full range of precautions which are taken or the equipment which is being used. It would be wrong if I did so. There is limited purpose in installing security measures if we immediately advertise them to those they are designed to catch. They vary with intensity as between airlines and individual flights, and it is a foolhardly person today who ignores the comprehensive security framework around our airports.
The Government's response to the security problem is not confined to the provision of advice and guidance. To ensure that measures to combat hijacking and sabotage in the United Kingdom are not frustrated by financial considerations, we are meeting the full costs, originally estimated to be about £1 million a year, of over 30 British and foreign airlines in searching their passengers and baggage at our airports. This is a major contribution to the effort to contain violence and has been recognised as such both
446
by the air transport industry in the United Kingdom and overseas.
The searching of passengers and baggage and security of the aircraft is only part of the answer. It is necessary to complement these efforts at the airports. When our airports were designed it was never imagined that we should be faced with violence in the forms which we now face. The emphasis was on the smooth and speedy flow of passengers, baggage and cargo. To apply security to existing airports presents complex problems, but we have no choice but to face them.
The Government for some time have been undertaking comprehensive security surveys of British airports. These are of major importance in reviewing existing security measures, and in considering improvements and in recommending the action which has been or might be taken to effect further such improvements. Very considerable progress has been made with the surveys and in the implementation of the necessary decisions that followed from them.
A lot of hard work and resources are being expended throughout the world on efforts to combat violence and terrorism directed at civil aviation. And the inevitable question is the effectiveness of these efforts.
Mr. Dan Jones: Hard work is one thing, but can the Minister assure the House on this very important issue that professional people are employed for these purposes?
Mr. Heseltine: The most professional people are available to us. I can readily give that assurance.
Are the efforts that we are making effective? The disappointing answer that I must give is that nobody knows how effective they are. I can point to the statistics which show that the number of hijackings has declined significantly over the past two years, and that the proportion that have been successful in the sense that the hijacker or extortionist has achieved his objectives has declined even more rapidly.
I can point also to the considerable number and wide variety of firearms, ammunition and other potential weapons which have been removed from passengers and their baggage at our airports. For example during the period October to

447
December the following were among the many items found on passengers by BOAC: 10 shotguns, 72 toy guns, revolvers and pistols, six rifles, one musket, 332 rounds of ammunition, 2,000 air gun pellets, 245 various knives, 67 swords, five crossbows, and a variety of other offensive weapons. But I cannot say how many potential hijackers and saboteurs have been deterred by the measures which we have taken.
This is at once the dilemma and frustration of those engaged in security work, that they are rarely able to assess the positive effects of their efforts. There can be no complacency. Security measures consistent with the threat are being rigorously maintained by our airlines and at our airports and they must also be kept constantly under review. But it should be a sobering thought for any would-be criminals that the success rate of criminals hijacking aircraft for financial gain is very low indeed. In America for example which has been particularly prone to this kind of violence, there were 22 hijackings involving extortion demands in 1971 and 1972. In only one case did a hijacker avoid capture and retain the ransom which he demanded. The conclusion is clear: there is no future in hijacking and bomb threats as a simple way to easy money.
Prevention is the first objective. The second objective of our policy is to deal with any violence which may occur, since no preventive measures will ever eradicate violence. I cannot go into details, but I can assure the House that contingency plans have been made to deal with any violence at our airports, that there is a clear chain of command, that the full resources of the State are involved in these plans and would be deployed as required, and that all those concerned have been briefed accordingly.
I turn now to the third objective—the punishment of offenders—which is primarily a question of international action, and specifically the development of an effective and comprehensive legal framework. There are three international conventions to which I should like to refer briefly, and work is currently proceeding on ways to make these conventions more effective.
First there is the Tokyo Convention of 1963, which deals generally with crimes
448
committed on board aircraft, which sets out the jurisdiction and duties of States and describes the powers of the aircraft commander in relation to such crimes. The enactment in 1967 of the Tokyo Convention Bill enabled the United Kingdom to be among the first to ratify the convention, which is now in force for 62 countries.
Secondly, there is the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, which is concerned with the hijacking of aircraft. It was given effect in the Hijacking Act 1971, under which anyone who commits the offence of hijacking is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. Again, the United Kingdom was among the first ratifications of the Hague Convention, which has now been ratified by 49 States.
Thirdly, there is the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, which was concluded at a diplomatic conference in September 1971. This convention is specially aimed at sabotage and similar acts other than hijacking. Its general form is similar to that of the Hague Convention on hijacking, which it effectively complements.
The Montreal Convention was put in hand largely at the instigation of the United Kingdom at the Extraordinary Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which was convened in June 1970 especially to consider all matters affecting the security of civil aviation. It was signed on its conclusion at Montreal by 31 countries, including the United Kingdom, and since then there have been another 30 signatories, making a total of 61. It has been ratified by 23 countries and it came into force among those countries which have ratified the Convention on 26th January 1973.
Mr. Dan Jones: And ignored by the Middle East.
Mr. Heseltine: One hopes that progress will be made in encouraging other countries to add their signatures.
We know from the initiatives we have taken to encourage States to adopt both the Montreal and Hague Conventions that many other countries are preparing for ratification. What the convention

449
does, in brief, is to require contracting States to make it an offence for any person to perform an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight which is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft; to destroy or damage an aircraft or air navigation facilities or to place on board an aircraft a device or substance likely to endanger aircraft in flight; and to communicate false information thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight. These offences are to be punishable by severe penalties.
It includes provision for arrest, facilitates the extradition of offenders between contracting States and obliges any contracting State where the offender is found to take jurisdiction to prosecute him if it does not extradite him. We believe the convention to be an important additional instrument in dealing with violence. It has been welcomed by all sections of the air transport industry in this country.
It will be apparent from what I have said so far that Her Majesty's Government have been very active in developing and supporting these various conventions. But there is one further area which has been a matter of particular concern, and that is the steps which might be taken, including sanctions, to deal with those States which do not act in accordance with the conventions. At the meeting of the Legal Committee of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal in January, it was decided that four proposals should be submitted for consideration at an extraordinary session of ICAO and at a diplomatic conference to be held concurrently in Rome in August.
The first proposal was a joint United Kingdom-Swiss proposal to amend the Chicago Convention to provide for the use of the sanctions in that convention, including the stoppage of air services and the suspension of voting rights in ICAO against offending States. The second was a French proposal for incorporating the provisions of the Hague Convention against hijacking into the Chicago Convention, under which in theory a State could be expelled from ICAO if it failed to ratify the amendments. The third was a proposal by the Soviet Union for a protocol to the Hague Convention providing for the automatic extradition of
450
an offender to the State of registry of the aircraft concerned. The fourth proposal was by the Scandinavian countries for a new convention which would provide for recommendations to be made to an offending State.
We are now actively engaged in preparing for the meeting in Rome in August. We are seeking, through all the means open to us, to achieve the widest possible support for the proposals we have put forward to amend the Chicago Convention. If these efforts are successful and our proposals are adopted, we believe they will be an important addition to the measures being taken internationally to deal with violence against civil aviation.
The question of sanctions is of special concern to the pilots and to other employees in air transport. I keep closely in touch with them about this and I fully understand their position and the depth of their feeling. But we all recognise that, to achieve their result, any sanctions which might be imposed must be significant in their effect and widely applied. Unilateral action is likely to have negligible effect—indeed, it is more likely to damage the State imposing the sanctions than the State at which they are directed.
I do not propose to go through the Bill clause by clause, since the purpose of each clause is, I think, clearly stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, but there are a number of points to which I should like to draw attention.
Mr. Robert Adley: Would my hon. Friend list, either now or later in the debate, the nationalities of the passport holders he mentioned as having been caught at Heathrow in possession of offensive weapons?
Mr. Heseltine: I think my hon. Friend will understand that the provision of that information would require a lot of detailed analysis, and I doubt whether I have it available today. I will see whether it could profitably be made available.
The purpose of Part I of the Bill is to enable us to ratify the Montreal Convention, and the main provisions relating to this are contained in Clauses 1 and 2, which define the offences of destroying, damaging or otherwise endangering the

451
safety of aircraft in flight and destroying, damaging or interfering with air navigation facilities or communicating false information likely to endanger aircraft in flight; in Clause 4, which provides that those committing these offences shall be liable to imprisonment for life; and in Clause 5 which is concerned with the extradition of offenders.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, but can he explain whether Clause 1(3) indicates that damage or destruction to a civil aircraft is an offence under the Bill even if the offence is committed outside the United Kingdom and by a non-British person? Would the provision thereby cover such incidents as the destruction of the Libyan civilian airliner on 21st February?
Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question in general terms. The object of the clause is to give effect to the agreed provisions in the Montreal Convention. One of the purposes of the convention was to have a global international situation which is exactly as the hon. Gentleman has suggested it. It was agreed that countries would take the sort of powers implied in the Bill, although outside their own territorial boundaries, and they rely on the convention to give them effective support to be able to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the provision would cover specific incidents such as that to which he referred. I first point out that there is no such law in this country until the Bill is passed, and therefore that incident could not have been affected, I imagine, by a law which has not been passed. However, I will refer to this matter later. Meanwhile, I will check up on whether the opinion I have given is correct.
In relation to Part II of the Bill I have already emphasised that the process of continuing consultation and voluntary co-operation between the Government and industry is working extremely well. It is our wish that it should continue, and we believe that it will. But recent acts of terrorism have taken forms which can barely have been visualised. For example, there was the massacre of innocent passengers at Lod Airport in May 1972, the sabotage
452
in June of a Cathay Pacific aircraft over Vietnam, the hijacking in November in America which lasted over 29 hours and involved the shooting of the co-pilot and a threat to crash the aircraft on an atomic weapons centre. There was also the hijacking of an Ethiopian airliner in December 1972 when a grenade exploded in the aircraft and a major catastrophe was narrowly averted. These incidents are of an order of magnitude and threat which could never have been envisaged in the early days of aviation.
In the light of these developments, the Government consider that it would be imprudent to expect that in every circumstance, no matter how willing the cooperation, owners and operators of aircraft or the managers of aerodromes could be expected to take the necessary steps without formal statutory backing. For example, violence might take such a form that the Government considered that more rigorous searching should be introduced. While we would expect the airlines to appreciate the need for this, since they would be advised of it, the searching might involve long delays to flights and some risk to the goodwill of the airlines. In these circumstances, the airline operator might well find it an advantage to receive a formal direction so that he could make it clear that he was required to take such action because the Government had ordered him to do so.
This was the first reason which influenced the Government in seeking these powers. The second main reason was that while it was impossible to forecast what form future violence might take, we believe that the public would expect the Government to have the powers to deal with any eventuality. That is why the powers are so all-embracing and in certain respects unprecedented. It gives the Government no pleasure to have to ask for these powers but we believe that the situation makes them necessary to support our efforts to protect innocent passengers and aircrews against the menace of terrorism.
The Government are very conscious of the implications of these powers for the liberty of the subject. I wish to emphasise most strongly that the powers apply only to the purposes to which Part II of the Bill applies. These purposes, which are the protection of aircraft and aerodromes and persons or property on

453
aircraft or at aerodromes, are contained in Clause 7. I wish also to assure the House that the powers will be used sparingly, reasonably and with all due care, with a proper regard for the rights of the individual and after appropriate consultation.
The powers for the Secretary of State to request information about security measures and to give directions are contained in Clauses 8 to 11. In relation to this, and following discussion in another place, the Government will be introducing amendments intended to extend the coverage of the Bill to air navigation facilities. The House will wish to note particularly Clause 11 which provides a general power to give directions; Clause 15 which enables a direction to override any contract, Act or rule of law to the contrary; and Clause 18 which provides powers of search. These clauses are all qualified in certain respects but I believe they raise particular points to which the House will wish to apply itself carefully.
No nation is more rightly proud of the fundamental rights of its citizens than we in Britain. No Parliament is more jealous of the protection traditionally afforded to individuals to pursue their lives, fully protected from the arbitrary use of power by civil or military authority. No Minister will come lightly to this House and ask for powers of arrest unprecedented in peace time.
But I must tell the House that I believe that no Government can fail to recognise the realities of piracy and terrorism in the air today. Having recognised them no Government can fail to equip themselves to act against politically or criminally motivated people with the speed and decisiveness appropriate to the nature of modern hijacking.
The risk to the average passenger—we have 40 million passing through our airports every year—is of tiny proportions, for in reality the number of incidents is very small. But for the few who innocently become involved, pursuing their commercial duties or travelling on holiday, the risks are total.
I ask the House in giving this Bill a Second Reading to demonstrate its determination to give every support to those whose job it is to protect us at the point of confrontation with desperate, ruthless and often fanatical men and women.
4.5 p.m.
Mr. Roy Mason: The Minister has briefly given us an account of how the International Civil Aviation Organisation has been doing its job. The member States of the Organisation have been building up international legislation over the past 10 years with a view to stamping out aircraft hijacking and sabotage and with a view to obtaining international recognition of penalties which will deter such piratical acts. This Bill, which has the blessing of the Opposition, goes some way towards meeting ICAO's goal.
We have had the Tokyo Convention of 1963 which dealt with crimes committed on board aircraft and particularly described the role and responsibilities of the aircraft commander. The United Kingdom was among the first to ratify that convention. In June 1970 at another ICAO meeting the United Kingdom gave a further lead in outlining the next steps in international legislation to curb acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation. At The Hague meeting in December 1970 a new convention was produced suggesting measures for the suppression of unlawful seizure of aircraft which required all the contracting States to make hijacking of aircraft an offence punishable by severe penalties, including provision for the arrest and extradition of offenders between contracting States, or prosecution if extradition did not take place. The Hijacking Act of 1971 ratified that convention. Again I am pleased to say that we were among the first to do so.
We have this Bill as a result of the Montreal Convention concluded in September 1971. Having framed legislation against hijacking, ICAO was quickly forced to consider legislation to protect aerodromes, aircraft and passengers because of a series of attacks against aircraft on the ground and the sabotage of aircraft in flight. The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation is the proposed legislation on which this Bill is based. We recognise that the Bill is much more comprehensive than ICAO recommended.
During the Second Reading of the Hijacking Bill in 1971 we recognised that

455
it was a useful measure but did not provide powers enabling effective action to be taken against those who wished to use aircraft hijacking as a means of obtaining recognition for revolutionary minority forces or against fanatical nationalists, saboteurs and other such criminals.
Since the hijacking legislation was passed there have been 109 acts of aerial piracy. From July 1971, when we debated that measure, until the end of 1971 there were 34. During 1972 there were 72. This year there have so far been three. Contrary to what the Minister says, 1972 was a particularly bad year, involving 72 aircraft, 4,000 passengers, 14 of whom were injured and 11 of whom were killed. That includes the nine Israeli hostages at Munich.
According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 22 of the hijackers were killed in 1972. What was most disturbing—and here I disagree with the Minister—was that the hijacking success rate increased during 1972. In 1968, according to my figures, 85 per cent. of attempted hijackings were successful. In 1970 that figure was down to 60 per cent. and in 1971 it was 44 per cent. However, according to the figures supplied by the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations the success rate in 1972 rose to 50 per cent. The criterion used is that an aircraft did not reach the planned original destination.
We must recognise that hijacking and aerial piracy is still a major threat to airline travel and to all civil aviation airlines. It is still a threat, too, to the small and younger democracies. Here an aircraft and hundreds of innocent passengers can be used as pawns in inter-State conflicts. In particular, it can be used as a tool to prise out of Governments response to demands by rebels and fanatical political minorities that otherwise would never be heeded.
As the Minister suggested, we have to bear in mind that air travel has always been and probably always will be vulnerable in the face of a determined lunatic or paranoiac. But these are rare compared with the series of hijackings which we have recently witnessed, which were premeditated and callously planned to hold airlines, passengers and nations to ransom.
456
To date we have already established the law that hijacking is an offence, whether the hijacker seizes or exercises control of an aircraft. Punishment may be equivalent to imprisonment for life, and there is extradition of the hijacker between member States. We have also erected a screen of precautions, which vary between States and airlines but include air marshals, frisking at airports, the separation of luggage from passengers and security patrols. I believe that this collection of security measures is absolutely necessary and must be maintained. The cost is infinitesimal compared with the loss of a life.
However, I must warn the House that loopholes still exist and that this Bill will not block them, although I hope that, as the Minister suggested, the next ICAO conference will deal—indeed it will have to deal—with the ultimate problem, which is the problem of sanctions. One major worry to all concerned with civil aviation is that the Arab nations, although members of ICAO and most of them members of the International Air Transport Association, are not co-operating with the same will as most of the members of the two international organisations. If co-operation is not forthcoming and any act of aerial piracy or sabotage emanates from these countries, then the ultimate sanction must be used. They must be frozen out of the use and services of international airlines and air traffic control aids. If any nation harbours or provides refuge for one of these air pirates, steps must be taken to freeze the offending State internationally from all civil airline ports.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why he has singled out certain nations in this regard so soon after the shooting down of an airliner, which occurred very recently and is a very tragic memory for us all?
Mr. Mason: I have not singled out individual nations but a bloc, because, if the hon. Gentleman peruses all the conventions that were discussed at Tokyo, The Hague and Montreal and ratified in later years, he will discover that the Arab bloc generally has not ratified. If any of them did ratify, they were late in doing so. I am saying that we are not seeing the same co-operation, the same

457
will, from that group of nations as from the other major civil airline operators.
Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend also blamed the Arab States for not cooperating with ICAO. Is he not aware that at the recent conference of ICAO it was the Israeli Government which alone voted against the resolution, which was carried by 105 votes to 1, which demanded an independent international inquiry into the incident to which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) referred? Can we avoid double standards from the Front Bench? Will he put the blame where it belongs?
Mr. Mason: It is not a question of double standards and I am not talking about one nation or one bloc. I am speaking as forcibly as possible about the major issue of civil airline sabotage and aerial piracy. My hon. Friend will also know that many times previously at almost any one of those conferences the Israelis, as distinct from other civil airline operators and nations, could also have asked for emergency resolutions against the Arab bloc as a whole.
I stand by what I say—that this major loophole exists. Therefore, if we are to freeze offending States out, first of all we should deny their airlines the use of other nations' air space and air traffic control facilities and, secondly, we should place an embargo on their airports. An effective blacking of this nature is the ultimate sanction and ICAO, backed by the major aviation nations, must now be prepared to consider it. All these conventions so far are necessarily limited in solving that major problem while some countries still continue to grant asylum to hijackers. It is possible, however, as the Minister suggested, that the next ICAO conference will deal seriously with this matter.
The United States and Canada have already proposed agreement to impose sanctions on States which shelter hijackers or detain aircraft, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government, if they feel that the proposal of the United States and Canada is stronger than the joint United Kingdom-Swiss proposal, will back the former all the way.
It is also pleasing to note that Cuba is making hijackers increasingly unwelcome and has begun discussions with the
458
United States about further deterrent measures.
I should like at this stage to pay a tribute first of all to the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations but in particular to our own British Airline Pilots' Association. Although they have been under great stress and pressure from their members, they have continued flying, apart from a 24-hour token stoppage, throughout the most dangerous and troublesome period of civil aviation history. They feel that it is the Government's job to develop procedures and sanctions to make their job safe and and that it is not for them to suspend all air services in the world in anger and frustration over aerial piracy. They feel that this Bill will give them some support and they back completely the provisions contained in it.
This Bill, as I suggested initially, goes well beyond what the Montreal Convention suggested owing in the main to the expertise and authoritative pressure of noble Lords who so pressured Lord Drumalbyn—and to some watching the debates he seemed constantly to get his wig in a raffle—that he had to consider so many points that eventually, after the Second Reading and the Committee stage he had to take the Bill back and produce a more formidable Bill, which we are now having presented to the House.
Part I of the Bill seeks ratification of the Montreal Convention. It lists the offences against aircraft or air traffic control facilities both on land and at sea. It deals with the issuing of false communications or inducements within the United Kingdom or outside to act against aircraft or aids which might endanger an aircraft. The maximum penalty contained in the Bill is imprisonment for life, and there are important provisions for quick arrest and for remanding in custody. All this is necessary. We have a build-up of severe penalties and a listing of the offences which may jeopardise an aircraft or any of its aids, plus the extra powers for aerodrome constables of arrest and detention.
Part II of the Bill seems to be a protective part of the Bill. It spells out the protection for aircraft, aerodromes, persons and property from acts of violence. It decrees further offences regarding the carrying or use of dangerous

459
articles, firearms and explosives, including duds or imitations. It also increases the powers of inspection and detention of aircraft.
Two major matters in this part of the Bill are worthy of note and necessitate some further explanation from the Minister. The first is the extraordinary power granted to the Secretary of State in the Bill—power through directives. I have never in my life seen so much directive power vested in a Minister in a Bill. By directive he can ground all aircraft, detain all passengers, search everyone on the aerodrome and establish guards at every aircraft door.
While recognising the need for all this in order effectively to guard against hijacking and aerial sabotage, we shall have to question this massive directive power of one Minister. Perhaps he will be able to elaborate a bit more on this when he winds up the debate, but the Committee stage will be the opportunity to take the matter further.
Secondly—and this spills over into Part III—there are to be directives to persons employed for specific duties, and that will involve constables. They are not constables, in fact. They are airport security guards. There are to be directives regarding searches and other measures, including authorisation to carry firearms. We shall perhaps want to know a little more about that. There are to be directives about qualifications which involve specialist training and experience. "Constables" is obviously the wrong description. First, these people are on a specific job which necessitates specialist training. Secondly, the Home Secretary is not the governor of these people. The Secretary of State, with his directive powers, has responsibility.
The Bill further states that the Secretary of State shall be able to direct the manager of the aerodrome as to the steps he shall take to guard an aircraft in his aerodrome against acts of violence, specifying what measures shall be taken by his constables, whether they shall be armed, whether they shall make searches without warrants, whether they shall have extra powers for quick arrest and detention without charge. I should like the Minister's thoughts on this development, especially the establishment and build-up
460
of a special airport security force, the cost of which according to the Bill will be £600,000 in 1973–74, although the Minister says that security is costing the Government about £1 million a year.
It is a tragic reflection on the state of international society that such measures should be necessary, but necessary they are. These sums are small but, as the Bill makes obvious, the cost is bound to increase. I hope that the Minister, without breaching security, will tell us how he visualises the development of these airport security forces.
Constables' powers are greatly reinforced by the Bill. Constables will probably have a stronger legislative backing for search, arrest and detention than has any other peace-time corps. The cost of guarding aircraft on the ground is £50,000, which is by no means sufficient. I wonder what the survey of security at the 25 airports which handle our international traffic revealed.
Before security was stepped up, there were cases in which people who were not intent upon harm easily boarded aircraft. When one thinks of the average weekly wage and the number of international aircraft at Heathrow and Gatwick alone —even from the troubled areas of the Middle East—it is obvious that there are insufficient guards.
I should like the Minister to tell us more about the growth of the security forces. They need not be called constables. We can afford to say that we have a specialised security force operating at the airports. The £50,000 is a paltry sum to ensure that the job is done effectively and well.
The Bill could be committing the Government to large sums of money by way of compensation, but I agree that payment of compensation is absolutely right. One way of controlling the Secretary of State's powers of direction is by ensuring that full compensation is paid if, as a result of his directives, damage is caused to buildings or land or loss is suffered by persons.
The Bill and its proposed measures, when ratified by all the ICAO members, will step up security and surveillance at all the major international airports. It will, therefore, deal more effectively at its source with the danger of hijacking. But, useful as the Bill will be, we must

461
be prepared to legislate quickly against the political hijackers, those determined, fanatical, intelligent, well-trained groups which use hijacking and aerial sabotage for the purpose of securing political objectives. They are the biggest problem and the most difficult to defeat.
I look forward to hearing soon from the Government that, having taken a lead in framing the Montreal Convention on which the Bill is based, they will be in the vanguard in the next ICAO session, speaking out and being prepared to act against any nation that harbours air pirates and mass murderers. That must be our goal, and the quicker it is achieved the sooner shall we stamp out this civil aviation menace.
4.25 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the steps that the Government have already taken to counteract hijacking and air terrorism generally, and I welcome the Bill. The problems of hijacking are extremely difficult to solve and I am not sure that the apparently easy solution of sanctions to beat the political hijacker is as simple as it sounds, but I will return to that.
Only this morning I arrived back from New York on a transatlantic airliner after the British Caledonian inaugural flight. As I sat in the aircraft over the Atlantic, my thoughts turned to the problem of hijacking. I thought what a terrifying situation it must be when a hijacker makes his presence known in the fuselage of an aircraft. Suddenly the problem is there, on the plate of the air hostess and then of the pilot.
Of course one hears of marshals being carried on board some aircraft who are said to be such accurate marksmen that they can shoot down a hijacker as he stands in an aircraft even though it is 30,000 ft. over the sea. But that is a solution to hijacking which I would not wish to see adopted on any aircraft, for it contains the dangerous presupposition that the hijacker who has made himself known to the crew is the only one on the aircraft. There have been occasions when there have been other hijackers who have remained in their seats until they were ready to spring into action. One can imagine a marshal shooting down the one who stands up, but what
462
about the others? I do not want to live through a gun fight in mid-air.
I want now to deal with the extradition clauses in Part I of the Bill. Essentially there are three types of hijacker. There are those who are motivated by political objectives, those who seek to hold aircraft to ransom for financial reward, and the small and dangerous crank minority who are prepared to blow up an aircraft and themselves for the life insurance that their family will inherit. The later probably come within the category of the mentally unbalanced and are therefore so dangerous that one cannot think of measures adequate to catch them. Since there is a life insurance policy built into every air ticket, it should not be possible for a person to insure his life for a vast sum of money, buy an air ticket and then blow up an airliner. But I think that the compensation built into the air ticket under the Warsaw Convention of, I think, 75,000 dollars, should be looked at again to see whether it is adequate without being so excessive as to encourage anyone to take this kind of action.
The hijacker who holds an aircraft to ransom is a straightforward criminal, a highwayman, and the measures that we have discussed will catch, or at least deter, him.
With the political hijacker we are in a different world altogether. We can all think of so-called terrorist groups who have hijacked airliners to bring publicity to their cause and who have used the airliner and its passengers as a means of bartering the release of their imprisoned fellow nationals. It is surely reprehensible to hold in ransom innocent lives in that way. But it is sometimes a little more difficult to condemn all acts of political hijacking. I wonder what the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) feels about the political refugee who, for the sake of argument, is fleeing from an Eastern European country. Are we to hand him back when he has hijacked an aircraft simply as a means of transport from the country which is oppressing him to the country in which he seeks asylum? He is not a terrorist. He is not a criminal, although of course he is a hijacker. [An HON. MEMBER: "He could be a murderer."] He could be a murderer, but if he is the kind of person I believe

463
he is, then I do not think he is any of those things. He is simply somebody escaping to freedom. Obviously, if we are to be tough about the question of sanctions we must send him back, but we have to be extremely sure that he is the person we have singled out for the treatment we imagine that we can take with sanctions.
I am very unhappy about the whole concept of sanctions. Too often in this House, over quite a period of time, we have talked of imposing sanctions in various parts of the world, but very seldom have those sanctions proved to be as effective as we imagined they would be when we passed the legislation or ratified the treaty.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: My hon. Friend must not confuse the matter of sanctions which, as we all know, seldom work, with the matter of the return of the hijacker to the country from whence he has come, or his trial in the country in which he arrives. Quite clearly, if a man hijacks for political reasons, whether his political reasons are that he is a Palestinian who feels that the Palestinians have been wronged, or is a Jew in Russia who feels that this is the only way he can escape—whatever the motives—the crime is the same and must be dealt with in the same manner.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend's intervention is very interesting, but the point I am making is that the crime is not the same, which is why I raise the whole question of imposing blanket sanctions.
Mr. Michael Fidler: If my hon. Friend does not accept that, is he drawing a distinction between the refugee who is seeking to escape and the terrorist who is seeking to terrorise and intimidate? If so, how does he treat these separate categories?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is the exact difference I am trying to draw. We have to recognise that there are two very different approaches, one where there is a definite intent to destroy life, the other where somebody is running for his life and where there is no intent to hurt anyone at all. I believe that that is a consideration. Perhaps I should say no more than that when talking of sanctions.
Mr. Mason: We are getting into a rather sophisticated argument, but if a person is using an aircraft and determining the passage of that aircraft and its flight path, even though that person may be a refugee escaping from one country to another, in so doing he is endangering the life of all on board, especially when the flight path and fuel of that aircraft have been computed. Therefore, that act alone is a crime.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: It is simple enough to state it as the right hon. Gentleman expresses it but I will just leave that thought in the mind of the House. I believe that there is a distinction to be drawn and I am sure that there ought not to be the same punishment for these two different categories. The concept of extradition, therefore, is that much weaker than sanctions. If it works it can be effective, but obviously it will work only with the co-operation of those countries which do not at present seem anxious to put their signatures, shall we say, to such legislation as controls the movement of air traffic.
Having said that, I turn to the second part of the Bill, which raises the question of the powers of the Secretary of State to control airlines and airport authorities. I imagine that it is to be superimposed on the responsibilities which already lie in the hands of the British Airports Authority—to name but one organisation —to take certain measures against hijacking.
Having seen the British Airports Authority at London Airport, I am well aware that it is itself apprised of the problem and has introduced all kinds of security measures. One thing that struck me most was that the authority draws a distinction between what is described as the "land" side and the "air" side of the airport. When I went there within the last six months, the authority seemed to consider that security measures necessary for the land side of the airport—that is to say, that part of the airport before passengers go through the barrier—did not require the same surveillance as was required once passengers had passed through the barrier into the take-off lounge.
I find this a curious distinction, because it seems to me that the whole area of the airport must be seen to be

465
at risk and therefore the land side and the air side should merge together in security measures. No doubt that is one of the considerations that the Secretary of State has in mind in taking these new powers to give direction to airport authorities. Yet if one thinks about trying to maintain a security ring round an airport and one thinks of the enormous size of an airport, one realises what a superhuman task this is. I believe I am right in saying that Gatwick, at least, does not have a perimeter fence, so that it is quite possible to get on to the airport without much trouble.
When, as one does from time to time, one reads stories in the newspapers about a reporter who has managed to get into an airport workshop or a hangar in which there are airliners, it shows no credit on the newspaper's ingenuity. It is all far too simple, because the area is itself so widespread. Yet clearly the perimeter ring must be made as secure as possible.
By the same token, therefore, one appreciates the need to give power to the various authorities, or at least to their so-called "constables", to be able to enforce that security. I certainly join with the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in questioning this statement about constables. I believe he is right in saying that the word is given a very wide definition and could include security guards from private firms—very often Securicor. It is a dangerous development if we allow those people to carry arms. It is a departure from what has gone before in this country. It may be a necessary departure, but it is one which causes me some unease.
I would far rather there was a special group of airport police on all these airports who alone were entitled to carry firearms, rather than have the feeling that a security officer from a private firm, who—and I speak with some diffidence— is not always quite as much a fully trained professional as one might suppose from seeing him in uniform, is authorised to carry any kind of firearm or shotgun and might have the ability, although not the desire, to kill somebody. This is a side of this whole issue that badly needs considering in the Bill. Some limitation should be drawn on just how much power
466
we feel these newly-named constables should have.
Another point on which I wish to touch is that of the time which, it seems, is to be allowed to pass between the Secretary of State's requiring information—this is in Clause 8—and the time when the airline or airport authority must return that information to the Secretary of State. I would have thought that in the situation which might exist after a red alert in a hijacking situation, information would have to pass very quickly, and action be taken equally quickly. Therefore, I wonder whether four weeks can be allowed to elapse before authorities need to provide such information as might be needed at such short notice.
My last point relates simply to a method which I understand the American airlines have found singularly successful in defeating the criminal hijacker—that is, deciding the psychological profile of a hijacker and, working on that basis, training staff to recognise and pick out such a person. Eastern Airlines claim that they have a remarkable record of picking out, by this method, people who were intent on doing foul play on an aircraft.
Although it may sound far-fetched it is not very far removed from a situation which I recall when talking to a lady store detective. She told me that without knowing quite how she did it she was nearly always able to pick out a shoplifter before he or she had got very far. She had a sixth sense.
Perhaps this point is already in the Minister's mind and perhaps the British Airports Authority has already drawn up a list of people who have sensitive antennae for detecting hijackers. This may sound far fetched, but there may be something in it. After all, we must remember that we are talking about a criminal hijacker who is after loot—and, just like a shoplifter, intends to get something out of his actions and betrays that fact by his mental approach.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I warmly welcome the Bill. In my view we should take the strongest possible action against all those who attempt to damage or destroy aircraft as defined in the Bill. Some hijackers—I

467
have in mind particularly the Palestinian Arabs—in my view have strong reasons for feeling a deep sense of bitterness and despair, but nothing can excuse endangering or killing innocent civilians. I have said this before and I say it again.
I also welcome the Bill because it avoids double standards. It is extremely important in this House that we should avoid double standards when talking about the morality of acts of violence and terrorism. Whether or not we agree with their politics, we should condemn whoever commits them. I think that is what the Bill does, as I read it. I asked the Minister to explain it and I think that his explanation was acceptable to me, though I am glad that he will refer to the matter again when he comes to reply to the debate.
Mr. Heseltine: I have had an opportunity to consider the matter further, and can tell the hon. Gentleman that the explanation I gave was correct.
Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the Minister. It is a further reason for welcoming the Bill. It brings into account the destruction of an aircraft such as the destruction of the Libyan airliner on 21st February this year. Perhaps to keep temperatures down—and perhaps this will anticipate what the Minister will say— I should add that I am not stating that the Bill necessarily will cover that situation because there has been no inquiry into that particular case. However, I am certain in my own mind that the Bill would cover the Libyan airliner incident, but it would be a matter for the courts to decide when the legislation became law. I cannot prejudge the decision of the court, but it seems plain to me that Clause 1(3) would lead to criminal prosecution against the Israelis responsible for the destruction of that airliner.
Mr. Tebbit: Is the hon. Gentleman reading into the Bill that it will cover events which occurred between nations at war? At least some of the parties in the Middle East maintain that they are at war, even though other parties do not so maintain.
Mr. Mayhew: Yes, and one of the parties which does not maintain that it is at war is the Israeli Government, for
468
various good reasons, including some insurance claims involving hijacked aircraft. The Israeli Government strongly denies that a state of war exists.
To keep the temperature down, let us take an imaginary circumstance involving a BEA aircraft flying, let us say, over the Libyan frontier, turning round and then being shot down by a Libyan pilot on its way back. In that case quite plainly action would be needed, and if the Libyan Government refused to set up an inquiry, as the Israeli Government are refusing an inquiry, and if the Libyan Government refused to accept blame, as the Israeli Government are refusing to accept blame, I do not believe any British Government would fail to invoke the Montreal Convention and the provisions of this legislation to do their utmost to bring that Libyan pilot to justice.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) talked about an imaginary example. But he knows that a specific incident of this kind took place and involved a British aircraft which flew over Libya and was ordered down by the Libyan warplane. The pilot had the good sense to obey instructions, he landed and as a result there was no loss of life. I am not implying anything other than culpability for Israel through the shooting down of the Libyan airliner, but the circumstances of the other incident should be made clear.
Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and I for once agree. We both agree that the Bill should apply to the actions such as those he mentioned and also to actions such as that which occurred on 21st February—that is all I am saying, and that is why I particularly welcome the Bill.
I welcome the Bill because in the case of the Libyan airliner the reaction in Israel has been surprising, and indeed callous, on this tragedy. They have refused an inquiry. I was surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) talked about non-co-operation with ICAO and then spoke of Arab non-co-operation with that organisation. I was surprised that my right hon. Friend said that when one

469
bears in mind the Libyan air disaster. The Minister within the scope of the Bill did not even mention, as I said in my intervention, that at the last ICAO conference a recommendation for an independent international inquiry into the Libyan air disaster was passed by 105 votes to one—the Israeli vote—with two abstentions. That is non-co-operation. As my right hon. Friend said, Governments which do not co-operate should be punished. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should even invoke sanctions against them, whether they be an Arab Government or the Israeli Government.
Mr. Mason Mr. Mason indicated assent.
Mr. Mayhew: I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend agrees. I believe that this argument particularly applies to a Government which harbours a person who damages or destroys an aircraft, as the Israeli Government is harbouring the pilot who destroyed the aircraft with great loss of life. Therefore, since the Bill covers that essential point, I warmly welcome it.
I believe that the Bill must operate strictly. The hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) instanced the example of a political refugee who hijacked an aircraft to come from, let us say, Eastern Europe to Western Europe. What would we do in a case of that kind? I feel for that man and I am sure that such a case would present the utmost difficulty, but I am sure that the man should be sent back. We must be absolutely rigorous against all hijacking, all acts of violence, all destruction of aircraft, no matter who commits the crime.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that he is drawing an unfair distinction? If the man uses a car or any other vehicle, he would not be handed over. Therefore, why must an aircraft be treated as something so special in those circumstances?
Mr. Mayhew: Because such an act endangers, and sometimes kills, innocent civilians. Lives have been lost and people must be protected.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: Perhaps I should explain that there is not an automatic assumption that if a man is found
470
guilty, he is extradited. The definition means that he is equally likely to be prosecuted in the courts of this country. Therefore, the option exists for the court to decide whether to extradite or to punish with a penalty up to a maximum of life imprisonment. This is the way to achieve the sort of flexibility which some hon. Members have mentioned.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: In face of the general welcome which has been given to this Bill, my remarks will be brief. I wish to begin by saying how much I prefer the Government's second thoughts on this Bill to their first thoughts, and how much I personally welcome—as I believe do many other hon. Members and certainly many people outside the House—the fact that the Bill has been very much strengthened during its passage through the other place.
Having given the Bill that general welcome, I wish to express a few doubts about the measure in so far as its powers go beyond those needed to ratify the Montreal Convention. None of us will quarrel with the need for the Secretary of State to be granted extraordinary powers. But there must be an element of unease about the fact that those powers are limited in time. I think that we ought to consider seriously whether there should not be really extraordinary powers for a limited time, or whether the powers should not be trimmed and made permanent. My own preference would be to grant the Minister extraordinary powers for a limited time. I have no doubt that this matter will be raised again in Committee, as will the question of whether there should be a right of appeal against the use of some of these powers where time is not of the essence and where there is not a great deal of urgency. I am not quite sure to what extent this right of appeal already exists.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: An amendment was accepted in another place providing for just such an opportunity for further consideration by the Secretary of State on appeal where there is no urgency.
Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He adds not only to right hon. and hon. Members' observation of the

471
fact that I had missed that point but also to my own gratitude to their Lordships in another place for their work to improve the Bill.
I agree with many of those who feel that the final defence against the hijacker, which is what this Bill is primarily about, is that his crime should not pay. To do that we have to ensure first that the hijacker never achieves his objective. That means that we must be clear in our minds and that the potential hijacker must be clear in his mind that blackmail will not succeed and that, at whatever risk to whatever hostage, the British Government will not submit to the demands of hijackers. That has to be firmly established in the mind of everyone before we find ourselves in a situation where there has been a hijacking and where the will and resolution of Her Majesty's Government are being called into question.
We must also be clear that the life of the hijacker ought to be at stake, and not merely at risk from the guns of guards, constables or whatever we choose to call them. At the end of the road, through the due process of the law and the courts, he should be called upon to pay the supreme capital penalty, just as in law that is still the potential penalty for an offence of piracy with violence at sea.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) is right to say that sanctuary must be denied the hijacker. However, the right hon. Gentleman must be enough of a political realist to know that political expediency can easily override high-minded principles. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has survived on the Opposition Front Bench. He must be enough of a political realist to understand these matters. He must know, as my hon. Friends must, that countries which have an interest in sanctions busting will bust sanctions, whether they are black African, East European or white Western Powers busting Rhodesian sanctions or whether they are Arab Powers or those who have an interest in trading with Arab Powers busting sanctions against Arab States. We must be realistic. We have an interest in trading with the Arab bloc, as do many other advanced Western countries. We know
472
in our hearts that sanctions are very unlikely to stick in the present climate of world opinion.
I want finally to be clear in my mind that I understand the situation which was raised by my hon. Friend and political neighbour the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson). As I understand it, the person who hijacks an aircraft to escape from a State as a refugee and arrives in this country will either be extradited back to the country from whence he came or be tried in this country. If he is tried in this country, found guilty of the offence of hijacking and serves his sentence for that crime, he will then still be eligible to be considered as a political refugee and admitted as such as an act of political asylum if it is thought that his life will be in danger if he is returned to his country of origin. That must be right. He should not be returned at the risk of his life. But he should be made to pay, somewhere in this country or in another, for the crime which he has committed.
In general, I welcome the Bill. I am sure that we shall have minor differences about it in Committee. But I wish it a speedy passage into law.
4.57 p.m.
Mr. Dan Jones: I wish to make a brief contribution in order primarily to associate myself with the basic principles of the Bill. I say immediately that I have no intention of allowing references to the unfortunate Arab-Israeli conflict or to the issue of capital punishment to sneak into my remarks. Unlike some hon. Members, I intend to deal explicitly with the issue before the House.
In the violent age in which we live, I believe that the hijacking of an aircraft is one of the most calculated forms of physical and mental torture which can be inflicted upon innocent people. Like other hon. Members, I am expected frequently to travely abroad. I hope to have that privilege again in the years to come. But I undertake it as a duty, unlike many other people who do it for social reasons. It is a shame that they should have their lives menaced by this horrible fear, for such it is. For that reason, I have no sympathy with the hijacker, and I register that as my first point.

473
At the same time, while I associate myself with the Bill as far as I can possibly do so, I wish to make certain criticisms which I hope will be the means of strengthening it. It may be that at the end of the debate the Minister will be able to give us his opinions of them.
Earlier we listened to an exchange between the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who said that the amount of money now being spent to provide at our airports the kind of safety to which the travelling public are entitled, which is apparently about £50,000, seemed to him to be a pitifully small sum. I believe that my right hon. Friend has a valid point.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: This is a specific sum of money, a specific allocation, dealing with certain aircraft. It does not cover the totality of guarding aircraft. It is a specific area where we have additional precautions under way.
Mr. Jones: I accept that. Perhaps we can have the total figure when the Minister winds up. My point is that if the Government will employ professional people —I had an assurance that such would be the case—I should like to know how they will be used. It is possible and certainly desirable that travelling lists should be scrutinised by these professional people before passengers are allowed to get anywhere near embarkation point. If the right kind of professional people are employed in this capacity it is possible that a number of potential hijackers will not even reach the gangway. I believe that matter should be considered sympathetically.
I now turn to what I call the mental torture of the process. Let us imagine the captain of a plane with a gun in his back and ground control to his front and a conflict between the two. It is easy to imagine a man in those circumstances having a heart attack. It is a wonder that something of that unfortunate nature has not already occurred. I do not know whether the Minister or his advisers have tried to project themselves into that kind of position. On a number of occasions the instructions of the man with the gun in his back and the instructions of ground control have been in total conflict. It is difficult to imagine the utter wretchedness of that man's unfortunate situation.
474
I believe that the British public and other responsible elements throughout the world must sometimes wonder why, this hijacking scourge having been imposed upon human society for 40 years, we have not got universal laws to check it. The travelling public, who make airlines possible because they make them profitable, must wonder why successive Governments—not only British Governments, but Governments throughout the world —seem to have failed in providing effective universal sanctions against these murderous people.
In that connection I turn to Clause 5, which could be the most important clause in the Bill. It deals with extradition. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states:
"Clause 5 amends the Extradition Act 1870 and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 so as to provide that the offences created by Part I of the Bill are extraditable offences under the 1870 Act and relevant offences under the 1967 Act. It also provides that where there is no extradition arrangement with a State which is party to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, an Order in Council may be made under section 2 of the 1870 Act as though the Convention constituted the extradition arrangement with that State."
I should like to know how an Order in Council could possibly achieve that objective with a foreign Government. I offer an illustration. Let us assume that a British plane with British crew and passengers has been hijacked to a Middle East State. How could the terms of Clause 5—an Order in Council—control that eventuality? In reply the Minister might be well advised to direct his explanatory detail to that clause.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: It is not in the event of a hijacking that a provision of this kind would come into force. It is simply that where this or any other Government do not want to go through the negotiation procedure of establishing extradition arrangements with another country, they can deal with the matter specifically in connection with hijacking threats by resting on the authority of the Montreal Convention. There would then be a limited form of extradition arrangement reached without duress under a hijacking threat.
Mr. Jones: I still do not understand how extradition can be applied. I need

475
hardly remind the Minister that the Montreal Convention has been totally ignored by certain countries. I do not want to get involved in the Middle East Arab dispute, but some Middle East countries are in that position.
The Minister has advised the House that an international conference will be taking place in August this year to discuss certain legal points. That conference could have a tremendous significance concerning the principle of extradition. I hope that the Minister will agree that this could be the most effective international means of controlling this scourge. Is it possible, in advance of that particularly important conference, for our embassies in the Middle East to make diplomatic approaches to the Governments in that part the world and at least ask them to send representatives to hear the arguments advanced by the legal people who will be involved? It is obvious to me that if they do not send representatives they will appear to have no intention of following any international pattern regarding the problem that we are properly discussing.
The Government must realise that however much support they will get from the Opposition—I am sure they will get full-hearted support—they must not regard time as being on their side.
I believe that two agencies are probably watching developments in this House today and are taking serious note of what is being said, particularly by the Government. I refer to the International Transport Workers' Federation and the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations. These people will not necessarily sit on the sidelines much longer. They could, and probably will, take action unless there is action, or at least signs that the Government are taking imaginative steps to bring about universal action to deal with this issue. These people could disrupt the airlines of the world, with all the effects that would have upon the economies of the national airlines. Unless the Government take immediate steps to reach agreement with the people who are not at the moment prepared to come into line, they must accept full responsibility for any action that might be taken by the people to whom I have referred. In so
476
many instances it is not merely a question of economics. The lives of international airline pilots are, and have been, at stake. In consequence, they have a right to expect responsible Governments to measure up to the challenge.
In the interests of civilised behaviour, I hope that we shall pursue whatever methods are available to get other countries, particularly the Middle East and some South American countries which have not yet come into line, to bring about a situation where this cruel scourge, this cancer on human society, can be properly and effectively eliminated.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Michael Fidler: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has left the Chamber. I am tempted—but I will not succumb to the temptation— to be led along the path of irrelevance by some of his comments. I welcome his recent conversion away from double standards to the circle of those who have one standard only. Would that his clarion call had been heard in what happened at the Munich Olympics, at Lod Airport and in the outrage at Dawson's Field.
But then the hon. Member's obsession with the Libyan air tragedy was brought into the debate. Of course I and every other hon. Member regret the loss of innocent life, but if one is viewing that incident in the context of the Bill and of what we are trying to do, one sees that the arrival of a civilian plane on the lines drawn—the plane having been cleared over Egyptian armed fortifications without any challenge and proceeding over Sinai in the direction of what seemed to be Tel Aviv, after there had been threats to drop bombs from such planes on Tel Aviv—placed the Israeli defence forces in an awful dilemma when that plane did not respond to challenge. One can imagine our reaction in the last war if a German airliner had been seen flying over the cliffs of Dover and had failed to respond to challenge. But I will leave that path of seduction and turn to what the Minister said.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the facilities that he afforded to hon. Members on both sides to visit Heathrow and to see for ourselves the steps which have been taken to institute security

477
measures. It would be improper for me to deal with them now, but I am greatly encouraged, as all of us were, by the thoroughness with which the steps already put in train are being implemented.
I extend a warm and general welcome to the Bill and congratulate the Minister and the Government on implementing this vital item, which was included in the Gracious Speech last year. Significantly, it was the first legislative proposal mentioned in that Speech.
Reference has been made to the necessity for the Bill because, in recent years, there has been such a violent escalation towards violent terrorism and hijacking. However, I fear that the penalty, if it is to be effective, must be an effective deterrent. In this respect, Clause 4 is deficient. The Minister said that there should be in the minds of hijackers the sobering thought of the penalties that they will face. Clause 4 provides life imprisonment as the ultimate penalty. That is insufficient. The ultimate deterrent must be the dealth penalty. That is the only effective penalty.
After all, do we not authorise summary execution on the spot during the hijacking incident or the attack itself? If we condone summary execution on the spot for the defence of the property and the lives concerned, why do we fall short in defining the deterrent we require by not introducing the death penalty for those responsible for hijacking?
What is the position on piracy at sea? The Piracy Act of 1837, which is still operative, contains the deterrent of the death sentence. No attempt has been made, to the best of my knowledge, by this Government or their predecessors to repeal the powers in that Act. Hijacking is simply piracy in the air, and the same punishment should apply in both cases.
If the punishment is only life imprisonment, do we not encourage further hijacking with the object of releasing those hijackers who have been apprehended under the Bill's proposals? If we introduced the death penalty, the period of risk of such a further hijacking to free those imprisoned would simply extend from the time of apprehension to the time of execution—a matter of weeks or months. But with the ultimate deterrent being life imprisonment, the period of
478
risk of further hijacking and blackmail will extend from the time of apprehension to the end of the life sentence, which would obviously spread over many years.
I know that aircraft hijacking was dealt with in the Hijacking Act of 1971, Section 1(4) of which dealt with the liability on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. This Bill deals with violence against civilian aircraft, other than hijacking. As the Minister said, the Montreal Convention should be implemented. This Bill seems to me merely to provide that we punish hijackers whose crime is committed in the United Kingdom only or by its subjects. I hope that my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong.
Surely the real problem of piracy and hijacking is that which takes place on a trip to one of the countries customarily providing sanctuary for the terrorists— for example, Algeria, Libya or Egypt— as has been our international experience. Effective international measures require that the principal aviation and trading countries should impose an aviation boycott on countries which otherwise give sanctuary to the terrorists or hijackers. That is where the shoe pinches.
Ideally, a United Nations resolution committing all countries to do this would solve the problem, but our experience is that the United Nations and the third world, unhappily, are hopeless in this respect. Nevertheless, 10 or 15 countries, led by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, the Soviet Union, Brazil, the Argentine, Mexico and Japan, to name but eight, could achieve this desirable result. It is up to us to give the lead.
I welcome President Nixon's recent announcement that, recognising that the deterrent for hijacking must be effective, he proposes to introduce to the United States Senate and Congress legislation to deal with hijacking and terrorism, providing the death penalty as the ultimate deterrent, certainly imposing far more rigorous standards. I am asking my hon. Friend to give a lead from this country.
Certain it is that the United States and Canada are willing to go further. They are prepared to impose a secondary boy-cot on countries which fail to observe the preliminary boycott of the terrorist- and hijacker-harbouring countries. The International Air Line Pilots' Association

479
militantly supports this USA-Canadian initiative. In fact, it has even threatened a world-wide strike if an effective convention is not agreed soon.
What is the position of our own BALPA? I have here a letter from the Chairman of the British Air Line Pilots' Association, dated in March, only a week or two ago, in which he says:
"The Protection of Aircraft Bill at present going through Parliament is, we feel, a step forward in so far as security in the United Kingdom is concerned in that the recent amendments lay the foundations for building a firmer and stronger basis for legislation. We have, as you know, been pressing the Government for legislation requiring both Airport Operators and Aircraft Operators to achieve, and maintain, a basic standard of security. These requirements should, we feel, form part of the Airport Operators' Certificate and the Aircraft Operators' Certificate, in the same way that they have to meet certain requirements before the issue of an operations certificate. For instance, the Airport Operators must satisfy the installation and maintenance of fire equipment, navigational equipment, runways, etc. The Aircraft Operator must have aircraft maintenance schedules for the aircraft and so on. All these requirements are monitored and in the same way we see Security as being another schedule to the Certificate."
I commend that to my hon. Friend, especially since the letter goes on:
"Such legislation should allow for escalation of the security measures to meet specific threats as and when they arise."
Why does Clause 13 specify constables as the only people who are permitted to carry firearms? Why does not the provision extend to all those who are specially trained as security officers, in the employ of the Airports Authority, Her Majesty's Government or the airlines themselves? If we are to have an effective deterrent, surely it would be logical that permission to carry firearms should be given to those who are specially trained for the job.
I urge the Minister to consider adopting in Committee the amendments to which I have referred, if he cannot give a complete answer tonight. He will then strengthen an already very useful measure.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) asked a question which has not been completely answered. That question was: what is the difference between using a motor car
480
and hijacking an aircraft? That question needs an answer.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson rose—
Mr. Mendelson: Let me answer that question before the hon. Gentleman asks a further question.
The answer lies in technology. In the olden days, if someone stowed away in a ship and just stayed there, starving in a corner somewhere, before arriving at his destination, and escaped, that was one thing. But if a man now goes aboard an aircraft—a highly sensitive instrument of transport—threatens the pilot, and by an unguarded or a deliberate movement, brings about the death of that pilot or endangers the life of the pilot, there is a difference. That is a crime in itself. It is a crime, or a potential crime, against the pilot, regardless of the motivation of the man who is hijacking the aircraft.
Therefore, it is inescapable that we must all unite in demanding that such a man be punished and be treated as a man who has committed a crime. That is the first straightforward proposition which we owe to those whom we ask to carry us about in aeroplanes. If we do not admit that proposition universally and unanimously we have no right to call upon anyone to enter into a career as an aircraft pilot.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman returned to the point that I made. The only reason I wanted to intervene was to point out that it is a question not just of hijacking but of the political refugee escaping. The hon. Gentleman has referred to punishment. I accept that. But I was concerned that a man escaping for his life might be extradited to the country of origin, there to lose his life. That seems to me rather too severe a punishment for someone who, fundamentally, does not want to hurt anyone, and is merely trying to escape from a regime which is intolerable to him.
Mr. Mendelson: I shall return to that point shortly. I was confining myself to the hon. Gentleman's rhetorical question concerning the difference between a man using a motor car and a man hijacking an aircraft. That is the first thing to establish. We have no right to ask people to enter into this profession or craft if we do not ensure this minimum

481
degree of security in protecting their lives.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East referred to extradition. I join with those who say that every Government, as a sovereign Power, must have flexibility. Every Government must, ultimately, be in a position to say that the man will be brought to trial in the particular country, and then leave it to the normal established quasi-judicial authority to determine whether anyone is forcibly deported from its shores. That is the second proposition on which we can agree.
My third point is political and not judicial, and is one on which we ought to hear more from the Government. Over a number of years, with others, I have urged succeeding Governments—both Labour and Conservative—to enter into a political arrangement with 10 other Powers, which is what is ultimately required if these crimes are to be ended. I call it political because it includes enforcement and because these crimes are committed in many different countries and different areas. It cannot be within the judicial authority of any one Power to deal with them effectively in all cases. As has been said, there are obvious limitations to the authority of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, this matter now enters the political sphere.
Here I part company with the hon. Member for Bury and RadclifEe (Mr. Fidler), who has tried to introduce into this debate his campaign for the return of capital punishment. This has nothing to do with it. There will be a debate on that subject next week, when hon. Members will be able to determine their position and make up their minds. We had better leave that matter alone in this debate.
I urge that the laws that obtain in this country should be exercised in these cases as in all other cases. One cannot introduce a different reform of the law for a particular case.
Mr. Fidler: I was merely attempting to indicate that the Bill contains a clause which lays down a form of punishment, and was suggesting a different form of punishment. It is perfectly proper so to do.
Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has also become involved, this week, in a
482
famous correspondence considering the other matter. I am not sufficiently naïve to accept that it is only by accident that this argument has crept into the debate. It should not have done so.
The normal laws and punishments which apply in all cases in Britain must be applied in this matter as well as in others.
Mr. Kaufman: In my hon. Friend's incisive reply to the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe he inadvertently omitted to take up an extraordinary anomaly in what the hon. Gentleman was proposing. He was proposing the death penalty for hijackers who might not commit murder—that is, he was extending his wish for capital punishment for murderers other than hijackers to capital punishment for non-murderers if they hijacked.
Mr. Mendelson: I was rather wise in attempting to keep the argument about capital punishment outside the confines of the debate, as it should be. I shall not be sidetracked by any further interventions, even from my hon. Friends, however close they may be.
The laws which normally obtain must obviously apply. We cannot call upon the Government to introduce special penalties in this way. We must realise clearly that the political dimension enters into this matter very forcefully. If enforcement is to be possible, political considerations will intervene. There is nothing wrong in that. One cannot expect a Government to abandon all future political considerations when a particular case arises. After all, the present Government have acted quite successfully on a number of occasions, and have produced the minimum loss of life. A Government must have that kind of flexibility in order to act. But they must also be further armed with what they do not have at present. Therefore, I urge the Government to enter into an agreement between the 11 major aircraft Powers. There are only 11. Happily, this is one of those occasions where one does not need the agreement of 121 nations. All that is required is that the major carriers should enter into an agreement.
Mr. Michael Heseltine Mr. Michael Heseltine indicated dissent.
Mr. Mendelson: I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's reply on this point.
The 10 other Governments would be in a particularly strong position, in that they would have the full support of the people employed in the industry. When a Government introduce a certain policy they hope that it will have the support, by and large, of the people who work in the industry. Here there is no need to urge those who work in the industry towards their view. They will be an enforcement agency which is only too willing to enforce the agreement between the Powers.
Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman list these 11 Powers? Do they include, for example, the Soviet Union and China? A hijacking could even happen to them, and they are major aviation Powers.
Mr. Mendelson: I would include those two Powers. I accept that it could happen to them. My information is that both those Powers are sufficiently conservative to enter into such an agreement with the others.
Reaching agreement will take some time, but the Government must work on the idea. These Powers must be determined and it must be made known to all concerned—because the deterrent effect is important—that wherever such an incident occurs the 11 Powers will take joint action and will impose such disadvantages upon the harbouring State as will be an effective deterrent to all such States. That is the crux of the matter.
This has never happened in the tragic story of this matter. No effective action has ever been taken against any one country, to whichever bloc it belongs, or even if it belongs to no bloc.
Where the criminals have quite freely been able to prepare the crime for months we must not accept the myth that the people involved are generally poor and ill-educated—that they do not know what they are doing, and are living on the starvation line. Most of them live in luxurious flats in Paris and Rome and enjoy a much higher standard of living than the average citizen, let alone the average refugee. They are financed very powerfully with large sums of money and are not negligible enemies of the community of mankind. They are backed
484
by powerful forces, who regard this as an easy way to salve their consciences instead of doing what, in their hearts, they think they should be doing for some of their fellow countrymen. They have spent millions of pounds in financing these crimes and they are a formidable enemy of the community of nations and must be treated as such. I urge the Government to get into consultation with the other Powers, some of whom are already willing to co-operate and some of whom are ahead of us. We must reach a firm agreement, so that joint action can be devised and taken, with a Minister or official designated by each of these Governments to enter into an agreement. They would be called together immediately so that action would be taken quickly against the country where the crime was planned and where all the facilities were made available.
There is a corollary to this. The country where a crime is planned is often the country to which the criminal wants to return, and where he will return as a hero and not a criminal. This increases the desire of people to play at this kind of tragic mock heroics, thereby endangering the lives of the pilot, the other airline staff, and the passengers.
I make a distinction here, because the passengers want to get from A to B while the pilot has to do his daily work like a motor mechanic or insurance agent. He therefore deserves special protection. But passengers also deserve all possible protection. When action such as I have suggested is taken, the harbouring country would know, for instance, that other countries would not allow their planes to fly over the territory of the 11 countries. Any airline not allowed to fly over the territory of those 11 countries might as well shut up shop.
Secondly, the necessary international co-operation, without which, technically, no plane can stay in the air, would be refused to any planes owned by any company in that country, be it the State airline or a privately-owned airline. Thirdly, and equally important, there would be no political interference with an attitude of this kind. There would be no friend or foe, and each State would be treated equally.
If the Government were to create such an alliance among the major carriers it

485
would provide an effective deterrent. Secondly, people who work in the airline industry—and we all have them as constituents—who have expressed their deep concern and have been very patient, would know that the Governments concerned meant business. These people should be reassured, because they have been bearing the brunt of the danger and terror of the situation. I urge this course upon the Government. We should have some preliminary comments on the proposal when the Minister replies.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: I do not usually agree with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) on foreign affairs matters and I have grave doubts whether the scheme that he has just outlined would be practical. However, I thoroughly support his underlying motives.
The Bill is a worthy and important attempt to stop up certain loopholes in the legislation used against air pirates. It will make it a little more difficult for certain categories of hijacker to operate in the future, but I very much doubt whether it will have a great effect on the category referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson)—the political terrorists. I do not believe that the political terrorist is any longer deterred by lengthy sentences imposed by the courts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) said, many terrorists do not believe that they will ever serve out their sentences. At this moment there are many in Northern Ireland who have received long sentences from the courts and are convinced that they will get out in a year or two as a result of some political amnesty. A great many of the air pirates today who are caught and sentenced believe that as a result of further outrages by their accomplices they will be released from prison. The Lufthansa hijacking following the Munich massacre was, if not a death blow, at least a savage blow to the Montreal Convention.
Therefore, I do not believe that this sort of hijacking will end. The record of some countries in these matters, apart from Germany, is pretty bad, and for very understandable reasons. If a country arrests potential hijackers on its own
486
territory and brings them to trial, the aircraft of that country's national airline are put at greater risk. The other day warnings were given to the Italian police about certain terrorists who were then pushed over the border into France. They were there apprehended by the French police who immediately extradited them to Damascus. That can hardly be considered to be a major deterrent.
The difficulty with that kind of approach is that it makes international political terrorism appear to be a low-risk operation. Serious steps should be taken to prevent that happening. The reason why it is considered a low-risk operation is that certain countries offer a haven to these air pirates. What can be done about it? The hon. Member for Penistone suggested an alliance of 11 nations to say that air space would be refused by those nations to airlines whose countries gave refuge to air pirates and that the nationals of those countries should be debarred from air flights. I doubt whether that would be an effective deterrent.
For example, would it stop Libya from behaving in this manner if the Libyan airline was refused permission to land in Rome or London? I do not consider that such an action would affect Libya, Egypt or the Lebanan. If we do not allow their aircraft or their nationals to use our air space it is certain that they will prevent the airlines of the 11 major powers from using theirs. That will stop effective action on an 11-Power basis, such as the hon. Member for Penistone suggested, or even by ICAO itself.
I do not believe that multilateral sanctions will work, but we need not sit back and do nothing. We know that certain areas, certain countries, certain cities, provide a haven for air terrorists. Most of those places have good and friendly relations with us. Just the other day my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that our relations with Egypt had rarely been better. It is reliably reported that we shall soon be entering into a substantial arms contract with that country. The position of the Government in Cairo has from time to time been equivocal. At certain times they have been helpful in dealing with acts of terrorism and at others they have not. The sensible

487
approach would be to say that the completion of any arms contract with the Egyptians should depend on their taking a resolute line—more resolute than they have taken in the past—against any terrorists who seek sanctuary in their territory.
The same applies to the Lebanon. It is reported that we are about to enter into a substantial arms contract with the Lebanese Government. Many of the air terrorists' activities have been planned in or near Beirut. It would be worth while saying, "The arms we have contracted to supply you will be supplied provided you take more effective action than you have taken against those outrages that are plotted on your territory ".
In the past, the main haven for hijackers has been Algeria. Fortuitously, it is one of the very few countries in the entire Arab world from which no visa is needed to enter Britain. It is sensible to say that those who come here from Algeria should be scrutinised very thoroughly, although there have been welcome signs recently that the Algerian Government are taking a somewhat harder line on terrorists who seek sanctuary in Algeria than they did before.
But the main country in which we are threatened is Libya. Not only has it provided sanctuary for certain air pilots; it has provided our enemies in Northern Ireland with arms. That distinguished journalist and commentator, Mr. Chapman Pincher, reports in the Daily Express that we are planning to sell some small submarines to the Libyan Government. I find it very difficult to believe that that can be true, because after experience of recent years it seems to me that anyone who sold arms to Colonel Gaddafi would be about as sensible as a person who gave a tin of kerosene and a box of matches to a six-year-old child.
Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are also selling two submarines to the Israelis, who have been responsible for far more civilian deaths than have the Libyan Government.
Mr. Goodhart: I rather doubt the hon. Gentleman's last statement, but I join him in deploring the shooting down of the Libyan airliner by the Israeli Air Force. I regret that the Israeli Govern-
488
ment have not held an independent investigation into the incident. But that does not alter the fact that Colonel Gaddafi has espoused the cause of terrorism in Africa, Europe and this country. Therefore, it would be lunatic to sell arms to him until he showed signs of mending his ways.
There are ways in which the Government can put pressure directly on those who seek to breach the universal abhorrence of air piracy by offering sanctuary to those who carry out this terrible crime. Meanwhile, the Bill is an important step along the road to blotting out this form of terrorism.
5.47 p.m.
Mr. E. S. Bishop: The Bill has been given a general welcome by hon. Members on both sides. It carries forward activities in seeking precautions against terrorism and measures to deal with terrorism, a matter that has concerned my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) from the time when he had responsibility in 1964 to the present day. We can only be appalled at the slow rate of progress during that period.
We are seeking to safeguard the interests of millions of our people in all our constituencies, to give greater confidence and assurance of safety to those who travel and to those who remain at home, because people on the ground can be affected as much as those in the air.
The Bill is the result of international discussions. One of the great benefits resulting from those discussions is that all countries are aware of the possible dangers in modern travel and are co-operating to do something urgently and effectively against the common danger, regardless of which side of the ideological line they happen to stand.
As several hon. Members have said, those who are incensed by ideological and emotional considerations are not always likely to be deterred if they have the opportunity for terorism. Therefore, our legislation must seek mainly to be a deterrent, because once hijacking situations arise the task of trying to reconcile the safety of passengers and others is more difficult.
It is difficult for those who have not experienced terrorism to realise what it can mean. Those who are involved do

489
not always see, mercifully or otherwise, the end of the incident, as we do when we read of it in the Press or hear about it on the radio and television. With the travels of many hon. Members around the world, there must be few who can say that they have not been involved in an incident at some time. I have been involved twice in situations when travelling by air when things could have been much worse. One situation took place in the Middle East. There was a tip-off that the plane in which I was travelling was likely to be hijacked. As a result, there was a two or three hour search in the early morning, the temperature being 80 or 90 degrees. It was a situation that I do not want to have repeated.
We are dealing with a difficult task. Some terrorists may not be deterred but motivated to be martyred for their cause. That might be borne in mind by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler). We must also be aware that to pass this measure is not enough. Action must be taken to introduce more preventive measures which are necessary to cover other eventualities. There must be a greater incentive to seek, by policies of social justice, to eliminate and reduce some of the causes which help to stimulate terrorists to tread their ideological paths. That is an argument which may be pursued later but should not be overlooked.
Ten years have past since the Tokyo Convention of 1963. That convention was signed by 63 States. At the Hague Convention seven years later 51 countries were represented, and the convention was ratified by 42 countries. It is vital that all countries should agree to such conventions. Any countries which do not support agreed international action are a danger to all other countries.
I appeal to some of my hon. Friends who have differences on Middle East politics to recognise that ratification by all is essential. I appeal to my hon. Friends, and to all who have any sympathies in any direction, to use what influence they may have with those concerned to see that ratification takes place. I should like to see far more countries in the Middle East identifying themselves with the ratifications which have so far been made. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) that there are about 10 Com-
490
munist countries, including the Soviet Union, which are already committed to ratification.
As we all know, these issues can be explosive to those who feel strongly about the various factors which motivate terrorists. Many steps have been taken publicly and privately to prevent terrorism. Urgent attention must be paid to the freezing out of air travel for those countries which give haven to offenders. I am glad to know that BALPA and other bodies of that sort are anxious that some attention should be given to that matter.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) asked about the position of refugees, and whether they should, after a period of imprisonment, be extradited. Again, we must recognise that all who take part in terrorist activities are equally to blame. We must hope that none who commit crime shall benefit from their crimes at the end of the day, even though they may have done a spell of imprisonment in the meantime.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), after having put his toe into the troublesome waters of the Middle East, managed to some extent to extricate himself rather neatly. That comment applies to the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe, who said that all those involved in these crime are equally guilty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will use their considerable influence to get their hon. Friends to come into line with the treaty.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman used the word "terrorist" when talking about political refugees. I should not put into that category a young Czechoslovak who decided that he wanted to get out of that country when the Russian tanks came in. I should not blame him for taking any measures open to him. I could not find it in my heart to call such a person a terrorist.
Mr. Bishop: It is a matter of words as to the view we take of those who are motivated to be involved in these offences.
It will be difficult for individual countries which ratify the convention to put offenders on trial and sort out motives.

491
We may well get into difficulties in trying to sort out Middle East conflicts—for example, whether Israelis or Arabs had a right, a motive or a reason for doing what they did. It must be made clear to all those involved that they are equally to blame and that they must all suffer the consequences. The safety of people who travel, and those at airports, must be safeguarded regardless of the motives and the reasons which may prompt people to take action which may be called terrorism or a crusade. Whatever such action may be called, it is equally damaging and dangerous to those who seek to communicate with each other in world travel.
The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) made the same point about the need to take care so that those who seek asylum do not necessarily achieve their goal. The same point must prevail: those who commit crimes or offences must not benefit from them.
I hesitate to become involved in an argument about the death penalty with the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe. The hon. Gentleman said that there is an incentive when somebody is imprisoned for others to take action in order to release the prisoner. He might well ponder the argument that if someone has been subjected to the death penalty, others may be equally inclined to take action of a similar kind, with far greater demands on Governments and others, to get some recompense for the supreme penalty having been carried out. That is an argument which should not feature in the debate at this stage.
The Minister rightly said that this measure is one of great severity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley has said, "directive" and "ministerial power" appear many times in the Bill. We believe that that is right. However, it may be necessary in Committee to find out what is meant by some of the clauses. Clause 9(6) requires an operator
"to take all such steps as… are practicable and necessary …".
Clause 11 provides that a direction under the section does not require the searching of passengers but allows the giving of a direction that passengers are not to be admitted to aircraft unless a search has
492
been carried out. That is a subtle change.
The House may well ask the Minister to explain what safeguards are provided. The House may want to know about the powers to search for revolvers and guns, and how "reasonable" is to be defined. If "reasonable" is disputed, what redress is available? The clause mentions the role of the constables, and that is another matter which needs definition. What is to be the situation if it is thought that the constables have not acted responsibly? One wonders whether the Secretary of State, who has immense power—we do not necessarily challenge that power—shall be made liable in civil or criminal law for the actions of others when it is felt that the powers of the measure have been exceeded.
What kind of contract is there to be made for the carriage of passengers under the Bill? We all recognise that the airline business is not one of great viability margins. Airlines have to carry out their task without a great deal of financial backing. Although, of course, one recognises the contribution made by the Government, which I understand is about £1 million or more, nevertheless the Bill may make it necessary for airlines and air travel agents to incur far more expense than they are now committed to. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us his thinking about that aspect.
Another most important aspect of the larger powers that we are giving to the Government is the question of accountability to Parliament. We are willing in the House to give these increased powers, but Parliament has a right, on behalf of those for whom we exercise our own power, to know how Ministers' powers are being exercised. Should we not at least have an annual report to the House and possibly a debate on how these powers are being exercised from year to year? However, we can argue this matter out in Committee.
I hope the House will support the Bill, which is most urgent and must get through Parliament as quickly as possible. We most certainly support the precautions taken at our main airports, such as Heathrow and Gatwick, but we should not overlook the need for such precautions at our regional airports, some of which are under local authority control. If we were off our guard there, there

493
might be a greater temptation to terrorists. Therefore, we must be sure that the powers and precautions authorised by the Bill are applied with equal care and attention to every part of the United Kingdom.
One is entitled to ask whether the hon. Gentleman has in mind any special financial and other help which might be made available to these regional airports so that other parts of the country may be brought up to the level of competence in this matter which now prevails in the capital.
Although we support this comprehensive, necessary and urgent measure, we are aware of and sensitive to the wide powers and severe penalties it contains. But we are anxious to ensure that air navigation and other facilities are included, and we are anxious that far more progress shall be made internationally to ensure that more countries sign the convention and that other measures supplement the Bill.
The House should express its thanks and gratitude, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley said, to all working in air travel—all those working in our airports and in our airlines, especially the pilots, air hostesses and other crew members—for the bravery and fortitude which (hey have shown in these past difficult times. Their contribution towards international security is an incentive to us to ensure that the Bill goes through as quickly as possible and that the Government are supported in any action they take to ensure that people can travel in safety in the air.
6.4 p.m.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: I thank the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) for reflecting accurately the general spirit of accord which has been extended to the Bill by the House. I believe that the Bill is a matter of urgency. I accept that we are taking substantial powers. I also think that the House appreciates that, in the circumstances, we are left with no alternative, however distasteful it may be to all involved that we should have been driven to such lengths.
A number of points have been raised in the debate, many of them more appropriate to the Committee stage. However, I shall endeavour to reply to as many as possible now.
494
The hon. Gentleman referred to regional airports. I can assure him at once that surveys and security measures have been carried out at such airports as well as at the main London airports.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested the possibility of an annual report to Parliament. Parliament would be concerned about a specific incident, with which we could be confronted and, therefore, I believe that there are many and faster remedies open to hon. Members wanting to question Ministers on the use of their powers under the Bill. Inevitably, an annual report would be issued only some considerable time after the event in most cases, and could not by then add a great deal to our knowledge. In any case, it would not be possible to include in any such report details of a great deal of the work. The less one says, the more effective one's measures become. I think we should rest on the normal parliamentary protections which exist for scrutinising the work of Ministers.
Much interest has been shown in the debate in the carrying of firearms and the use of constables. Only the chief constable of the local police force may authorise the possession of firearms. Where the Bill envisages the carrying of arms, this remains the situation, subject to proper authorisation by the chief constable concerned. Only policemen, therefore, will be armed.
Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend make it clear whether the chief constable of the British Airports police is a chief constable in that context?
Mr. Heseltine: The British Airports police could be armed at the discretion of the local chief constable, as could special constables under the chief constables' jurisdiction.
Mr. Tebbit: I hope I do not embarrass my hon. Friend by pressing this point. Would that be the chief constable, for example, of the Surrey Police Force or of the Middlesex Police Force—if one still exists—or of the airports police?
Mr. Heseltine: It would be either of the first two chief constables to which my hon. Friend refers, dependent on the circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) asked about the omission

495
from the Bill of any time restriction. We are sensitive to that point. It might be argued that the Bill should lapse after a given period of time as thought appropriate, but we do not foresee a situation in which the threat of air terrorism is likely to decline. We are determined that the Bill shall do everything possible to minimise the threat but we do not see a time when it will be possible to remove its powers. We therefore decided to go in for permanency. Of course, it will be possible to review the measure in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) raised an issue of principle more appropriate to another occasion. I would not want to be drawn into the merits of the argument about re-introducing the death penalty in this context. However, there are one or two special arguments which it might be appropriate for me to mention now. For example, if there were the possibility of a death sentence for hi-jacking, it is certain that the chances of a hijacker surrendering would be immediately reduced. Secondly, if there were to be any negotiations with a hijacker, it is certain that those negotiations would involve the question of whether the death sentence would be likely to be carried out. It would be impossible to avoid such discussions, whatever position the Government might wish to take up. However, it is appropriate that the general discussion about the death penalty should be dealt with by Parliament in the round and not specifically in the particular case of hijacking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping raised the question whether someone who had been prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for an offence under the Bill in this country would then be open to the possibility of deportation. He would be able to apply for political asylum. A judgment would then have to be made in each case.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) asked about the use of professional people. I mentioned this in opening. There is a great degree of expertise at the disposal of those responsible for administering our airports and airlines. The greatest possible expertise available has been deployed. I do not believe there
496
is any ground for criticising the skills that have been used. There is a reservoir of international knowledge and experience. Widespread international discussions take place on the techniques being applied. It is not appropriate to reveal the measures that we have in mind.
Mr. Dan Jones: I had one thing in mind. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that his Department has seen the head of the CID? These people are experts, and because I much prefer prevention to cure I believe that a visit to such a person could be highly profitable.
Mr. Heseltine: I can give the hon. Member an assurance which covers the general gist of his question, and that is that the security forces have been fully consulted, as one would expect.
The hon. Member mentioned the despair which he felt, and which we all share, that after 40 years of this threat, vastly greater today, we have no international laws to deal with it. This is a reasonable thing about which to despair but it applies to many things other than civil aviation. The reason why we do not have agreement is that the sovereign rights of nations are involved. Each nation believes in a particular cause or has what it considers a legitimate trade interest which makes it impossible to surrender a certain area of responsibility.
In such circumstances we have not reached agreement. This is what the convention process has been all about. The Montreal discussions and the forthcoming discussions in Rome reflect the fact that there are now such imperatives in the situation that we must be prepared to act together in the spirit of a world community. That does not mean that we shall be able to do so. Our initiatives and efforts through our posts abroad are directed at persuading other countries which have not yet ratified the various conventions to do so at an early date.
The question of whether the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations would take action to disrupt world airlines if progress is not made is much the same sort of question as that which asks why nations do not come together to reach agreement. The pilots have found to their regret—and to my regret—that national interests of certain countries make it impossible to reach

497
agreement. Indeed, they make it impossible for the pilots of different countries to reach agreement. Such pilots would undoubtedly be prepared to take concerted action but they know that limited action in certain countries often has no effect upon countries elsewhere and sometimes has a positive counter-effect because of the reprisals which those other countries are able to take without harming themselves. The pilots have lived with the agony of this situation, as have all of us in politics who have been connected with this subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNairWilson) asked about the period of 30 days for the receipt of further information. This is a provision in general terms because by and large there is a close relationship between those administering airports and running airlines. We know what is going on. It seemed that there should be this general ability in certain circumstances to ask for information. This is perhaps even more so in the following subsection, which says that there should be a seven-day provision dealing with changes in any arrangements. That is important in keeping us abreast of what is being proposed at any one time.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) helpfully clarified the Libyan situation for me. However, it would not be appropriate for me to become involved in a discussion of the Libyan incident because this Bill, since it is not yet law, can have no effect on that incident. It is in no way retrospective. After it comes into force, if an aircraft is destroyed while in service that would be an offence under the Act if the destruction was carried out unlawfully and intentionally. It would be up to the appropriate authorities to interpret any such incident.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East asked about our policy regarding air marshals. Our view has never been that we should take a hard and fast line about this. We believe that prevention on the ground is the best solution. There are great difficulties involved with armed marshals in aircraft.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) raised a number of issues
498
about sanctions. This is where the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendel-son) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) also entered the discussion. Various ideas have been put forward.
The hon. Member for Penistone had the idea of 10 countries reaching agreement. There is as yet no indication that the 10 major airline countries would reach agreement. One of the difficulties confronting all of us who will be watching with such interest the progress of the Rome talks in August is that we have to find a way of persuading a large number of countries to accept some effective common form of approach to the problem.
In the Legal Sub-Committee in Montreal last autumn the American and Canadian proposals were simply not acceptable. They have not gone forward for discussion at the Rome meetings. There are four suggestions on the table at present, and we shall use every possible method of persuasion to find a way of making progress. Indeed, people have paid tribute to the efforts of the Government in continually trying to keep up the pressure and not allowing the discussions to drift back into some ineffectual form of agreement which will not take the situation much further forward. We are determined to get the most effective arrangements we can.
Unless a large number of Powers are involved we shall not make progress. I do not believe that there is agreement between the 10 major Powers of the world or any combination of them. There are arguments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham pointed out, for using non-aviation Powers to bring pressure to bear on those who do not come into line with anti-hijacking proposals. Just as that argument can be advanced, so the implication is that there are some sanctions outside of civil aviation. That is true, but it is equally true that there are good arguments outside civil aviation why the 10 major Powers will not sacrifice their sovereignty. There are reprisals, sanctions, which could be applied against the 10 major Powers by other countries involved and could be more harmful to those major Powers than any harm which we could inflict upon the countries causing the difficulty.

499
Whichever way we look at it we are faced with the problem of reaching agreement. That has been the only way forward in such a situation. It is an unsatisfactory method because it is slow and it is bound to be much less effective than any of us would like. I do not know of any further initiatives the Government can take. They have taken initiatives consistently with immense help and support from the pilots, who have been extremely co-operative in all the discussions I have had with them. Much of that co-operation has come about because they believe the Government have done all they can. We shall keep up the pressure because I share the anxiety of all hon. Members. We have a great responsibility to those who travel by air and to those whose professional responsibility it is to conduct people by air. It is a massive responsibility and one which we shall in no way shirk.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, and to make other provision for the protection of aircraft and aerodromes against acts of violence, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of that Act.—[Mr. Michael Heseltine.]
SUPPLY OF GOODS (IMPLIED TERMS) BILL [Lords]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3
IMPLIED UNDERTAKINGS AS TO QUALITY OR FITNESS
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 17, leave out 'reasonably'.
We had a long discussion about this during the Committee stage of the Bill and the Under-Secretary was kind enough to say that he would look at the points again. That was why I indicated that on Report I would raise the matter again. I do not think I need go over all the arguments because they were rehearsed reasonably fully in the Committee stage.
The purpose of asking for the deletion of the word "reasonably" is that many people, myself included, take the view that the word is superfluous. Under Clause 3 there is an implied undertaking that the goods supplied are reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are supplied. Since 1893 the word "reasonably" has been included. I do not want to overstate the case and I am not suggesting that any great harm has been done to the consumer as a result of the word "reasonably" being included in the Act. None the less, it would be much more helpful to the consumer if the word were not included because he would then be able to understand exactly what the undertaking is.
The undertaking, as far as the consumer is concerned, is that the goods should be fit for the purpose, and "reasonably" to some extent confuses the consumer as to his actual rights. It is an expression that lawyers and courts are very used to interpreting but it is an expression which the consumer finds some difficulty in understanding.
I am advised that if the word "reasonably" were not included the result would probably be the same as far as the courts are concerned because the courts would put a commonsense construction on the phrase "fit for the purpose". They would

501
not apply a standard of perfection, because, unfortunately, perfection cannot be attained in the manufacture of any goods. They would not, to use the example given by the Minister, say that if somebody supplied a Rolls-Royce and the windscreen wiper were defective the whole transaction would be void if the word "reasonably" were not included. In my view, they would apply a common-sense attitude and, without using the word, say that "fit" meant "reasonably fit".
From the point of view of clarity, even though it has stood the test of time and is included in the 1893 Act—which may be a very good reason for taking it out—the Minister might consider that now, all these years later, we can do without the word, and that the goods should simply be "fit".
I do not press the point but I should be interested to know whether the Minister has had any second thoughts since the long discussion in Committee.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): As the hon. Gentleman has said, and indeed those who were present during the Committee stage of the Bill will remember, I undertook to look again at this whole question of reasonableness in relation to fitness for purpose. I have done this and have found no good grounds for departing from the traditional wording which has been retained in the new Section 14(3) which is to replace the existing section of the 1893 Act.
The concept of "reasonableness" runs throughout our law from the requirement that the prosecution prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt" to the provision enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow should have a "reasonable" part of her deceased husband's estate for her support.
What is reasonable is usually to be decided as a matter of fact as in the case of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. It is true that there is a fashion now for replacing the word "reasonable" with the word "fair" where perhaps before 1965, say, a draftsman would have used the word "reasonable". But the courts have never found much difficulty in handling the notion of reasonableness.
I do not want to take up too much time but I commend to the hon. Gentle-
502
man and any others interested what is probably the most useful recent case, in which this matter was discussed by Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls— Bartlett v. Sidney Marcus Ltd., 1965. I will not read the whole of the judgment now, but it is very interesting.
The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) touched upon the main difficulty when moving a similar amendment in Committee and asked whether, after all this time—and we are talking about 100 years or so—there would be any injustice or inconvenience if the word "reasonably" were now omitted so that the Bill merely provided that the goods should be fit for the purpose.
The answer is that, since we are dealing here not with a warranty but with a condition in the first instance, I think that it would. Moreover, it would be a burden on the consumer as well as on the retailer. If the word "reasonably" were to be omitted there would be a very real risk that the courts would hold that a change of meaning in the law had been intended and that in future goods would have to be more than reasonably fit. Nothing, of course, is perfect in this world, and to make it possible for every purchaser to repudiate a contract in circumstances in which a reasonable man would say that the goods were reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were bought would be not only unreasonable but also unrealistic.
The main burden from such a change would fall on the retailer. He might have to accept that any article he sold which was less than absolutely perfect could be returned to him for a refund. It might be no defence to say that the imperfection was so slight that it was unreasonable to say that it affected the article's fitness for the purpose. This would inevitably increase the costs to manufacturers and retailers, and, of course, at the end of the day these costs would be paid by the consumer. If a buyer demanded 100 per cent. perfection most sellers would take the precaution of raising their prices, perhaps inordinately, to cover the additional cost of being certain that they could meet the requirement, or indeed of not supplying at all. In either case I believe that the consumer would suffer in the end.

503
I do not think that this is what the House wants in this Bill, and for these reasons I must reject the amendment.
Amendment negatived.

Clause 4
EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 22, leave out from 'void' to end of line 25.
I think it would be convenient, subject to your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if with this amendment we took Amendments Nos. 3 and 5, which are consequential amendments:
Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 26, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
Amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 13, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Mallalieu): Yes, if that is the desire of the House.
Mr. Davidson: The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that there will be no contracting out of implied undertakings as to fitness as between business firms. The Bill ensures that as between business and the consumer it is not possible to contract out of liabilities, in particular the implied undertakings in the Bill. The Bill allows a measure of contracting out of implied undertakings between one business firm and another, subject to the courts having the right to say that it is reasonable or unreasonable to enforce the contracting-out. We discussed this at length in Committee, and the Under-Secretary of State was good enough to give a considerate and lengthy reply.
6.30 p.m.
Our purpose in suggesting that it is morally, if not legally, wrong to allow contracting out between business firms— whether between a manufacturer and retailer or between a retailer and another firm—is that in the long run the consumer suffers because he will receive goods which may be less perfect than they would be if the firms were not allowed to contract out of their implied legal undertakings. It is fundamentally right and just that the loss should fall upon the person who is responsible for the defective goods, in
504
most cases upon the manufacturer who in the first place puts them on the market.
All too often manufacturers are in a stronger position than are small retailers. I accept the Minister's argument that all retailers are by no means weak creatures, that there are big chains of retailers with the advantage of expert advice and that often chains of retailers are more powerful than are small manufacturers, but in most cases the manufacturer is by far the more powerful party of the two. He is in a position to put pressure on the retailer and put him in the position of striking a bargain which is not in his interests and from which the consumer will ultimately suffer, while the manufacturer can contract out of his liabilities.
I have particularly in mind the manufacturer contracting out of his undertakings and the retailer being responsible. The retailer might go bankrupt so that when the consumer attempts to sue him for breach of implied undertakings he is carrying out a useless action in trying to get his money back or his goods repaired. The manufacturer will say "I contracted out of my undertakings. You cannot go for me either", and the consumer will be left in a defenceless position. He will have rights but will not be able to enforce them.
Contracting out is an encouragement to insurance companies to offer terms which make it more favourable for the firm which is insuring to slip in an exclusion clause. There is evidence that many insurance companies make it financially worth while for a manufacturer to slip in an exclusion clause by offering a cheaper premium. Insurance companies should be discouraged from indulging in that inducement, which is ultimately damaging to the consumer.
While I accept that the compromise produced by the Law Commission which is included in the Bill—namely, that the courts can overturn an agreement to contract out if they think it unreasonable— will assist in many ways and will be a discouragement to manufacturers or retailers unreasonably contracting out, I feel it would be to the long-term advantage to do away with the whole concept of contracting out of the legal obligations. It would certainly be to the advantage of the consumer and would also improve business ethics.
Mr. Alan Williams: It was not my intention to intervene at this stage, but I do not think it will cause a major difficulty. If my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), who did not know of the arrangement, caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he might be able to obtain the permission of the House to speak last on the group of amendments.
Amendment No. 4, which relates to standards, was discussed in Committee. I was unable to be there because I was in the Committee dealing with the Fair Trading Bill. We return to the amendment because we are anxious for an assurance from the Minister—and I almost feel that we shall get it—that the safety aspect is adequately covered by the Bill.
We thought that this provision would automatically be included in the Fair Trading Bill, but we discovered that there were loopholes in that Bill that needed to be closed. Rather than allow any defect to slip through, which neither side of the House would wish, we thought—at the risk of wasting 10 minutes of the time of the Undersecretary of State—that it would be better to raise the issue now. We want to be sure that in terms of safety, neither the retailer nor the manufacturer can escape from his responsibility to the consumer.
There is a terrifying report in the current issue of Drive—the magazine of the Automobile Association—of a series of tests on childrens' car safety harnesses. It emerges from that report that the use of many thousands of these so-called safety harnesses could lead to death or serious maiming, although parents have reason to think that their children are being protected by them.
The law places the responsibility on the parent, which seems to be unfair. That is why the amendment refers to "any relevant British Standard". Under Regulation 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1973, it is an offence to drive a car which has a safety seat that is not approved by the British Standards Institution, and the penalty is a fine of up to £50. But manufacturers are putting on the market safety seats which in no way conform to the requisite British Standard. In
506
passing, I may say that the British Standards Institution agrees that the current British Standard is not adequate and is about to publish a new Standard for childrens' car safety harness.
Despite the responsibilities that the law imposes upon parents, manufacturers are selling products that do not conform to legal requirements. Drive reports:
"One type of seat, made of tubular metal like a small high-chair served only to raise the child to exactly the right position for any sudden stop to cannon-ball it straight through the car's windscreen."
That chair is being sold as a safety chair and is being installed by parents in the belief that it has BSI approval and is safe. The report goes on to say that these seats have been sold in great quantities. One firm has sold 70,000 in about five years. There could be 70,000 children at risk because parents have no way of knowing that the product on which they rely for their child's life and safety is defective and does not satisfy legal requirements.
Here, I draw the attention of the Minister to the difficulties parents have in establishing where responsibility lies. Several examples can be quoted from the report:
"The pram department of Selfridges, in London,"—
and Selfridges, with all respect, makes every attempt to deal fairly and honestly with the public—
"claimed that the Amacourt and the Niki Jet 2000 Recliner were BSI approved. 'They must be or we wouldn't sell them.' In fact they are not."
So anyone who is driving a motor car with belts of these types installed is technically in breach of the law. At another shop—the Arcadia Pram Centre, West London—the Niki Jet 2000 was described as "the best in the world". When asked if it was BSI approved the answer was:
"Well, yes, it's made in Germany and anything made there is strictly tested. At Youngsters, a nursery shop in Wembley, north west London, and The Tiny Set, Putney, south west London, the Tubemaster Mark I was claimed to be BSI approved."
In fact this seat does not have BSI approval.
"Babyland, Wimbledon, south west London, claimed that both the Amacourt and the Tube-master Mark I were BSI approved."

507
Many people are labouring under a misconception about the safety of the product and are utterly unaware that they are liable to be subjected to legal action for using it. The worst example is one of the most expensive. It is a German car seat—the Kettler Touring Hort. When the German Automobile Club tested this seat it failed, because it tore from its mounting. The company—and in the amendment we refer to companies' responsibilities—
"has subsequently been quoted … as having strengthened the mounting. … It has apparently failed to do so on its export models."
The company is selling in this country models which do not meet German safety standards.
My point is that we ought to be absolutely sure that responsibility lies where it should, with those who sell and who, misleadingly, first put the product on the market. We want to be sure that the harnesses referred to in the report in Drive—the death trap harnesses—will be driven off the market at once. It is not a matter of waiting for discussions; these products must be taken off the market immediately.
For that reason, I submit to the Minister that local weights and measures inspectors should initiate immediate prosecutions, under the Trade Descriptions Act, in cases where stores continue to sell car seats which the report has shown to be defective. I also ask for urgent Government action to introduce the new British Standard in respect of future sales of car seats. The Standard is about to be published. It normally takes several months of consultations for a Standard to be legally implemented. We cannot afford to wait. The new Standard should be introduced at the earliest possible date.
Finally, in view of the serious injuries which a child could suffer in any of these seats, I urge the Minister to ensure that an immediate publicity campaign is instituted to warn parents who have them installed in their cars that they are killer harnesses and not safety harnesses. We have taken the opportunity of raising this matter today, and it may be that we have strained the orders of the House a little in doing so—you have very kindly
508
allowed me to speak at this length on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but we have felt that we should start immediately alerting parents to the hazards which these faulty safety seats represent. That is why we have taken the opportunity of raising the matter on this amendment. We should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would deal not only with that matter but with the three points that I have raised, which call for immediate action which I have raised.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Barry Jones: My very brief intervention relates to Amendment No. 4. I speak in support of the safety points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams). I believe that the Automobile Association has done a public service in pointing out the dangers of failing to use BSI-approved safety seats for children in cars. When in its current publication, a conservative body like the AA says quite boldly that it is convinced that the wearing of seat belts should be made compulsory, we know that there is no doubt about it. It may be inconvenient, it may upset a family's budget, and travelling habits, but I am convinced that the fitting of BSI-approved safety seats for children in cars should be made compulsory.
I suppose we were all made unhappy on the subject of child safety in cars when we heard of a car crash in America in which a child was decapitated owing to a badly-sited dashboard ashtray. It seems that head and facial injuries are more frequent among child passengers than among adults. It is also clear that not sufficient is known about child injuries in cars. That does not help the authorities to seek the remedial action that may be necessary. On this matter I would like to see co-ordinated emergency action taken by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment, and the Home Office. This triple approach of the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, the Minister for Transport Industries and the Home Secretary could prevent thousands of family injuries and tragedies which the present explosion in car buying and childbirth presages.
Chief constables should be given an immediate mandate to take effective

509
action, because we all know that prevention, particularly in this case, is better than cure. It is one thing for an adult's brains to lie on a shattered windscreen or bonnet; it is near-criminal, perhaps criminal, to ignore the fact that thousands of minors risk a similar fate. I conclude by asking the Under-Secretary whether he will tell us what he proposes to do in this matter.
Mr. Anthony Grant: I will deal first with Amendment No. 2 moved by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). This amendment touches upon one of the fundamental principles of the Bill itself. Therefore, it can be viewed only against the background of all that has gone on over the past 10 years or so in the way of inquiries and consultations on the problem of exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods.
In this perspective it is fair to say it quickly becomes apparent that all the arguments we hear on this aspect have really been gone over many times before. As long ago as 1962 the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection touched upon this. It said that the arguments whether exclusion clauses should be permitted between business parties would merit further consideration. But, of course, it was outside its remit since it was concerned only with the consumer and consumer protection, and did not want to delay consumer protection on that account.
The further consideration to which the committee referred was given by the Law Commissions. I think it is generally agreed that they considered the matter with the utmost care. In fact, about one-fifth of the Law Commission's first report is devoted to the point.
The Law Commissions found that the Molony Committee's view that retailers were capable of looking after themselves was not universally shared. The evidence presented to them did not however lead the Law Commissions to consider that there might be a case for a complete ban on exclusion clauses across the board. None of the Law Commissioners saw any need to extend the ban on exclusion clauses in consumer sales to business sales as well. On the contrary, half the Law Commissioners recommended that there should be no restrictions of any
510
kind on the use of exclusion clauses in the general run of business sales. They made it clear that, in their view, in relation to business sales generally there was insufficient evidence to justify interfering with the freedom of contract which is the fundamental principle of our commercial law.
The other half of the Law Commissioners accepted the representations made on behalf of retailers that they needed the safeguard of legal protection if exclusion clauses were to be barred in consumer sales. Paragraph 109 of the first report sets out what the retail organisations themselves described as the essence of their case. These commissioners also saw no reason for extending the ban on exclusion clauses to all business sales, and it was they who recommended the test of reasonableness as providing adequate protection for those in business who were not in a position to protect themselves. Even those Law Commissioners opposed to exemption clauses in business sales generally agreed that the test of reasonableness would provide the most satisfactory solution if it was decided, as a matter of policy, that exemption clauses in business sales should be subject to legal control.
Further consultations and discussions which have taken place on this matter, including discussions with the National Chamber of Trade, since the publication of the report have elicited no new facts which would justify going further than the Law Commissioners' recommendations. Indeed, they have, if anything, shown that the position of the retailer may be improved by these provisions of the Bill. Very few shopkeepers attempt to exclude their liability to their customers, so the relationship between the retailer and his customer will not be changed in the great majority of consumer sales. What will be changed will be the retailer's ability to pass on to his supplier liability for any defect in the goods supplied to him. He will no longer be forced to accept exclusion of liability by his suppliers, and where he feels aggrieved he will be able to challenge an exclusion clause in the courts.
During the consultations and discussions which we have had on this part of the Bill the pressure for change has not been confined to the retailers' proposals. Representations leading in the opposite

511
direction have been made by those who believe that any change in the present freedom of contract will be a hindrance to commerce and industry, and it has been represented to us that freedom of contract should be allowed, particularly in the sale of capital goods.
We are not persuaded that an exception should be made there, but what we have done is to accept the Law Commissions' recommendations, which are to a large extent a compromise. One could say that Government Departments and other large buyers, some of whom may be retailers, prefer to retain freedom to negotiate terms under which the risk of defects falls upon them in circumstances where it is advantageous for them to bear the insurance risk themselves against such defects, and this can be of benefit to the man in the street, both as a consumer and as a taxpayer.
We accept that in this respect the provisions of the Bill are a compromise, but it has been reached after very careful consideration, and I hope, therefore, that I have convinced the House, and possibly the hon. Member for Accrington, that the compromise is fair. In the circumstances, I do not think that I can accept that amendment.
I now turn to the amendment which deals with another matter to which the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) referred. The clause requires the court to decide whether it is reasonable to allow a seller to rely on an exclusion clause in the light of all the circumstances of the case. In addition, five guidelines are provided which are intended to bring the court's attention to those factors which are most likely to be important.
This is, of course, a matter of judgment—an infinite number of other factors could be added to these five—but the Government, like the Law Commissioners, have taken the view that the five now set out in the clause cover most of the issues likely to arise in most cases. I recognise that individual cases may turn on quite other issues, and in such cases the courts will be able to take these into account. But it is not possible to foresee what these issues will be and it would be undesirable, even if we could, to try to write them all
512
into the Bill. Such a course would give the impression that such guidelines were exhaustive; that once the court had taken them into account nothing more need be considered. I must emphasise that that is not the case. The courts will decide these matters in the light of all the circumstances of the case.
In that context, the fact that certain goods failed to measure up to safety standards would mean that they were not reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were required. Clearly, the matter would come within the terms of the clause, and it would be for the courts to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case.
Both hon. Members have drawn attention to the disturbing reports in Drive on the subject of children's safety belts and seats. I think they will accept from me that the points raised both in the article and in their speeches range over very much wider legislation than is contained in the Bill and concern some of my colleagues in other Government Departments. I shall ensure that what both hon. Gentlemen have said is drawn to the attention of my colleagues who are concerned and have responsibility in this matter. They will no doubt look very carefully at what has been said, and in due course make their decisions.
The amendment refers to standards and suggests that a further guideline should be added. The question whether goods do or do not comply with British Standards or any other recognised code is something which would be considered by the courts if it were an issue, but I do not think that it is one which is likely to arise in most cases. This was the test by which we judged whether a guideline should be included in the Bill.
Not all goods are covered by British or other recognised standards. This is particularly true of newly developed articles. In some cases newly developed goods will be competing with conventional goods which are covered by a recognised standard. In some cases the newly developed goods may be better than the old ones, and once accepted might displace them altogether. If a case in which this was a factor were taken before the court it might, saddled with the proposed guideline, find that the goods did not conform to a recognised standard, and

513
innovation and development could be set back for several years.
To sum up on this amendment, I am not persuaded that the factor covered by the amendment would arise as a matter of importance in most cases. In some cases where this arose it could have harmful effects possibly in raising the price of goods and conceivably retarding innovation.
I hope that I have said enough to show the House that this is a wide clause and that the words "in all the circumstances" mean what they say and probably will cover most of the anxieties which have been expressed. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I hope that, with the leave of the House, I may briefly respond to the Minister. We are grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the trouble he has taken. I fully accept that had he agreed to my amendment it would have completely altered the Bill. The amendment is substantial, and the House would have been a little surprised if he had said that he could accept it, because the Bill is based on firm recommendations made by the Law Commission.
Although we are all grateful for the work done by the Law Commission—I pay tribute to the Commission—I beg to differ modestly from its conclusions, because I still believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the consumer if nobody were allowed to contract out of a legal obligation.
With regard to the safety factor, I would point out that this is one of the criteria which a court should take into account in judging the reasonableness of an exclusion clause. It is less important that the safety factor should be written into the Bill than that the court should bear that factor in mind. I am sure that the court will view the subject of safety as an important factor and that the public will be adequately protected.
We did not expect the Minister to go much further in terms of possible Government action than he went today in the light of the alarming report which appeared in the magazine Drive. We must all be grateful to the Automobile Association for its report and to Dr.
514
Mackay for compiling it. It is terrifying that such equipment should be on sale when, in fact, it provides no restraint at all. From a safety point of view the equipment is obviously a disaster. Dr. Mackay was dealing with practically all the safety harnesses which are advertised; far from providing safety for children, they do just the opposite.
This evidence adds weight to my argument that by encouraging people to contract out one possibly will encourage them to manufacture and put on the market less perfect goods than they might otherwise do. It is undoubtedly an alarming report in the light of the evidence that no fewer than six separate harnesses— all sold openly to the public and no doubt bought by thousands of parents—were tested and found to be potentially dangerous. I know that the Minister is concerned, as is everybody else, about safety factors, and I hope that some action will follow. In the light of the Minister's reply it would not be right to press the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
7.6 p.m.
Mr. Alan Williams: We cannot allow the Bill to pass without recording yet again, as we did on Second Reading, our welcome to these provisions. I am sure that that sentiment is echoed in all parts of the House. This is an "all-party" Bill—except for the Liberal Party, whose Members have taken no part in the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages and are not in evidence on Third Reading. We are accustomed to the fact that Liberals are more concerned with Press headlines than with the practical and hard work of this House.
The Government and Opposition can rest content that we have jointly carried out a good job of work on the Bill. It must be said that the spade work was done during the period of office of the Labour Government since the report on which the Bill is based was commissioned by a Labour Government. Happily, the Conservative Government have readily accepted the recommendations in that report. Anybody who reads the proceedings on the Bill, both in this House and in another place, will agree that the

515
measure has gone through in an atmosphere of constructive co-operation.
All hon. Members are sick and tired of phoney guarantees, with people being deliberately cheated of their rights by legal sleight of hand—deceived into thinking that they are being given security when, in fact, security is being taken away from them. The Bill, once enacted, will end the distortion of fair trading in terms of the supply of goods, but we must await another Bill to give some protection in terms of services.
The Bill exists because tour operators, household appliance manufacturers, and, above all, the car trade have had a spree of irresponsible deception at the expense of the public for many years. In this Bill Government and Opposition have united to put an end to the deliberate robbing of the public of their existing legal rights. There was no hope that the suppliers would do this for themselves.
On Second Reading I said:
"The Motor Agents Association standard so-called 'order form' is a moral disgrace. On the back of it, in the small print, there appear over 1,000 words in 10 clauses imposing the motor agents' own terms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 1164.]
In other words, it took away the protection which members of the public would otherwise have. Within days of those remarks the head of the Motor Agents Association was speaking in Swansea, in my own constituency. He had the audacity to say that his association's order form was "OK" and legal, although this was only half the truth.
The advice I give the people of Swansea and people everywhere in this country is to refuse to sign any Motor Agents' Association order form until this Bill becomes an Act. Once the Bill is enacted the order form will not mean anything. Certainly at present it is a fraud, and the public should be made aware that it is a fraud. The head of the Motor Agents' Association and his trade have done more than any other association or trade to condition the public to expect shoddy treatment from suppliers.
The motorist and other consumers must be made to understand that Parliament has unanimously decreed that goods that are sold must be fit for the purpose for
516
which they were intended. The onus is completely on the suppliers to put right any faults in the goods supplied. I say to the Automobile Association and to the Royal Automobile Club that we must watch the actions of the motor agents in the next few weeks and months to see whether there is any evidence of reluctance by the motor trade to accept the new duties imposed upon it by the Bill. I urge the AA and RAC to initiate an early test case to establish the sanctions which we are providing to the consumer to protect him from the motor trade and certain other suppliers. It is hardly surprising that the public are punch drunk as a result of the treatment that they have received.
In Committee on the Fair Trading Bill I quoted a case which was sent to me in February. Someone had bought a new Ford car from a Ford agent in London in August of last year. In October he took the car in for servicing under warranty. He was told that it would have to remain in the garage for four days. Four days having elapsed, he went back to the garage, where he was told that his car had disappeared. From that day to this he has not seen it. The traders do not deny that the car was on their premises. They say that it is not their responsibility if it disappears because it says on their servicing order form that they are not responsible for any loss or damage while customers' cars are on their premises.
The traders having lost the car in October, the owner wrote to me in February, when he was still without a car. The garage which had lost the car refused even to lend him a replacement while the insurance was settled. The solicitor for the garage told the owner of the car, who was an entirely innocent party, that he should claim through his own insurance even though that meant losing his no claims bonus, and that it was not the practice of the company to lend another car in such circumstances. It sounds as though the company has a lot of experience of it.
The owner also wrote to the massive, powerful Ford Motor Company. The company backed its agent, regardless of the fact that for months someone who had bought through an accredited dealer had been denied the use of his car because of the incompetence of the dealer

517
in looking after property on his premises—
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Shame.
Mr. Williams: The word "shame" describes it very well. It is an astonishing conspiracy between the solicitor, the garage and the Ford Motor Company which can deny a customer the protection that he should have.
That example demonstrates the magnitude of the retreat of the car trade from fair dealing with the public, and it explains why" this House has to think in terms of passing this measure and the subsequent one—because a case of the kind that I have described needs subsequent legislation to give the individual concerned the necessary protection. But at least we are doing half of what is needed pending the second report of the Law Commission, which I appreciate I am not allowed to refer to in the Third Reading debate on this Bill.
The Opposition have given the Bill their fullest backing throughout its various stages. We give it our fullest backing now, and we hope that it is successful. We work on the basis that half a Bill is better than no Bill. If consumers use the protection that this legislation offers them, they will get yet again the protection which the law originally intended them to have.
7.14 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Grant: I believe that this is a very much needed measure, and I join the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Allan Williams) in his description of the considerable degree of accord, the wide measure of agreement on, and the general welcome for its provisions. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to those of my hon. Friends who have enabled us to apply our minds a little more exactly to getting a better Bill, even though we have not been able to accept all their amendments.
The Sale of Goods Act is some 80 years old. To some extent it could be described as having been secondhand even then. Tremendous changes have taken place in our commercial activities since. In the last century it was possible to have an evenly struck bargain between people of equal power and
518
opportunity. Mass production and the growth of development, quite apart from the complexity of our lives, have caused that balance to get out of true. Hence the need for a consumer protection measure of this nature which I believe will be to the great advantage of consumers.
This has been a widely researched Bill —first by the Malony Committee, then by departmental consultations with a wide range of interests, and finally by the Law Commissioners. I pay tribute to the work that they have done and the way in which they have helped this House in its legislative process. They are now hard at work on the need for protection to be afforded to consumers of services. The Bill has to be seen against a background of a programme of measures which will transform and revitalise this general area of the law.
This is a very important step forward in protecting the consumer. Make no mistake, he will now have a very powerful right of redress, which will be particularly important in ensuring that he gets goods of merchantable quality. No consumer should be misled by any exclusion clause in his contract of sale of goods. He will have an absolute right to the implied terms of Sections 12 to 15 of the Sale of Goods Act. These are very valuable rights. It was possible to rob him of them before this Bill. It will not be possible when it is enacted.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear, and I repeat now, that if the practice of including void exclusion clauses in consumer contracts of sale were to become widespread the Fair Trading Bill would provide powers for dealing with it. It will be open to the Director General to proceed under Part II of that Bill and propose that to mislead consumers in this way should be made a criminal offence. We shall watch the working of the Bill very closely to ensure that it is effective.
We believe that the Bill makes this very considerable addition to consumer protection in a way which is also fair to sellers. All those in weak bargaining positions will be strengthened but strong buyers and sellers may continue to deal with each other on whatever terms suit them. If buyers exercise their rights and sellers fulfil their obligations, as I am confident the great majority will, we can

519
hope to see an improvement in the quality of goods supplied in this country. We shall move nearer the ideal in which the consumer has no need to complain or seek redress because he will be satisfied with the goods supplied.
7.18 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I wish to put two questions to the Under-Secretary. I accept all that has been said about the need for the Bill and about the fact that it ought to do away with the appalling, disgraceful and discreditable practice of manufacturers setting out elaborate phrases in their contracts which they are happy to delude the public into thinking are generous terms when they are depriving people of rights that they have under the common law. I feel sure that this legislation will go a long way to do away with that discreditable practice. However, I am certain that there will still be manufacturers who will endeavour to get round it.
In Clause 3 there is a provision dealing with fitness for purpose. The implied condition as to fitness for purpose applies except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill and judgment. I do not want to put nasty thoughts in the minds of firms, manufacturers or anybody else. However, some firms have nasty minds and thoughts already and are no doubt seeking ways to get round the Bill through loopholes which may be found in it. I can imagine some of them putting in those delicate little phrases in small print which say "You should not rely on my skill and judgment" or "Beware, I have no skill and judgment", or words to that effect. In other words, they will be seeking underhanded ways of once again getting out of their obligations.
Mr. Cormack: In the way that certain people have tended to evade responsibilities under the Trade Descriptions Act by putting in auctioneers' catalogues "This is not to be taken as a statement of fact, but merely as a statement of opinion."
Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman, who has displayed considerable interest and has done a great deal for consumer protection, is quite right.
I should like to give another example with which the Minister will be familiar.
520
Under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act one practice in which trade directory firms indulged was to put on an invoice in small print "This is not a demand for payment ", when clearly it was. The whole purpose of sending out invoices is to ask for payment. We should give a warning that the courts are unlikely to look kindly on firms which indulge in that practice. I hope that the courts will take what is traditionally called a robust view when interpreting whether a clause is an exclusion clause or not.
If the Bill, when enacted, is to work effectively it is important that the public should know the safeguards that it gives. In other words, they should know that it is the buyer who in the long run has the right to recover from the seller. I fear that so long as manufacturers continue to print guarantees—they can still do so; the Bill does not prevent them printing guarantees—in practice when a consumer goes to the shop from which he has bought goods and says "They are defective; I am not happy with them" the sales girl, in all her innocence, might say "You have got the guarantee. Have you written to the manufacturer?" The buyer might then write to the manufacturer, who will, because there is a clause in his guarantee which does not apply to the consumer, say "We will repair it, but there is this clause which provides that we can charge for labour", and so on. Therefore, unless the consumer is fully aware of his rights against the person from whom he has bought goods, the legislation may not be as effective as we want it to be.
I hope that the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs will produce a booklet or start a campaign to inform and educate the public about the buyer's rights under the Sale of Goods Act. The public should know that a buyer can go to the seller and say "It may not be your fault, but it is your responsibility and I hold you to your bargain". Perhaps the Minister will reply briefly to those points.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. Cormack: I should like to reinforce what has just been said by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). This is a question of the public knowing their rights. It is all very well passing Acts, but if the public

521
do not know their new rights our labour has to some extent been in vain.
I should like to see a plain man's guide to this difficult and complex problem. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give some thought to this proposal. Obviously, I do not expect an answer off the cuff tonight, because expenditure is involved. However, I suggest that citizens advice bureaux up and down the country and, indeed, Members of Parliament should be supplied with such a guide—one thinks of the supplementary benefits handbook as an example—so that people may know their rights. If something along those lines can be done I am sure that the legislation will become more effective because it will be respected by manufacturers and sellers throughout the country.
Mr. Anthony Grant: By leave of the House I will reply briefly to those points.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) that certain people will always beaver away seeking to find cunning loopholes in the statutes passed by this House. If these people are considering such action they may find themselves in for a shock when they come before the courts. Indeed, there has been a substantial increase in consumer interest over recent years. The Bill is intended for the consumers' protection. I advise anybody who may seek to find ways to evade his responsibility under this legislation to hesitate and consider that it is probably in the best interests of business people not to evade responsibility to the consumer by means of some artificial loophole because it is upon the good will of the consumer that the success of business depends.
The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) raised an extremely good point about the need for publicity. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs is anxious that the provisions of this Bill, when enacted, should be known as widely as possible. He is considering ways in which he can secure this degree of publicity for it. Certainly the suggestions which have been made will be very carefully considered by him.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
EDUCATION BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
EDUCATION (WORK EXPERIENCE) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.28 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to restore a state of affairs which existed before the school leaving age was raised from 15 to 16 last year and to enable local education authorities and schools to continue to make arrangements for a particular type of educational provision which would otherwise cease to be permitted and which it is generally felt is desirable.
First, it might be as well to explain what is meant by the term "work experience" and precisely why legislation has become necessary. The term is one which has grown up in the educational world to describe activities undertaken by senior pupils as part of the process of learning about the adult world. The part of this process with which the Bill is concerned is the broadening of the pupil's experience and understanding by introducing him at first-hand to the conditions and circumstances of adult work. Clearly, pupils may be taught about the outside world in a classroom, but this teaching needs some reinforcement by first-hand experience.
Some of the points made in the classroom can be illustrated by half-day or whole-day visits by school parties who undertake conducted tours of factories or other undertakings as observers. Such visits have their place in the programme, but a greater impact and deeper understanding can be achieved if the pupil can take part in the work. It is this actual

523
participation which gives rise to the problem which the Bill seeks to resolve.
As the law stands, a pupil who participates in the work of an establishment is considered to be employed. If the pupil is below the upper limit of compulsory school age he is a "child" for the purposes of legislation which prohibits or regulates the employment of children. The effect of the law is that pupils of compulsory school age are prohibited from employment in industrial undertakings or in mines and quarries by legislation which extends back to the Employment of Women, Children and Young Persons Act 1920 and includes various provisions of the Factories Acts. Their employment elsewhere is subject to restrictions, mainly under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the equivalent Scottish Act of 1937, which forbid in any form, the employment of children during school hours, or for more than two hours outside school hours, on any school day. The effect is that participation in work experience which involves taking a hand in the work of the undertaking is restricted to pupils who are above the school leaving age.
In fact, most of the schemes which have been in operation were designed for pupils aged between 15 and 16—that is, those who were in their first year after the school leaving age, until that age was raised in September 1972. Experience with these schemes showed that they were of very great value in the education of the pupils and were particularly relevant to the knowledge and needs of pupils of this age. Provided they are given proper support in the curriculum within the school, both in preparation for their visits to factories and in the follow-up afterwards, pupils of this age are well able to appreciate what is involved, to link with experience gained outside with their teaching in school, and to draw conclusions from it.
The difficulty caused by raising the school leaving age is that the date on which any individual pupil ceases to be of compulsory school age is postponed by one year, and therefore the upper age limit of a child, for the purposes of the statutes, is raised by one year. The effect is that the very group of pupils for whom most of the schemes have been devised
524
would be excluded from those schemes until they reached the new upper limit of compulsory school age.
Hon. Members may well ask whether, in this situation, it would not be possible to devise different schemes, aimed at pupils between 16 and 17—the first year after the new school leaving age—and to rely upon those pupils who stay on voluntarily beyond that age. There are two objections to this suggestion. First, although we expect that raising the school leaving age will have some secondary effects on the number of pupils staying on voluntarily until the age of 17, we do not yet know precisely what these effects will be. Secondly, the experience gained has been mainly with the 15- to 16-year-old group and has demonstrated the value of these schemes for that group.
With these considerations in mind in 1971, I undertook consultations to discover the views of the various interests concerned on the general proposition that the law should be changed to enable pupils of 15-plus to continue to participate in the out-of-school part of work experience schemes after the school leaving age was raised, in the same way as they were able to do beforehand. Among the bodies consulted were the professional associations of teachers, the associations of the local authorities and the CBI and TUC, representing the employers and the organisations of the employees collectively. The response was almost unanimous. The teachers' associations, the local authorities and the employers in England and Wales were agreed that, on educational grounds, this change must be made. Their attitude was one not merely of agreement but of enthusiasm.
It is fair to say, however, that the TUC, both in England and in Scotland—where similar consultations were undertaken— had reservations on the ground that they did not consider work experience of this type to be a proper and relevant part of secondary education. The Educational Institute of Scotland also had reservations.
It is in the light of this response that the Government have decided to bring in this very short Bill, to make this small but important change in the law. I emphasise that support for this measure

525
was expressed on educational grounds by the representatives of the authorities who are responsible for providing education in this country, and in an overwhelming majority by the teachers who are engaged in the daily business of putting theory into practice.
I think that we would all agree that it is necessary to protect the young against exploitation and ensure that they receive a proper education. It is also right that those who have doubts about the new proposals on the ground that they may be diminishing the protection which we have built up over a great many years in this country should express those doubts. But, with great respect to those who expressed those doubts, I think that they may have misunderstood the purpose and the nature of these schemes. They are not intended to produce any sort of vocational training. The schemes have been devised to fit in with the general education given within the schools, to reinforce that education with the help of illustrations from the real world outside, and to help in the transition from school to work.
For example, in one scheme the pupils were involved in some of the preliminary letter-writing necessary to make arrangements for their visits. They were required to write diaries and reports on their experiences as they went along, and to record descriptions and impressions of the work at the end of the course. This, I suppose, might be described as the use of English in a practical situation. In another scheme in which boys were visiting an engineering firm, a great deal of emphasis was given to the importance of safety in the work of the firm. Before the boys actually began the work they were given a training session on the subject and issued with a copy of the "Accident Prevention Code for Young Workers in the Engineering Industry". In a number of schemes the pupils are required to work out their travel arrangements in advance.
I have mentioned the need to protect young people and the emphasis given to safety in one scheme. Consultations in 1971 emphasised that any work experience scheme should be subject to proper safeguards and that if the law were to be changed the safeguards applying to the 15-year-olds should be maintained. It might be helpful to turn to the pro-
526
visions of the Bill in order to show how we propose to do this.
Clause 1(1) removes the application of the enactment relating to the employment of children, subject to certain conditions. This subsection bites only on those enactments which are framed in terms of "children". It has no effect on the enactments designed for the protection of workers in general and expressed without any limitation of age. This will apply to pupils who are taking part in work experience schemes under the Bill. The conditions imposed by this subsection are, first, that the employment is within the pupil's last year of compulsory schooling; second, that it is part of arrangements made or approved by the local education authority as part of an educational programme; and, third that it conforms with the additional requirements set out in subsection (2).
These conditions set work experience firmly in the educational context and place on the local education authority the responsibility for making or approving the arrangements. The further requirements in Clause 1(2) impose the same safeguards relating to health, safety and welfare as previously applied to pupils of this age taking part in such schemes.
To take them in order, work experience as provided for under subsection (1) will not be permitted if it contravenes legislation framed in terms of specific ages and prohibiting or restricting the employment of persons under those ages. The next proviso takes acount of the particularly hazardous nature of employment on ships, and provides that work experience on ships—if anyone had it in mind to provide such experience—may be undertaken only within the very narrow range permitted by the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 or those provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts 1970 which will supersede the provisions of the 1920 Act when they are brought into force. Finally, no work experience arrangements are to be made which would entail work by a 15-year-old which would be illegal for young persons, that is to say, those between 16 and 18 years old.
The Bill is largely an enabling measure, which permits the authority to continue to make arrangements of the sort which it has been making in the past, subject only

527
to a little more formal restriction. It is, however, the intention of the Government if the Bill is passed to issue guidance to education authorities and schools explaining the legal provisions and giving advice, based on the observation of good practice, about the organisation of work experience schemes, the need for proper preparation and consultation with those who will be asked to cooperate in carrying them out, and the safeguards and supervision which should be provided in order to protect the young people who are taking part. It is our intention to consult existing authorities about the content of this guidance and to give them a chance to comment before it is published. It is certainly my intention that these consultations should include, as before, not only the educational and local authority interests but those of employers and employees.
7.40 p.m.
Miss Joan Lestor: The right hon. Lady has shown the importance which she attaches to the Bill by presenting it to the House herself. I thank her for a very lucid explanation of its contents. I want to make one or two observations and to enlarge upon some of the points implied in the Bill.
The necessity for the Bill arose from the raising of the school leaving age. With one or two exceptions or additions, it restores the state of affairs which existed previously.
It is right that one should stress the educational nature and content of the Bill because its intention is to enable children in their last year of compulsory schooling to obtain work experience as part of their education. That side of the Bill needs to be stressed, and the right hon. Lady did so.
Work experience is not always understood by many parents, and, indeed, by other people. The term describes a variety of activities undertaken by pupils as part of the process of learning about the adult world within the context of their general education. This is very suited to their last year at school. The value and the intention of work experience schemes should be—as it has been very largely—to try to introduce pupils to circumstances and conditions of adult work in a rather fuller way than by half a day or even a day of being taken to visit a factory or some other
528
establishment. Although the visits which are undertaken from schools are exceedingly valuable, and one does not want to detract from them, the experience of work, of necessity, does much more than those short visits.
The right hon. Lady rightly said that, by and large, the only objections to the Bill which have been received have come from the TUC. The TUC was kind enough to send me a copy of its objections. The Opposition do not accept the TUC's reservations as being sufficient grounds for objection to the Bill, but one or two of the TUC reservations are worth mentioning. Perhaps later in the debate hon. Members may care to comment on some of them. The right hon. Lady has mentioned one of them.
The TUC has never been very happy about the whole programme and idea of work experience. The first of its two main objections is that there would be a tendency to limit young people involved in work experience to the most unskilled jobs with little or no educational value. I do not know upon what evidence that objection is based. But we can safeguard against such a tendency. If we are aware of that danger and so long as we make it clear to firms taking part in work experience schemes, this is not something that would merit objecting to the Bill. However, it is a valid reservation.
The other point made by the TUC is of interest, but again it can be dealt with. This was that there is still a limited number of places available for work experience, as not all employers are willing to participate, and some are not able to participate, for obvious reasons with which I need not deal.
The TUC's fear on this point was that there could be a tendency, because of the limitation of places, for work experience to be regarded as something appropriate only to what the TUC calls the less able child or the non-examination child. So long as we are aware and take it for granted that work experience should include a cross-section of young people and that no one should be excluded from it—and that no one should be pushed into it unwillingly—we can safeguard ourselves from the tendency to regard it as something likely to be used for the unskilled jobs. That is not an objection which would invalidate the Bill. In the

529
main, it is not an objection which we support. However, the objections have to be borne in mind.
The Bill touches upon some practical questions, some of which the right hon. Lady mentioned, such as safety, insurance matters and health risks. These matters must be carefully considered. One or two experiences in the past have focused attention on these things.
There is also the over-riding point that because work experience has not been fully understood by all parents, parents should be acquainted with what it is all about and their full consent should be obtained for their children to participate in this very important experience.
Work experience has an enormous value. It could have a far greater value educationally. It is important to stress that it should not simply be regarded as something relevant only to factory work or to limited areas of future employment. In the future it should be seen not only as part of education but as a general part of a careers advisory service which would cater right across the board for young people of various abilities, intellects and interests. It should be seen as applying to various areas of employment, and not as being confined to certain narrow areas, as has been the tendency.
The right hon. Lady will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that for the first time the Bill enables handicapped pupils to be included in work experience. This is invaluable. I hope that we shall give every encouragement possible to firms to involve handicapped young people in work experience. This can only bring benefits to such people and to all who participate with them in this experience.
All of us on the Opposition side of the House regard work experience as a vital part of the final year at school. Therefore, we welcome the Bill as restoring the status quo to the situation. If the Bill is handled with imagination, skill and concern, it will prove of great value particularly to young people but also to the country.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: It gives me great pleasure to speak immediately after the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and my right hon.
530
Friend, and to be able to say that I agree with every word they have said.
I want to take up one point that the hon. Lady mentioned. She said that work experience could and should be looked upon as part of a general careers advisory service. In a sense, this is my maiden speech. I was a schoolmaster for 10 years, but I have never dared to speak on this subject previously in the House. However, it has always seemed to me that the crying need in our secondary schools was for a comprehensive—I use that word advisedly—and a thorough careers advisory service. Far too often in our schools the work of the careers advisory master or mistress is delegated to some willing member of the staff—or even to an unwilling member—who has a full work load and timetable and knows very little about giving careers advice. Such a person also has little opportunity to acquire experience, to go into factories and offices, and so on.
I should hate to think that the Bill was in any way looked upon as a substitute for providing the sort of careers advice desperately needed by our schools. I know schools, as do other hon. Members, where the careers advice is first class. But it is a grave deficiency in our education service that in 1973 a very large number of schools do not provide proper careers advice.
I know not whether it would be appropriate to the Bill—I am not suggesting necessarily that it would be—but I should like my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully, through either the Bill or another measure in the near future, making it obligatory for all secondary schools to have a proper careers master or mistress. By that I mean someone who would have at most no more than a half-teaching timetable. I have done this job myself in a couple of schools. To do the job properly one needs time to meet employers, to go into factories and offices, and to study the sort of entrance requirements needed for various colleges and universities. One needs time to assess the pupil and his potential, to see parents and to give a prompt and constructive piece of advice. Very often children leave school with a chip on their shoulders because they have failed to measure up to their parents' expectations and because they have not been given proper advice in the schools.

531
I well remember the case of parents who came to me because they were desperately anxious that their son should be a vet simply because he liked animals. The boy was a delightful lad in every way, but his intelligence was certainly limited and his academic achievements never rose above four O levels. But the consequence of the parents ambition was that the boy felt something of a failure until we were able to get hold of them all and prove that there was a career for which he was ideally suited.
It is essential that all our schools should be able to give this service to pupils and parents. Valuable and important as the Bill is, and important as work experience can be in the curriculum in the final school year, it is to some extent negatived if it is not part of a wider and general careers advice.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken the point and that something can be done in the Bill or later to make work experience part of an integrated and thorough careers advice which we should be able to offer to children in secondary schools.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. J. D. Dormand: I welcome the Bill, which seems to be aimed at making the final year at school more meaningful, something which is long overdue. Boredom in the final year is not a new problem. Although the Bill will not get rid of it, it will make a significant contribution to easing that problem.
My only criticism of the Bill is that it is too general. I should like it to be more specific, particularly about how work experience should be conducted. I am not referring to the detailed arrangements of work experience. That is obviously a matter for the local education authority and the school. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has said that she wishes to issue a circular of advice. This is of fundamental importance if and when the Bill is enacted. It is essential to do this because, if I can presume to tell the right hon. Lady, although most schools are enthusiastic about work experience there is considerable timidity about undertaking it. They want to know whether unions in the area will accept it. The memorandum from
532
the TUC has been mentioned, but there can be a great lack of communication between trade union headquarters and people in the area of the schools who have to work the scheme with schoolchildren.
This is a problem which I feel will be met. But the teachers will want to know about the responsibility for supervision, particularly as it relates to the difficulties involving handicapped children. They will obviously require special attention, but, more than anything else, they will want to know, and will need to be satisfied about, insurance arrangements in case of accidents. The Minister may think that this is a small point but I can assure her that it is not. As recently as five years ago there was a parallel scheme for work experience with teachers. It was a most laudable scheme but it failed. No more than about half a dozen LEA's in the country were able to implement the scheme. It failed simply because the insurance aspect was not clarified to the satisfaction of the teachers, and, in my view, they were right to take that view. In my area I had to deal with that problem. Teachers were enthusiastic about the scheme but it fell down after many hours of discussion because I could not get a definitive answer from the Department of Education, the LEA, or anyone concerned.
The position will be more difficult with schoolchildren. Obviously, there are likely to be more accidents than with adults. The position with teachers in conveying pupils to and from places of work will create difficulty and teachers may have to supervise children in the place of work. Perhaps most important of all, the attitude of the parents is fundamental. They will need to be completely satisfied about this aspect if they are to bring their enthusiasm to bear on the scheme. I am aware that the Government will have thought about the question of insurance, although when the Bill had its Second Reading in another place there was little indication about this important aspect.
My appeal to the Government is that the insurance provision be set out in a crystal-clear manner to the LEAs and the schools. The provisions should be placed on every head teacher's desk and spelt out in a manner that leaves no room for

533
doubt. I do not say that the whole scheme will fail if this is not done, but it may not meet with the success that it deserves.
The insurance aspect was my main reason for intervening in the debate tonight. However, I hope that when the Bill is passed schools will not over-do work experience. It could become too easy for schools to send droves of pupils over every week for hours on end. The purpose of such work is to give them a test of adult working activity. It is not vocational experience as such. I am sufficiently old-fashioned to believe that the last year of school, even though children are there until the age of 16, should be generally educational and not vocational, although it is a tremendous challenge to teachers to ensure that the last year is as relevant as possible.
Work experience has been carried out in many countries for years, notably Sweden and the United States. From what I have learned of their experience it seems to me that we could learn the valuable lesson from those countries of not over-doing work experience schemes. Everyone concerned in this activity has a lot to learn about it. Experience of it should be documented as soon as possible. I appeal to the Secretary of State that after perhaps three or four years we should set up a working party to consider the experience that we shall undoubtedly have gained. I believe that course would be essential.
7.58 p.m.
Dame Joan Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for being present tonight, and also for producing what I think will be a valuable Bill. It will help to smooth progress from the sheltered life at school to the adult world. It is a great shock for many young people to go straight from school to work. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) said about careers officers. I heard of the case of someone in America who was keen to be a vet but was told that his qualifications were not good enough. He is now training to be a dentist.
I agree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) about unskilled jobs with their limitations. One
534
is entitled to ask whether hospital visits, for example, will be included, and whether children will be allowed to see how probation officers work, and how the social services and citizens' advice bureaux function. Will they also have an opportunity of going to children's homes and working in playgroups? Not everybody wants to go into a factory, store or mill.
How far will the Bill go in helping young people? It is essential for them to know what is going on in their area. To go through the different departments of their local authority and understand the work of local government in their area would be invaluable to them. They could also visit the disabled, and homes for spastic children, and thus obtain a good understanding of some of the problems of life.
I am delighted that the handicapped are covered by the Bill, as it is even more difficult for them than for other young people to obtain jobs when they leave school.
The Bill should also help with the drop-out rate—a cause of concern to many of us, as there is a great deal of truancy among older pupils. The Bill should provide them with something interesting, which is another reason why I am very keen on this Bill. If we can make wide enough the scope of the visits young people can make for work experience we may find something to suit practically everybody.
I hope that girls will not be shown what are usually considered to be girls' jobs. Girls have recently been admitted to naval dockyards. This innovation was not very successful in the beginning, because the girls did not want to take up the apprenticeships. But now they are entering in fairly large numbers and are being accepted by the young male apprentices. If they could have seen such work beforehand it would not have been so difficult to encourage them to enter.
I was interested to learn that Dame Muriel Stewart, ex-President of the National Union of Teachers, has stated that
"Experience for a week or weeks in a factory, mill or office is what these pupils need. Only in this way can they find out what it is like to work a full day …"—

535
that appears to me to be the opposite of the TUC's views—
"and to carry out tasks for which they carry responsibility."
I should like to make two suggestions. The first concerns agriculture. I realise that the industry is now highly mechanised and that it is not easy for young people to work on farms. But it is essential for children, and for urban children in particular, to know how farms are worked, how the food is produced, and how hard this work is.
We should also help young people who would like to enter the Services. Twenty per cent. of young people who would have gone into the forces would have done so on leaving school at the age of 15. Those who wish to join the Services should now be allowed to go to some of the forces' educational establishments, which are excellent and give a very good education. I think, for example, of HMS "Ganges", which has small classes where education is very well taught.
Young people who genuinely want to enter the Services should have an opportunity to learn what Service life is all about before they join up. If they already knew something about the Armed Forces it might be possible that less of them would want to opt out after entry My right hon. Friend has said that young people could go on ships, so there can be no reason why they should not go to sea in naval ships for a week, or have a few flights with the RAF. If this suggestion is not possible, pupils might be encouraged to join the local cadet force of the Service of their choice.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider my suggestion that young people who genuinely want to enter the Services should have the same opportunities to see that side of life as to see what goes on in a factory.
I thank my right hon. Friend for the trouble she has taken in coming here today, and I hope that when he replies to the debate my hon. Friend the Undersecretary will consider some of the points that I have raised.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the exploratory speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers).
The Bill is highly significant. It deserves to be a great success, and it will be if the teachers, local education authorities, trade unions, and firms, large and small, work together.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Secretary of State's declaration that she will issue a guidance circular. It will require good will and sufficient financial and staff assistance if the Bill is to achieve the required social and educational standards.
We should not forget that starting a new job fresh from the classroom can be a frightening experience for hundreds of thousands of youths and girls. The Bill will help the more sensitive and timid school leavers.
I hope that the Bill will help to break down a damaging aspect of our society—the fact that various sectors operate in isolation from each other. The community as a whole will benefit from the Bill if it is a success. The schools will not suffer if young people see more of local industry, commerce and trade unionism. In passing the Bill we shall probably be ensuring a big breath of fresh air for the education service as a whole. The schools' curricula will change, but certain educational principles will need to be protected. There must be considerable preparation by the teacher and, say, the shop steward, before the pupil leaves school for his or her work experience.
The work experience should be participation and not simply observation, though there are problems of which my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) has spoken. For example, there will need to be careful thought about the place where the pupils will obtain their meals while at work, and what kind of cloakroom accommodation they will have.
I hope that on the shop floor the pupil will be given a thorough explanation of welfare and safety regulations, and will have pointed out to him that the success of the company's operation depends, at least partly, upon the solid day-to-day contribution of the trade unions.

537
I hope that the Bill will have two effects: first, to help improve trade unionism's undeserved image of restrictive and bloody-minded practice and, secondly, to give young people a better chance to make a success of their working lives. After all, in the years ahead there is the prospect of fewer jobs, us each technological breakthrough occurs.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for doing us the courtesy of introducing the Bill herself.
I am particularly interested in the Bill because my own Bill—the Employment of Children Bill—will have its Third Reading on Friday, if the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) is kind enough to let it skate through the House. I think I can tell my right hon. Friend without any fear of being criticised by her that her Bill is younger than mine, because we shall be two or three weeks ahead of her.
I was worried by the raising of the school leaving age. Even now, I am not certain that the implications are fully understood by the House; I am not certain that, on balance, it was the right decision. Only time will show. I supported the change at the time, but it is one of those decisions that I shall judge having seen how it works out. It was not one about which I was certain when I made it. We hear from schools, and from children that some children want to leave at 15 and not 16. It is therefore of vital importance that their last year should be made interesting. Work experience is the best example for the sort of child who has immense physical energy but no desire to be stuck in a classroom the entire time. Such provisions are more than worth while.
I know that in Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will talk more fully on the TUC's view of safety, health and insurance. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) made that point very well. The hon. Lady will find that we will listen carefully to her views in Committee, if we are allowed to be in Committee, and shall do what we can. Having had my Bill go through Committee, and having heard the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) and the right hon. Member
538
for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) put their views on my Bill, I now have a fresher mind.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's comment on the advisory code. It is important that everyone should be well briefed on the significance of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend's words will not just be words said at the Dispatch Box. One of the great criticisms of the Government has been that when they have achieved something which the people were meant to know about, everybody in the House who has followed the subject has known about it, and those who read the papers in detail have found out, but the information has not percolated down to the people who mattered. We must act at departmental level, and ensure that everyone gets to know. We must ensure that it is not a case of words being said at the Dispatch Box.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing the Bill to the House. It is a pleasure to support her. I am delighted that the Opposition support her, and I hope that the measure will speedily become an Act.
8.12 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): This is a small but a most important Bill. My right hon. Friend and I welcome the generally favourable reception which the Bill has had. I welcome, too, the constructive speech made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). We must bear in mind that the Bill is essentially one which restores the situation which existed before the school leaving age was raised. It enables local education authorities, if they wish to do so, to continue to arrange work experience for a limited range of pupils.
It is right that we should not lose sight of the need to make these schemes genuine educational schemes and to provide for the protection of pupils. The hon. Lady expressed concern about handicapped pupils. That was a point which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand).
Special mention should be made of the position of handicapped pupils at special schools. Since 1945 handicapped pupils have been of compulsory school

539
age until 16-plus, whereas other children have ceased to be of comparable school leaving age at 15-plus. Therefore, the former have not been able to take part in work experience schemes until they were of the age of 16. The school leaving age is now common to both groups. It seemed reasonable to bring handicapped pupils into line with the others.
It may well be that no schemes will be devised for handicapped pupils, but the Bill enables local authorities to produce such schemes if they decide that it is right and in the interests of handicapped pupils to do so as part of their education.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the forthcoming issue of guidance from the Department. The Department's advice will remind local education authorities of the need to pay attention to the educational value of the schemes and to provide for the safety of pupils participating in them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) made clear in her quotation, these courses are intended to be not vocational but educational. The guidance will also draw attention to the need for the fullest possible consultation from the early stages in working out any scheme.
In the debate on the Bill in another place my noble Friend Lord Belstead suggested that those who might be brought into consultation included the governors of schools, the inspectorate set up by the local authorities for the Children and Young Persons Act and that for the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools and local education authority careers officers would also be involved.
It is also right that the parents of the pupils should be kept informed of what is going on. The means of communication vary from one school to another. A number of schools in the past have not only given the parents information but have asked for their formal consent for their children to take part in the scheme. That was a point which was made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough and the hon. Member for Easington.
It is best to leave the local authorities to judge in the light of the prevailing
540
circumstances whether to obtain formal permission. The guidance will emphasise that special care should be taken to ensure that no pupil is employed in work which is unsuitable for him or her on physical or medical grounds.
Work experience schemes must be regarded as part of the general curriculum of a school—
Mr. Dormand: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether his right hon. Friend has in mind that there should be a special paragraph or paragraphs in the circular dealing with handicapped children? This is a matter which needs to be spelt out very clearly.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: We will certainly take into account the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Work experience schemes should be regarded as part of the general curriculum of a school. It would be inappropriate for pupils to be paid for their participation in the work of a firm. That point will be covered in the guidance that the Department will circulate.
An important matter to which reference has been made is the amount of time that should be given to work experience. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules about the amount of time to be taken up in activities outside school. In accordance with the underlying nature of the scheme, a pupil's participation should be long enough to give him or her a proper flavour of what is going on. On the other hand, it would clearly be wrong for the amount of time spent out of school to interfere seriously with a pupil's education. Some schemes have arranged for pupils to be out for half a day or a whole day a week for each week of one term in the final year. That does not seem to be excessive.
The possibilities range from comparatively short periods spread over a long time to a smaller number of longer attachments of one or two weeks. Much will depend on the employers and local circumstances. It is essentially a matter for local decision. Supervision is also of great importance. The arrangements should include proper provision for the supervision of the pupils both within the firm and by the school. Within the firm there should be a responsible employee or member of the staff who is acquainted with the aims of the scheme and will

541
assume responsibility for the pupils' welfare while they are with the firm. The school should arrange to keep in touch with the pupils. There should be standing arrangements for teachers to visit the firms concerned and supervise the progress of the pupils.
The hon. Member for Easington raised the question of insurance. The first point to be made here is that the need for it should be kept to the minimum by paying attention to safety and supervision in the arrangements. Nevertheless, of course there may be occasions when accidents will happen. Someone will be injured or property will be damaged, and there will be a claim for compensation. Because there is no contract of employment, the pupils will not be eligible for industrial injuries benefit. It is, therefore, essential that the local education authorities should make sure, before pupils are sent out on work experience schemes, that there is adequate insurance cover, either under their own schemes or from the employers. The arrangements made by the local authorities to cover possible liability vary a great deal, and the Department does not, and cannot, give guidance of general application. The need for insurance, however, is a matter which will be taken into account in the advice it is proposed to issue. I hope that will reassure hon. Members on the point.
I want to refer to the position of girls in these schemes. Work experience is not a scheme for one sex only. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport relating the constructive experience of the girls in the naval dockyards of her constituency. A number of schemes already in operation provide opportunities for girls to participate, and I am sure that local education authorities will take note of the need to avoid discrimination against women in this as in other areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport also asked whether hospitals, playgroups and nurseries would qualify for work experience courses. These are matters which the local education authority itself should decide, but existing schemes include groups working in hospitals, nurseries and playgroups, in dentists' reception, in public libraries and in council offices. So work experience is not confined to industrial work as
542
such. Some schemes are obviously non-vocational. For example, a boy doing a CSE project on computers went to a computer firm although he had no desire to make that his life's work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport also referred to the educational establishments of Her Majesty's Forces, pointing out the difficulties which may arise because of the raising of the school leaving age. It is a most important point, and we shall inquire into it to see whether anything can be done. I join in her tribute to the work of HMS "Ganges" and other educational establishments of Her Majesty's Forces.
I turn now to the question of careers guidance, raised by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). Work experience is not primarily a part of the careers guidance provisions. Nevertheless, of course, it can be of great help in giving pupils information about the nature of particular jobs which will assist them in making career choices. Local authority careers services can help in formulating work experience schemes by suggesting, from their knowledge of local employers, which firms would be suitable and which form of project would be most likely to produce a co-operative response. Good liaison with the careers officer and with the careers teachers in the schools will be most helpful in producing work experience schemes.
Dame Joan Vickers: What about agriculture?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that there will be opportunities also for work experience in agriculture. I hope that answer satisfies my hon. Friend, whose interests range remarkably widely.
I repeat my pleasure that the Bill has not proved controversial and has received the welcome which it has from the Opposition. I hope that its passage through the Committee and its remaining stages in the House will be equally uncontentious.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second Time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

DANGEROUS DRUGS
8.25 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I beg to move,
That the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.
It may help the House if I briefly put the order into context. The Government—indeed I am sure that I may say the whole House—are aware of the great dangers that the misuse of drugs presents to all levels of our society and in particular to its younger members. On coming to power, therefore, we took over as a matter of high priority the Misuse of Drugs Bill that had been introduced by our predecessors and saw it enacted as the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
As hon. Members will be aware, the 1971 Act consolidated and modernised the dangerous drugs law which had grown up piecemeal, largely in response to the upsurge of drug misuse in the 1960s. The new Act will enable the Government to respond speedily and positively to the changing patterns of misuse and the complex social problems it causes, as well as to strengthen our defences against illicit traffic and misuse.
Some provisions of the Act are already in force, particularly those establishing the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and providing for research. We are anxious to get the Act into full operation as soon as possible. We shall welcome any help that we may be able to get from the newspapers and the other media in making known what is proposed as the Act comes fully into force later this year.
Since its enactment we have pressed ahead with the preparation of the detailed subordinate legislation that is needed to bring the Act into force. This has been a big task both because of the novelty and complexity of the provisions and because of the wide impact that they will have upon all those who are in any way concerned with the legal use of controlled drugs. Consequently, lengthy consultations have been necessary to ensure that the Act and its instruments will achieve their full effectiveness. I am glad to report to the House that
544
the subordinate legislation is now ready to come into operation.
Since the 1971 Act was passed—this comes more directly to the order—there have been changes in international narcotics law and in our own assessment of the drugs misuse situation in the United Kingdom. These changes require adjustments to be made to the list of drugs that are controlled by the 1971 Act, and this is the purpose of the order. The order is a short one, but it looks rather formidable because the subject matter seems complicated and unfamiliar to many of us. Since it paves the way for the 1971 Act to be brought fully into operation the House will appreciate its importance. In fairness to the House and to those outside who are following our proceedings, I must therefore take a few minutes longer to try to explain clearly the purpose and provisions of the order.
The substances controlled by the 1971 Act are listed, in Schedule 2 of that Act, in three classes—A, B and C—according to the assessment of their danger if they are misused. Each class is contained in a separate part of the schedule. Offences in respect of substances in different classes attract different penalties. These are tabulated in Schedule 4 of the Act. It is possible by Order in Council for substances to be added to or removed from Schedule 2, or to be moved from one part of the schedule to another. This order is the first of its kind to be introduced. As the Act requires, the provisions of the order have been considered by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the changes it makes are made upon the recommendation of the council.
In brief, the changes it will make to Schedule 2 fall into three groups. First, there is a group of adjustments occasioned by recent changes in the international controls on narcotics. Second, there is an adjustment to put right a defect in the Act because of which some drugs are placed in two different classes, and, third, four drugs are removed from control because they are no longer thought liable to be misused.
Let me explain these changes more fully. The first group is covered by Articles 2(a) and 2(c) of the order. They arise from the United Kingdom's adherence to the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. As a

545
party to the Convention the United Kingdom must amend its domestic legislation to give effect to decisions of the United Nations with respect to drugs under international control. Since the 1971 Act was passed the United Nations has brought two drugs—drotebanol and propiram— under control. These are synthetic pain-killing drugs. Drotebanol is powerful, like morphine while propiram is less powerful, like codeine. The United Nations has also adjusted the controls on a third drug—nicodicodine—by moving it away from the most potent and dangerous drugs and putting it into the same category as codeine.
The appropriate amendments to Schedule 2 of the Act to give effect to these international changes are, first, to add drotebanol to the list of Class A drugs and to remove nicodicodine from that list; and, secondly, to add nicodicodine and propiram to the list of Class B drugs.
Next is the change made by Article 2(b) of the order. This remedies an anomaly created by oversight when the 1971 Act was drafted. Paragraph 3 of Part I of the schedule controls as Class A drugs the esters and ethers of any of the substances specified in paragraph 1 of Part I. Thus, morphine has certain ethers, and by this paragraph they are controlled as Class A drugs. Offences in respect of them could attract appropriately heavy penalties. When this provision was drafted it was overlooked that some substances which are esters or ethers of substances in Part I are in fact specified by name as Class B drugs in paragraph 1 of Part II. For example, codeine and ethylmorphine are ethers of morphine and, because they are named in Class B, the offence of being in illegal possession of them would attract a lesser penalty— which is what we intend—than for drugs in Class A. This overlap is clearly unsatisfactory, and Article 2(b) will remove it if the House approves the order. Lastly, in these changes, Article 2(d) takes out of control entirely four substances which appear as Class C drugs in Part 3 of the Schedule. These are fencamfamin, pemoline and prolintane, all of which are minor central nervous system stimulants.
To explain why we are doing this I shall have to tell the House a little of
546
the history of why they came to be controlled in the first place.
Going back to 1964, it became necessary for the Government of the day to deal with the problem of the increasing misuse by young people of pep pills or, more precisely, certain central nervous system stimulants, particularly, of course, the amphetamines. The Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 brought these substances under control. Originally, most of the drugs under control were not mentioned by name in the schedule to that Act but were controlled because their chemical structure fell within the generic formula set out in the schedule. Unfortunately, the formula caught not only the amphetamines, which then, as now, were the main drugs of misuse in this class, but substances which were not and never have been misused. Thus, the generic formula turned out to have a much wider effect than had been expected.
Fencamfamin, phentermine and prolintane are three drugs that became controlled in this way. The fourth with which we are concerned—pemoline—was named specifically in the schedule to the 1964 Act because, although its chemical structure was not caught by the generic formula, it had a structure and clinical effect similar to amphetamine. It was therefore considered to have a potential for misuse, although there was no evidence of misuse at that time, nor has there been since.
When the Misuse of Drugs Bill was before the present Parliament representations were made to the Home Office by the manufacturers of products based on pemoline, phentermine and prolintane that the continued control of these drugs could not be justified, on the ground that they were being misused, or were likely to be misused, or that if misuse occurred it would be harmful.
In 1970 the Government had already decided to abandon the generic formula, which was done by an order amending the schedule to the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act. But the Government thought it best to keep in the Misuse of Drugs Act the list of drugs which were controlled under the existing law and to use the machinery provided by the advisory council, to be set up under the new Act, with the task of, among other things, considering changes in the list of drugs subject to control.

547
So one of the first tasks undertaken by the new advisory council after it was set up in January 1972 was to consider the status of these drugs. The Department of Health and Social Security suggested that fencamfamin should also be considered. The council came to the conclusion that none of these drugs was being misused, or seemed likely to be misused, or, indeed, that misuse of this kind, if it occurred at all, would be capable of having harmful effects that would constitute a social problem. Accordingly, the council took the view that in line with the criteria for control contained in Section 1(2) of the new Act there was no ground for these drugs remaining under control, and they have recommended to us accordingly.
I hope that this short explanation has enabled the House to grasp the purpose and nature of the changes that are proposed. As I have said, they are being made on the recommendation of our advisory council. I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. John Fraser: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his clear explanation, for which I am sure we are all grateful. I also congratulate him on his pronunciation of the names of the drugs, although he neatly side-stepped the pronunciation of the full names of drote-banol and nicodicodine—I do not blame him for that.
The statutory instrument is totally incomprehensible. That is a reflection on the way in which the House deals with subordinate legislation. As the Undersecretary of State said, this is an important subject. Dangerous drugs can ruin the lives of individual people and can ruin societies. An order of this nature should be comprehensible to the House and to ordinary men and women. It should also be comprehensible to pharmacists. During the last few days I have talked to pharmacists and asked them what the order means. Many have not been able to tell me and have never heard of some of the drugs mentioned in it. To lay an order before the House with a totally inadequate explanatory memorandum is discourteous to the House and to the specialist public who have to try to understand it. It is to treat them with contumely.
548
The order does not mention that some drugs are now included in Class A because of a United Nations agreement. We are all impressed that the United Nations has been able to secure agreement on certain dangerous substances being classified as extremely dangerous and being incorporated into our legislation. That should have been mentioned in the explanatory note.
I know that alteration of the classification of drugs in Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act is done on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but the advisory council publishes nothing. From research which I have done, it appears that the advisory council simply tells the Minister that a drug should be transferred from one part of Schedule 2 to the other part of Schedule 2, or should be included in the schedule. That advice is not made public. Once again, that is treating the public in the wrong way. These matters should be explained.
I found it extremely difficult to discover what drotebanol is, and why it has been included. I know a little more after listening to the Under-Secretary of State. When similar orders are published in future, I implore the hon. Gentleman to give us a little more information so that we can intelligently debate and understand them.
The hon. Gentleman has answered most of my questions. He has explained what drotebanol is and why nicodicodine has been demoted—I guessed that it was an ester or ether of morphine. The explanatory memorandum should have explained why four drugs have disappeared into limbo.
We all understand the difficulty of this problem. I have been told that there exists an X-ray device which is able to detect drugs carried in luggage, but so far that machinery is not in full operation at our seaports and airports. I have read articles about this X-ray device which not only finds guns and ammunition in passengers luggage but can also detect drugs. I understand that there is resistance to using the device because of the charges that would be placed upon airline carriers, but if we have to decide between keeping dangerous drugs out of the country and the comparatively small expense of operating the device I would prefer that expense to be borne.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Lane: With the leave of the House, I will try to take up some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), in reverse order. I am grateful for his general welcome and I understand his reservations.
I cannot answer him off the cuff about the X-ray device. I should like to go further into it and consider the possibility of making better use of the latest technology. I agree that it is vital to use all the resources of science to catch drugs that may be brought in wrongly or illegally. I will look into this matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about it. He may want to question us further in the next few weeks.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the advice of our advisory council had not been published. There is no regular understanding that bodies of this kind which give advice will always publish their advice stage by stage as they go along. There is no particular mystery about this. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the further information we will be giving and the further publicity as we get nearer the time when the Act comes fully into force, it will be made quite clear what the advisory council has been saying to us on particular points in preparation for bringing the Act into force, examples of which we have had tonight. I would like to look further into the desirability of more general publication of the advisory council's work and advice to us. I cannot tonight make any more commitment than that.
That brings me to the hon. Member's main criticism that this was an incomprehensible order. He particularly suggested that the explanatory note ought to be fuller and said that some pharmacists to whom he had talked had never heard of these new drugs and knew nothing at all about them. His criticism is somewhat ill founded, because we are dealing here with getting the machinery put together, ready to start work. This particular regime of control is not yet in force. Several of the drugs we are discussing are not yet available in this country; so it is not surprising that even people in the trade are not wholly familiar with them although all through our consultations the Pharmaceutical Society has been completely involved and its repre-
550
sentatives have known exactly what has been proposed, stage by stage.
I hope I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman by saying that between now and the date when the Act comes into force, a little later this year, we shall see to it that the maximum explanation and publicity is given promptly and well before the operative date to all those who will be concerned with the new machinery when it is in force. In particular, the Department of Health and Social Security will be informing the medical world thoroughly; and the Pharmaceutical Society will certainly be informing its own members, including those of whom the hon. Gentleman spoke. We in the Home Office will ensure that those involved in the courts and the police are familiar with the changes and new machinery. For the public—whom I mention last but by no means least—we shall do everything we can via the Press, radio and television, to let people know that the Act is coming into force, what is involved and how the machinery will work, in good time before it does.
I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman will feel a little more satisfied than he was a moment ago. I will look particularly at the possibility of a fuller explanation of this very technical matter in any future orders that are to come before the House. I hope on this basis we can get at least this order on its way.
Mr. John Fraser: I realise, of course, that this part of the Act is not yet in force and that full information will be given to pharmacists, the police and others about its effects. But what the House is being asked to do this evening is to add to Class A drugs in the Second Schedule the name of a drug of which probably none of us has heard before but the supply of which will carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years. I do not think the House ought at any time lightly to amend the law to create a new offence carrying a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment without knowing exactly what it is doing. That was my main reason for putting forward a request for more information.
Mr. Lane: I will consider whether there is anything within the rules and form of orders of this kind that we can

551
do beforehand, but I have detained the House, and no doubt bored a number of people stiff during the last 15 minutes, only so as to get on record, not only for those in the House who are interested but for those outside who are interested, what is involved in greated depth than in the short format of the order. I will consider this further.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.

AGRICULTURE (CALF SUBSIDIES)
8.50 p.m.
The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move,
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.
We move from drugs to calves. The draft scheme which we have before us gives effect to the changes in the rates of calf subsidies announced by my right hon. Friend on 21st March. I ought to explain, perhaps, that the scheme is called the No. 2 scheme because earlier this year we had a variation scheme which dealt with technical legal changes which had to be made as a result of the ending of the guarantee for fat cattle.
The scheme would have the effect of reducing the rates of calf subsidy in the following way: that for steers would be reduced from £11·25 to £8·50, and for heifers from £9·00 to £6·50. These new rates would apply to calves born on or after 16th April 1973. As the subsidy is generally paid on calves when they are eight months old or more, the reduced rates would not become effective until the coming autumn.
The essential purpose of the calf subsidies has been to encourage the rearing of calves for beef production. This is made clear in the 1971 Calf Subsidy Scheme, which sets out the requirements and specifically links the payments of subsidy to calves which are suitable for beef. In the past, many calves were being
552
slaughtered as young bobbies and as a result we were losing potential productive capacity. Thus, incentives were clearly needed to make it worth while both to produce calves of a type suitable for beef production and to encourage farmers to rear them. Over the years the scheme has been effective in reducing the number of calves slaughtered from as many as 870,000 in 1962 to 150,000 last year, and in encouraging the trend towards breeds suitable for beef. We now have a national herd which is much better geared for beef production than ever before.
I readily accept that the calf subsidies have been a valuable production grant, improving returns at a key point in the production cycle when returns from end prices were not enough to bring about the necessary expansion. But the situation over the past year or so has changed markedly as a result of the shortage of beef supplies. This has increased returns from the market and has had the effect of making this subsidy less necessary.
For example, the prices of bull calves less than three weeks old were £10 or more higher in February this year than last. The increase is seen again in the prices for yearling steers of beef breeds which, over the same period, rose on average from £93 to £123 a head. And yet again, if we look at the prices of two-year-old animals we see increases of about £50 apiece.
Along with these improvements in returns from the market we have seen a sharp increase in the rate of expansion of the beef herd, which rose by 10 per cent. last year. Clearly, therefore, the market is giving farmers a good return for their calves and cattle at all stages in the production cycle, and farmers are responding well to it.
A reduction in the calf subsidy is, in my view, therefore, a reasonable and logical change at the present time, and I do not think that it will prejudice the returns of producers. The size of the reduction is quite modest—£2·50 for heifers and £2·75 for steers. These are about one-quarter of the present rates of the subsidies and would save about £8 million in the cost of the scheme in a full year.

553
I commend the scheme to the House. It represents a worthwhile saving in Government expenditure in a sector where the market has already more than compensated for the reduction in subsidy.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Gavin Strang: There can be no argument about the need to expand our beef production. There is a shortage of beef in the United Kingdom, in Europe and in the United States—indeed, there is a world shortage of beef which will last for some time, particularly with the increasing demands being made on the world market by Japan. If we are in favour of expansion, as I believe both sides are, at present no commodity is a better bet, in terms of expansion, than beef. Although we may have some reservations about other commodities, possibly even cereals, there can be no ground as yet for talking in terms of an over-supply of beef in the market. The Government's policy should be to maintain and encourage the present expansion in our beef herds.
I acknowledge that the expansion in beef cow numbers—in calf heifers particularly of the beef type—has been considerable and commendable in the last year or two. Therefore, at a time when we should be encouraging even greater beef production it is illogical to proceed by cutting some of the important production grants which are aimed at achieving an expansion. For this reason the Opposition deplore the Government's decision to cut calf subsidy.
I appreciate that the matter must be looked at in perspective. There is a hill cow subsidy of £18·75, a beef cow subsidy, and a winter keep hill cow supplement. More important, there have been sharp increases in the prices of fat cattle and store cattle. From March last year to March this year store cattle prices increased by £5 per cwt. This means £30 in the case of a 6 cwt. beast, and it can be even greater for a larger beast.
There is no doubt that beef producers are experiencing significantly increased returns as a result of what has been happening in the market in the last year. Therefore, I cannot see how the Government can justify a cut in the subsidy at the present time. The Government are underestimating the effect which this will
554
have upon agriculture. Time and again we have been exhorted to expand, but this attitude seems to have fallen away. We cannot blame the industry for beginning to wonder why the Government say, on the one hand, that we are desperately in need of beef expansion, and yet, on the other, cut the calf subsidy for the first time since it was introduced in 1952.
The Minister has acknowledged that this has been a useful grant in increasing the supply of calves for beef. I do not think one can attribute the reduction in the percentage of calf slaughterings to subsidy alone. The fact that producers have changed to the Friesian as opposed to the Ayrshire, and the increase in the value of Friesian steers, must have been a large factor in what has happened in agriculture.
Nevertheless, it is worth bearing in mind that it is more than 20 years since the calf subsidy scheme was introduced. When it came in it was £5 for steer calves and £2 for heifer calves. The subsidy was increased by the last Conservative Government, and increased again by the last Labour Government. Now, more than 20 years later, at a time when we are crying out more than ever for increased beef production, the Government proceed to cut the calf subsidy.
Why are the Government cutting the subsidy? Are they saying that beef is too profitable? Are they saying that producers are making too much out of beef? I have never seen production grants as providing a way of bolstering farm incomes. They provide a way of achieving the right level of supply in specific commodities. But this production grant's function is not to help farm incomes. It is not a good way of supporting farm incomes. It is aimed specifically at increasing the supply of beef.
I am reminded of the antics of this Government just after Christmas, when we had the "instant" beef prices report. We had a great deal of misguided comment about the wicked farmers making a big killing in beef and holding the consumer to ransom. The Government rather basked in this. They liked the idea that criticism was being directed to the farmers rather than to themselves. I cannot help wondering whether this cut in subsidy has its origin in some of the discussion which took place at that time.

555
Everyone knows that the farmer sells the bulk of his fat cattle on the open market and takes the price that he gets. He takes the highest price, of course, just as anyone selling a house does. The extent to which cattle are sold dead does not affect the argument. The fact is that any producer takes the price that the market will give him. It is nonsense to argue that it is somehow the producer's fault that we have high beef prices.
That is not to say that high beef prices are inevitable. The Government could control them if they wanted to. They may decide that the cost of legislation and the difficulties of the intervention required are not justified. That is arguable. But they cannot say that they are unable to take action to contain beef prices. If the political will is there they can get over the administrative problems.
There can be no doubt in any one's mind, however, that present beef prices will not be helped by cutting production subsidies. Cutting production grants makes the producer even more dependent on market prices. If the Government are serious about trying to reduce beef prices, and if they hope that the slight fall-back in fat cattle prices will continue—I believe that it is only temporary—that is all the more reason for continuing the production grants.
Are the Government saying that they do not want beef to be profitable? Are they saying that beef is too profitable? Do not they accept that we need to put everything that we have into expanding beef production, and that it was misguided of them to give grounds for apprehension among beef producers? It was that, coupled with the economic loss, which caused the farmers' unions to deplore the cut in the calf subsidy.
In addition to talking about the reduction in the subsidy, the Opposition believe that there is every justification for making some reference to the future of the calf subsidy, and we cannot talk about that at the present without looking at it in the context of our membership of the EEC.
I recall the arguments and discussions that we had, throughout the negotiations, on the need to obtain adequate guarantees on these production grants. I wrote to the Minister about this matter and
556
received a reply. I concluded from that reply that the Government had not had any specific assurances for the production grants, but had received only a general assurance that the Community recognised the need—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon Gentleman realises that the motion is not very wide.
Mr. Strang: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that at a time when we are seldom able to debate production grants we can at least ask the Minister why this cut has been made, and whether it has anything to do with our membership of the EEC. Is the Commission at present looking at the calf subsidy to see whether it is incompatible with the philosophy of free competition? May we have an assurance that, regardless of the Commission's views, we can keep the calf subsidy at any level?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that it will not be in order for the Minister to answer a good many of these questions. I hope, therefore, that he will restrict himself to the content of the motion.
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not challenge your ruling, but I think that in dealing with motions of this kind it has generally been customary to discuss the implications and the future development of the sphere to which the motion relates. I hope that we shall be able to continue to debate this matter in the customary way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must see now the debate goes. I have issued my warning.
Mr. Strang: Is this the beginning of the phasing out of the calf subsidy? May we have a clear-cut statement from the Minister on this point which I think is relevant? We have a right to know what the Government are driving at here. Is this the first step in the ending of calf subsidies?
In my opinion, the Minister has not justified this cut in the calf subsidy—the first since it was introduced. Why are the Government cutting the calf subsidy? What is the long-term significance of this cut? Is it the first step in the eventual

557
elimination of this well-tried and—as the Minister acknowledged—successful production grant?
9.8 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): It is a pleasure for me to be able to take part in this debate because, I remind the House, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is equally concerned with beef production in every form. Farmers in Northern Ireland are just as interested in what is going on as are farmers in Great Britain.
The proposed reduction of the calf subsidy was announced on 21st March, several weeks ago, and has in general been received as a reasonable reduction, given the market situation which obtains for cattle and calves.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the prospects looks good. Indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has said that as well. The demand for beef is high and there has certainly been a considerable increase in production. The increase in production is very significant. It shows that the farmers have the confidence to produce the much-required beef. The increase in the number of calves retained is also highly significant. Indeed, this is a major test of the farmers' confidence in the future. All this is very encouraging for the consumer, because what we need to do is to produce more and more of our beef at home and not rely on overseas supplies. The signs are good, and I believe the confidence is there.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East talked about expansion. He is absolutely right. Expansion is under way and will continue to be under way. The hon. Member also spoke about the Government being illogical. I remind him that we still have the subsidies on the hill cow, the beef cow, and winter keep, all of which are very important. I believe this is the start of it.
I also remind the hon. Member about the high prices for store cattle. Some of the prices I have seen in the markets and have obtained myself have been considerable—£25 per cwt. for store cattle is a very high figure. This is what encourages a farmer to produce, because he is getting such a good return for his store cattle.
558
Coupled with that, a farmer still has the assurance not only of high prices but of the intervention arrangements. I would be straying a long way from the correct path if I continued on that point, but it is a very real assurance to the fanning community.
It is the end price which counts. This is what gives confidence to the farmer. I do not know whether the hon. Member farms, but in the past deficiency payments have not always given the fair return which farmers require. Some of us have often sent cattle, pigs and other animals to market when there has been a slump and the deficiency payments received have never made prices up to a fair figure—
Mr. Strang: They are better than the ones they are getting now.
Mr. Mills: With respect to the hon. Member, that is not so. Future beef production will continue on this high level because of the high end price that farmers are getting, which, the hon. Member admitted, will continue.
The hon. Member asked about the future principles of the calf subsidy. I fear that in commenting on this matter as well I would be straying from the correct path—but the United Kingdom favours the principle of production grants and we are continuing to encourage the European Community to adopt joint measures to promote beef production.
Different aspects of the calf subsidy have been debated. I trust that hon. Members will now agree that the reductions in calf subsidy which will take place as a result of this order will not harm beef—or, for that matter, dairy producers —or have an adverse affect on food prices. This is an important point, which hon. Members opposite might have mentioned. What we are doing will represent a useful saving in Exchequer subsidy.
9.14 p.m.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I should like to take up one or two points which have been made.
It is not sufficient to argue the case for this cut, as has been done this evening, on the ground that the industry is doing well; in other words, basing a change in principle, the beginning of a cut in

559
the production grant, on the fact that the end price is doing well. Production grants have another purpose. I cannot accept this cut on the basis that it is the end price that counts. With respect to the farmer, it is not just a question of the end price. Many farmers prefer a more harmonious relationship between their own returns and the prices being charged in the shops.
One of the difficulties was exactly the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) about the time of the beef price explosion over Christmas and the New Year. The tendency then was to set housewife against farmer. The farmer would much prefer a support system which allowed harmony between himself and the consumer. I do not know why the Minister is shaking his head. I am saying that the farmer would prefer a system which allowed a continuous harmony between the consumer and the fanner. The Minister is now nodding. I hope that he agrees with that. What the farmer is concerned with are his returns and his income, rather than that matters should be based primarily on a price or on anything else. It is a dangerous concept to suggest that all that he is concerned with is the end price. Taking that kind of argument of principle, it suggests that the future of these grants is in jeopardy if it is a principled attitude that the Government are taking.
Thirdly, it is not enough to say that the end price position at present is a sufficient safeguard to the farmer. That was not the case when we scrapped the guaranteed price on beef and replaced it with the Intervention Board system. This does not allow for the kind of fluctuation that could occur in the future. There is far too much confidence on the part of the Government in relation to agriculture that the high price position will necessarily continue indefinitely. That is a wrong and dangerous assessment because it also presupposes a permanent high price policy in this country.
We object to the order and to the arguments advanced. For the reasons I have explained I cannot accept the arguments of the inadequacy of the guaranteed price deficiency payments system. The end point of the chain of structure which we could have used, if it was the correct
560
thing to do, as I believe, was to bridge the gap between the high price of imports, due to high world commodity prices, and the needs of our people for a cheaper food policy. That is another reason why we object to this break in the direct type of grant. It is not true that it has no relationship to price. It has, because in addition to the main function of increasing beef output, it also has the effect of dealing with income and giving a return in this particular way.
These arguments have worried me. The main implication of the order, in view of the principal arguments advanced, suggests that this could be the beginning of a movement towards an ending of production grants of this kind.
I understand the Ministers' interest and concern and their knowledge of British agriculture. I know where their hearts lie in terms of agriculture. I take the point when they say that they would like to see arguments of this kind in relation to production grants within the Common Market continuing. But to what extent is the cut in production grants due to our entry into the Common Market, due to requests made to us by the Council of Ministers? Have there been any demands of that kind? We have seen it happening in relation to other orders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier.
Mr. Buchan: I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am only trying to draw an analogy, rather than to make a new specific point. The analogy may be valid. The other requirement which has been made in relation to beef is clearly related to our entry into the Common Market. Is this order connected in any way with the Government's understanding that production grants will not be allowed at some point during or after the transitional period? If we do not get an answer on that point, we shall have to leave the matter there.
We have expressed a displeasure which will be backed by not only the consumer but by the farming community in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Sir Edward Brown be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and that Mr. David Waddington be added.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Goodhew.]

BRITISH CITIZENS ABROAD (DEATH CERTIFICATES)
9.20 p.m.
Mr. Edward Gardner: I am grateful for the opportunity of putting before the House an account of quite extraordinary difficulties which one of my constituents has had in recovering a passport, personal papers and a death certificate relating to his father who, it seems, died nearly a year ago whilst on holiday in Haifa.
Perhaps I can best assist my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary by submitting the facts upon which the difficulties arose and then trying to suggest to him how our diplomatic and consular representatives abroad could help in future cases of this kind. These are what the House may well consider to be the somewhat curious, if not rather mysterious facts. My constituent Mr. A. Mercer is a schoolmaster living in my constituency at Penwortham near Preston in Lancashire. In April 1972 Mr. Mercer's father, who was then 76, a retired architect, booked as a passenger on a 15-day cruise in the Mediterranean with Clarksons' Tours, the well-known travel firm.
He left home on 10th April and was never seen again by his son. Apparently Mr. Mercer's father flew to Rimini and joined the Greek Ship SS "Delphi" for a cruise round the Eastern Mediterranean, and it would seem that on 18th April he had a heart attack. The following day he died when he was in hospital in Haifa where he had been taken, and on 26th April he was buried in Haifa. But until as late as March of this year Mr. Mercer was still uncertain about what had happened to his father.
562
On 20th April a relative of Mr. Mercer got in touch with him on the telephone and told him he had heard that his father had died in Haifa the day before. On 24th April a representative of Clarksons' Tours telephoned to say that the father had died in Haifa. On 26th April the personal secretary to the managing director of Clarksons' Tours Limited, Mr. Jack Straw, telephoned Mr. Mercer offering to give Mr. Mercer all the help that she could. In May the agent of Clarksons' in Haifa sent to Mr. Mercer by air mail a letter telling Mr. Mercer that his father's passport, papers and death certificate had been sent by him to Clarksons' in London on 27th April. So, Mr. Mercer, thinking he would take advantage of the offer by Mr. Straw's personal assistant or secretary, wrote to her asking her if she would help him by sending the documents to him in Lancashire when they arrived.
It all seemed straightforward and no one was very worried. But he got no reply to that letter. So he wrote immediately to Mr. Straw, the managing director of Clarksons', telling him that he had written to his personal secretary and had had no reply. He waited. The days went by and he got no reply. In mid-May, still without a reply, he wrote again to Mr. Straw. This time the letter which was posted on 20th May was sent by recorded delivery, but again he got no reply.
As the weeks passed into months, Mr. Mercer became more distressed, and ultimately came to see me as his local Member of Parliament, as undoubtedly he was entitled to do, to see what help I could give him. I found some difficulty at first in accepting what he said. Therefore, on 6th July I wrote a personal letter to Mr. Jack Straw, the managing director of Clarksons' Tours, setting out all the facts. I received no reply.
A month passed, and I wrote another letter, dated 8th August, to Mr. Jack Straw. I said that I found the delay in dealing with a matter touching so deeply and personally the case of one of his clients somewhat surprising and disturbing. I received no reply.
When I returned from my own holiday, which fortunately I had not booked with Clarksons', I wrote another letter, dated 28th September. I told Mr. Jack Straw that unless he replied pretty swiftly I

563
would take steps to raise the matter on an Adjournment debate. I received no reply.
In mid-November I saw a member of the Press and told him all I knew. I expressed my indignation in no uncertain terms. No story appeared in any newspaper. I made inquiries, and discovered that members of the Press had apparently got in touch with Clarksons' and had spoken to one of the directors, who had so discouraged them or frightened them that nothing was printed.
If Clarksons' alarmed the Press, certainly the Press must have alarmed Clarksons', because on 23rd November the personal secretary to Mr. Jack Straw telephoned me in the House and told me to my surprise that Mr. Jack Straw had, in fact, written me a letter. The letter was supposed to be dated, she said, 2nd October, and she said that she was very surprised that I had not received it. I replied "That's very easily put right. Send me a copy of the letter".
On 24th November I received a letter, the first from Mr. Jack Straw, telling me that he had sent me a letter which his secretary said had been delivered to the House by hand. The letter had been dated, according to him, 4th October, and he said that it contained an uncertified certificate of death.
On 28th November my own secretary in the House was telephoned by Clarksons' and was told that my constituent by then owed Clarksons' £407 for expenses incurred as a result of the death of his father abroad. Mr. Mercer told me "That is something of a surprise to me, because I have had no letters, telephone conversations or notice of this from Clarksons'."
Mr. Jack Straw offered to meet me in the House. It seemed such an opportunity to get to the bottom of the mystery that I at once accepted the offer. We were to meet in the Central Lobby on 12th December. At half-past six, the time for the meeting, I was in the Central Lobby. I was there for some considerable time after that when I received a message, apparently coming from Mr. Jack Straw, saying that his motor car had broken down on the motorway and that he would not be arriving.
564
I then made inquiries by letter to find out what had happened to the letter of 4th October which was supposed to have been delivered by hand at the House. I received a letter from Mr. Straw on 13th December offering his apologies and telling me that that letter had been delivered by one of his drivers, but he could not give me any further particulars. That put an end to any hope I had of discovering what had happened. He said, which I found most surprising, that he could not find any trace of the letters which I had sent to him. It was particularly surprising because I discussed the letters with his personal secretary.
When I was in Belfast on 12th March a representative of the Sunday Express rang me and said that the paper was going to run this story. I was asked to give as many facts as I could. I gave all the facts that I had. In spite of the discouragement which the Sunday Express also apparently received from Clarksons', the story was published in full. I congratulate the Sunday Express on the robust attitude which it took. It had the immediate effect of getting another letter from Mr. Jack Straw. That was a letter dated, oddly enough, 11th March. It referred to the newspaper article which he said he had read that day, although 11th March was a Saturday and the newspaper article was not published until the Sunday.
In his letter, which Mr. Jack Straw sent to me, he said that Clarksons' had gone to considerable expense without reimbursement, and that Clarksons' did not seek to be unhelpful to its clients or its clients' dependants. He included a letter which he said he had sent to Mr. Mercer. In that letter he said:
"Whatever the reasons for your not having received satisfaction, I am very sorry, and in the particular circumstances of your bereavement it is doubly distressing not to have had matters cleared up. I will do all I can to rectify this as quickly as possible. I have not seen any of the letters written by yourself that are referred to by the Press. I would be grateful if you could let me have a copy of the registration slip so that I can cheek the signature and date of your communication."
He then said:
"Your father's passport and death certificate were sent by our agents to this office on 28th April but I cannot trace their receipt or present whereabouts."
Mr. Jack Straw then promised to give further assistance. Yesterday, of all days,

565
I received an undated letter from Mr. Jack Straw saying that he had now received a notarised copy of the death certificate from Haifa and that he had forwarded it to Mr. Mercer. I telephoned Mr. Mercer last night. He said that he had not received it. However, I have no doubt that Mr. Mercer will receive the death certificate today, the very day on which I have to raise an Adjournment debate to ensure that he gets it.
In my view—and it may be the view of many others—this affair represents a scandalous neglect of his duties to clients and others by the managing director, as he then was, of Clarksons' Tours. He is no longer the managing director of Clarksons' Tours, but he is a director of that company. I hope that the shareholders of Clarksons', and prospective holidaymakers who might think of relying on that company for their next holiday, will not let the facts that I have outlined this evening go unnoted.
In the latter part of September or the beginning of October, Mr. Mercer wrote to Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at the British Embassy in Tel Aviv asking for a copy of the death certificate. He had a reply, dated 2nd October, which said:
"It would seem that at the time that your father died no one applied for his death to be registered."
The vice-consul then helpfully suggests that he can make arrangements for the registration and for the production of a death certificate.
I make it clear that my constituent is grateful for the assistance he has received from the British Embassy in Tel Aviv. I assure my hon. Friend also that I do not complain at all about any negligence on behalf of any officials at the British Embassy. I merely make the suggestion that, in case this kind of situation ever arises again—as, alas, it well may—steps should be introduced at least to alleviate the worst of the sort of distress which certainly my constituent has suffered very severely over the past 11 months.
If it is not thought to be too impracticable, I suggest that when a British citizen dies abroad it might be of some assistance if the death were seen to be properly registered by the officials at the embassy or the consulate as the case may be, and in particular that valuable docu-
566
ments like passports are returned to the next of kin or to a responsible person.
In spite of the evidence by my constituent and of the pleas, which I have briefly outlined to the House, to Clarksons' for the return of the passport which Mr. Mercer's father had in his possession, it is still somewhere—heaven knows where—on its way to Clarksons' or has gone into the dustbin in the administrative muddle which obviously is one of the reasons why we have had the experience of this case. I would be glad if my hon. Friend could give some idea of the possibility of the improvement in the procedure which I asked for under the title of this Adjournment debate.
9.37 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): First, I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) for bringing this matter before the House, since it clearly gives rise to some public concern. I am certainly grateful on behalf of the consular departments and the consular officials in the diplomatic service for the chance of detailing the facts as we know them. I do not think—indeed, I know from his words—that my hon. and learned Friend would expect me to comment on the activity, or lack of activity, of the travel agency firm he mentioned, but I want to comment on the actions of the diplomatic service.
The consular section of the British Embassy at Tel Aviv has had correspondence, as my hon. and learned Friend indicated, with Mr. Mercer's son, Mr. Alan Mercer, of Preston, on this subject. Shortly after the death, Mr. Alan Mercer telephoned the British Consulate at Tel Aviv asking it to pass on a message to a travel agency in Haifa about arrangements for his father's burial.
The Haifa district health office issued a death certificate on 21st April. It showed that the cause of death was myo-cardial infarction. A death is not normally entered in the consular register unless the next-of-kin so request it. The consulate in Tel Aviv did not receive such a request until September.
Again as my hon. and learned Friend indicated, in a letter dated 2nd October

567
1972 Mr. Alan Mercer was asked to furnish certain additional details needed for the completion of the entry. In a telephone conversation with a member of the Foreign Office last month Mr. Alan Mercer confirmed that he had received the embassy letter on 2nd October and added that he had not replied direct as the matter was in the hands of his solicitors. He was told that if he sent the required particulars to the Foreign Office the embassy would be asked to register the death without delay. He replied that he preferred to leave the matter with his solicitors. Therefore, the delay in obtaining a death certificate, from the embassy's point of view, lay with events at this end. This was acknowledged by my hon. and learned Friend.
It might be helpful at this stage to say a word about the procedure for obtaining death certificates for British citizens who die abroad. This might help other citizens who are abroad with a close member of the family who dies. In such tragic circumstances it is often difficult for tourists or other members of the travelling public to know what to do or where to go.
In most foreign countries the local authorities issue their own form of death certificate in respect of persons dying in that country, irrespective of their national status. Such certificates can be obtained by the next-of-kin direct from the foreign authorities or through the nearest British consulate.
In addition, on production of the foreign death certificate, together with evidence of the deceased's citizenship, the deaths of citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies can on application be entered in the consular register of deaths kept at the appropriate consulate.
This registration, which is carried out under the Registration of Births and Deaths (Consular Officers) Regulations 1948, has the advantage of providing the next-of-kin with a death certificate in the English language and also ensures that the death is later recorded at the General Register Office in London and also in Edinburgh or Belfast if the deceased was born in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
As for the passport, the question of personal effects is a matter for the rela-
568
tives of the deceased. I am extremely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for the tribute he has paid the consular staff in the Tel Aviv Embassy. This will be greatly appreciated, as will the fact that Mr. Alan Mercer has confirmed that tribute. It is clear from my comments that in this unhappy story members of the diplomatic service have fulfilled their duty correctly and properly.
Perhaps I should end on this sad note, by saying that Mr. Mercer was buried in the British Community Cemetery at Haifa. Her Majesty's Consul at Tel Aviv arranged a small burial service at which the Chaplain of St. Luke's Church, Haifa, officiated. The Consul was present and helped lower the coffin into the grave.

TEACHER SUPPLY
9.43 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am pleased to have the opportunity of initiating a second Adjournment debate tonight on a matter concerning a great many people, namely, the statistics of teacher supply and the turnover of teachers in our schools. I am grateful that the Under-Secretary has found time to remain after the earlier debate to answer this subject.
It will be agreed on all sides that during the last election, and subsequently, one of the things which had been the pride of this administration was the phrase "open Government". The Prime Minister at the time of the last election and subsequently said that the Government would provide all the facts and figures to the public when great issues were being debated. I feel at the moment that this is not the case with teacher supply, and that certain facts and figures relating to teacher turnover have not been provided. It is generally agreed, irrespective of party, that our educational system is one of the first calls on our national finances. I am sure that this is common ground between myself and the Under-secretary.
At the same time, nobody would suggest that educational funds be made available ad lib, otherwise no doubt the total Government expenditure could easily go on this one service alone. Governments of every political persuasion

569
have to try to draw a balance between what is desirable from the educational point of view and what is possible from the point of view of national finance. But I think it is common ground again that in drawing this balance a quantitative measure of what money will buy has to be taken, and when it is being decided how much to make available the actual needs of education must be examined. The assessment of need must come before it is said that only so much can be allotted.
We all know that the salaries of teachers, whatever the level may be—and I hasten to add that I am not going to take up this matter tonight—are a major call on educational finance. To that extent the numbers of teachers in our schools or in service training has a more than proportionate effect on educational expenditure. Nevertheless, teachers are the vital element in any educational situation. The personal relationship between teachers and their pupils is vital in the educational process. That is why their numbers and the flexibility in teaching available to any head or any educational authority are so important.
Recently we had a White Paper entitled "Education: A Framework for Expansion" and the Government sought to say that in the next leap forward in education they were indeed expanding the service. There are doubts about how far there is going to be an expansion of education, but that, again, I will not deal with tonight.
There is, however, some argument between teachers' organisations and the Department of Education and Science, the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State, and her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State as to how far they are making wise or adequate provision for the numbers of teachers required in the schools— and that now includes nursery schools— in the next 10 years or more. I am not going into the figures, because I shall ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will give various estimate later on, but there is an argument between the National Union of Teachers and his Department as to whether they are providing correctly. One side suggests that there will be a shortfall in the numbers which are being planned but the Department says that there will not be.
570
We all know that forecasting in this field is fraught with difficulty. First, the number of pupils in schools after the next five years can only be assessed because no one can say exactly how many people will be born next year. But within five years it is not too difficult to make a reasonable estimate of the total population in terms of children, therefore forecasting 10 years ahead in terms of pupils is not all that difficult.
What is more difficult is to know the number of teachers who will be in the profession at any one time because although we can forecast reasonably the numbers who will retire it is not so easy to forecast the numbers who will leave the profession after some time for some other job, or after a very short time to get married. On top of that there are the married women returners to take into account. That is another difficulty. Therefore, it is rather difficult to say that the teachers will be there in specific numbers. But I think it will be universally agreed that the numbers are likely to be fewer rather than greater, because, alas, the wastage over the past few years has run rather high in terms of both young teachers leaving the profession in toto and those getting married and having children.
On top of all this uncertainly there is the James Report on teacher education, which was interesting because unlike many other Government reports— departmental or otherwise—it contained no appendices of statistics. It was then that certain hon. Members on this side of the House, and myself in particular, became extremely worried.
To make the suggestions made by Lord James about the withdrawal of teachers from schools and the recasting of the whole educational training system without producing the statistics or the range of possibility involved was fraught with difficulty. It is suggested that there shall be a closure of certain colleges of education and a cut-back in the number of teachers under training. It may be right for certain colleges of education to be closed or amalgamated with other institutions, but there has been no quantitative analysis of the need for teachers or of the way in which the supply could be maintained.

571
On 28th March 1972 I asked the right hon. Lady to provide projections of teacher supply under the then system and under Lord James's proposal. She said that she was considering publishing projections, but no figures were published. On 13th April I asked another Question, to which the right hon. Lady replied that figures would soon be available. On 11th May, in reply to an Oral Question, I was told that no figures were available but that the number of teachers would increase at the present rate of between 18,000 and 20,000 a year. The right hon. Lady also said that no figures were being suppressed.
I put the matter to the test in a Written Question on 22nd May to the then Undersecretary of State. I asked for a projection of both forms of teacher training until 1983, but the reply contained figures only up to 1976. The hon. Gentleman said:
"I cannot usefully make longer term projections until major issues which my right hon. Friend is now reviewing concerning the rate and direction of development of the educational system have been resolved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd May 1972; Vol 837, c. 290.]
He was saying, in other words, that he could not project the figures of teacher supply because his right hon. Friend was preparing a White Paper on educational expansion. Surely the demands for teachers and schools will be the same, irrespective of White Papers. It was clear on 22nd May that these figures would not be available because of the forthcoming White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman went further on 15th June, when he said that projections would not be meaningful because they were projections after the 1976 projections of national expenditure. It appears that the teacher supply position is tied not only to the White Paper but to national expenditure, instead of to the needs of the system.
Matters were left there, although the right hon. Lady remarked that I had paid some attention to the matter. It was not until 30th March that I had my last answer. Another phase has been reached, because the right hon. Lady, probably correctly, has decided to rejuvenate the old committee on teacher supply. I have no direct knowledge of what has been going on, but I understand that there
572
have been negotiations between the teaching organisations and the right hon. Lady about participation in this new committee.
I asked the right hon. Lady:
"What recent requests she has received from teachers' organisations for statistics related to teacher supply; what is the nature or categories of figures, known to her, that she has not chosen to supply; and what reasons she has given for not so doing."
I understand that the teachers' organisations—particularly the National Union of Teachers—were not satisfied that they would necessarily participate in this exercise until they were certain that the new committee could have access to all the relevant figures. One would have expected the hon. Lady to say, in reply, that of course, she would supply all the figures available to her. The educational system is a public one, and one would imagine that figures relating to the requirements of the need for teachers would be public in every degree There is no question of national security at stake— or perhaps there is; perhaps it is national security in its deeper sense. No reason is given why everybody professionally involved should not know what the projections are. Of course they cannot be definite, but at least they can be maximum and minimum, even over a very wide range. We have maximum and minimum projections for London Airport. Why cannot we have them for teachers and pupils?
The reply which the right hon. Lady gave was very unsatisfactory. She said:
"The National Union of Teachers asked at the end of January about projections in the White Paper"—
she does not say what they asked but admits that they asked
"In my reply I said that the latest population figures were under study and that my proposed advisory committee would no doubt have the opportunity to consider the assumptions underlying the projections."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1973, Vol. 853, c. 414.]
In other words, the right hon. Lady was saying that she had some figures of population—I presume school population, or perhaps total population, or birthrate trends—and that the new committee would have the opportunity to consider the assumptions underlying the projections. She did not state specifically that they would unreservedly have access to all the figures available. In other words, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his right

573
hon. Friend was being less than frank in that answer.
The hon. Gentleman will know that on Monday last there was a meeting—I believe in the Department—between representatives of one teacher organisation and his right hon. Friend. I hasten to say I do not know what happened at that meeting. I would probably be wrong if I guessed, but certainly I do not know. All I know is that as an ex-teacher with a concern for the proper supply of teachers I have been asking the proper authorities in this House over the last year to "come clean" over teachers, and I believe I have already sufficiently shown that consistently the right hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor—not he himself; I hope he will "come clean" at the end of this debate—have failed to do so.
At any time this would be wrong but in the light of what the Prime Minister said in the election and subsequently about open, frank and honest Government I can conceive no valid reason why these figures should not be made available, and why the right hon. Lady should not say unreservedly that all the figures in her possession will be made available to proper professional organisations, if not the public as a whole. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will give us projections under the present arrangements for at least 10 years for both teachers and pupils, and that projections under the proposal in the White Paper and the James Committee, even if arranged, together with issues of fact and material relating to teacher supply and pupil estimates, will be available to the proper organisations if not to the public as a whole. In terms of parliamentary democracy and the responsibility of the executive, he will surely give us these undertakings.
The second matter that I want to raise under teacher statistics is not unrelated to the first, namely, the matter of the turnover of teachers in schools. It may not be known that one of the difficulties faced by teachers at every level is setting up administrative machinery—whether it be that of the school, headmaster, district office or local education authority, and still more so the Department of Education and Science—to provide resources which meet the needs of the teacher in the classroom and, therefore, the real educational needs of pupils. It is my
574
belief that the real priorities in education are often not those of political life, of the Times Educational Supplement, of all kinds of erudite journals, or the pundits who seem to abound in education these days. The real needs are in the classroom or the school, and are between the teachers and pupils concerned. This learning relationship depends on confidence, on trust and on consistency between the two parties concerned. This is particularly true in primary school, but it is also true, though in a different way, in secondary school.
If a school is faced with a fast-changing staff its task becomes very difficult, and it is generally acknowledged that in many parts—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of House lapsed without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
Mr. Spearing: It is acknowledged that in some parts of the country the turnover is larger than in others. What is not generally known is that in particular areas of teacher recruitment difficulties —which are not altogether unrelated to areas of educational deprivation—the turnover in some schools is very high. In other words, the number of teachers which a secondary school class will have, which may be high enough in the normal course of events, is further increased by the turnover in teachers.
Statistics can be misleading unless one knows how they are gathered, because it is not just a matter of the turnover of the assigned staff. If there were a census in this matter—I do not believe that one has been taken—I think that one would get a lower figure than reality, because there would be a census possibly of assigned staff. But there are other staff on temporary assignment, or who are sent as supply teachers, perhaps for a day or even for half a day. The number of teachers confronting particular classes is rising disastrously in certain places.
Whilst in administrative terms a school has a full complement of staff, in practical terms education may only be vestigial. Before I entered the House and, indeed, for a short time after I did so, I was responsible for staffing in a certain

575
school. Teachers would come for two or three weeks and then leave. Some would come for only two or three days. One teacher who came for an interview one day, came to the school the next day. At lunch time when I asked a colleague of mine where she was, he replied that she had gone. She arrived at the school at 8.45 a.m. and resigned at 10.30 a.m.
That is not uncommon. I know of several primary schools in London at which a particular class has had half a dozen teachers assigned to it since September of this year. I believe that in general education authorities do not like to discover these unpalatable facts because, from the point of view of the Department of Education and Science, it may appear to reflect badly on that education authority. I do not believe that heads like to admit it to the education authority because it might reflect badly on them, and possibly on the teachers themselves—and still more upon the children.
At some stage this matter must be faced fairly and squarely, because it means that where this is happening— or where there is a high proportion of young teachers who stay for a year or two years—the pressure and strain on the core and cadre of experienced staff becomes unbelievable. Anybody who knows anything about schools knows that many classes are carried by a third or a quarter of the staff who are experienced and can give support to those who are less experienced. Where the turnover becomes increasingly high, the pressure on the experienced staff is unbelievable. Their interest in the school falls, and they are more likely to leave, with the result that the difficulty becomes far worse.
Since September I have asked one or two Questions about this. On 15th February I asked the right hon. Lady
"if she will now initiate an inquiry to establish the highest rates of turnover of teachers … and to determine in what areas and under what conditions these rates are highest."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 415–16.]
The right hon. Lady replied that she would consider that.
576
On 13th March I asked
"what are the results of her investigations into the feasibility of investigating the varying degrees of turnover of staff in schools."
The right hon. Lady replied:
"The investigations continue. A survey might help to establish the facts. It would not be likely to tell us much about why people move."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March 1973; Vol. 852, c 307.]
I could tell the hon. Gentleman why people decide to move, but that is another matter.
Not until 3rd April, when I tabled another Question, did the right hon. Lady finally concede that she was proposing shortly to consult the parties concerned about the possibility of conducting a sample survey next term among schools in all areas. I emphasise that she is only "consulting" about the possibility of so doing. It is rather on the lines of the parliamentary use of the expression "tomorrow". "Considering" and "consulting" about a possibility is not a firm commitment.
I am firmly of the view that many local authorities do not know what is happening in their own schools and that many heads do not know the precise effect on the attainments of their pupils. I believe that we must face this task fairly and squarely, and it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to look into this matter.
In earlier answers the right hon. Lady said that this was a matter for local authorities, but understandably local authorities do not necessarily want to look into the matter. They will not take voluntary action. If the right hon. Lady argues that it is right for her to stop local authorities spending their ratepayers' money on school improvements and to put a ceiling on the amount that can be spent per school place, has she not a moral obligation to find out what is going on? Nobody likes to look under the carpet if he knows that what he will find there will be disturbing, but I submit that the Department and the right hon. Lady have a responsibility in this matter.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me that action will be taken on both these matters. If the Government are to retain any form of respect in the provision of educational services they must come absolutely clean.

577
in providing teaching statistics for the future. There must be no suspicion that the Treasury has said to them. "There is your amount of money. You must make it go as far as you can, because you cannot have any more".
It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ascertain the needs of the teaching service and to strike the right balance. Teachers are the life blood of our education system. It is also the right hon. Lady's responsibility to see that sufficient statistics are available to provide a reasonable background in studying the needs of pupils—who, after all, will be the adults of tomorrow.
The House will soon be discussing matters relating to law and order. If the hon. Gentleman studies the history of some of the people who, unfortunately, have not been law abiding and who have been involved in various crimes, he will no doubt see from their school careers some black spots in the educational system. In the present system we may well be laying up for ourselves great trouble and vast social services expenditure in the future, because we are not providing a good background for our pupils. A good background is given not only by providing buildings but by supplying the teachers to do the job. Therefore, let the right hon. Lady do her job—and I hope that tonight the hon. Gentleman will tell me that she will undertake that task.
10.8 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): We are grateful to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) for raising this subject tonight. I know from the number of Questions which he has tabled on this subject that he takes an intense interest in the important question of teacher supply. He made one or two astringent comments about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and myself, but I appreciate what was a remarkably moderate approach by the hon. Gentleman.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was disappointed at the refusal of my right hon. Friend to accept the target for teacher supply in the future which has been adopted by some of the teacher interests, and in particular by the National Union
578
of Teachers. They have always sought to persuade the Government to pin their flag to the mast of a supply of teachers which would make it possible for no class in any kind of school to exceed a maximum of 30 pupils. Although my right hon. Friend wants to see a considerable reduction in class sizes, and is planning to this end, she does not as of now accept a maximum size of 30 as a policy target. She believes that we are over the worst period of staffing shortage thanks to the efforts not only of successive Secretaries of State but of the local authorities and especially of the colleges of education. As teacher supply improves, and improve it will for at least a decade yet, the case for devoting resources to other needs grows stronger. What the White Paper does is set out a balanced policy of which the increase in teacher supply is an important element but only one element.
Let me look more closely at the problem of the statistics in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted the difficulty of forecasts in this matter when one is looking into the future. He said that my right hon. Friend had been less than frank. I do not accept that charge. The White Paper is rich in statistics.
Clearly, these had to be based on information available while the White Paper was being prepared. But any projection of school population or of teacher supply more than a few years ahead must obviously be subject to a measure of uncertainty, not only because all projections into the future are by definition uncertain but because estimates of school population more than five years ahead are inevitably at the mercy of the birth rate. Therefore, the figures in the White Paper are grounded on the best information which was available last autumn.
Since then further figures of live births have become available, and these again obviously have to be taken into account along with other information as time passes. As it works out, they are all so far broadly neutral in their effect.
In the subsequent part of my remarks I shall use rounded figures based both on those in the White Paper and on the new information which has become available. The changes consequent on one year's

579
births not surprisingly fall within the broad tolerances which must underlie any projections.
Subject to all these uncertainties, to which the hon. Gentleman himself drew attention, the teacher supply policy announced in the White Paper will mean a very big step forward. We are planning for a total supply in 1981 large enough not only to extend educational facilities to a high proportion of children under the age of five and to give new and serving teachers greatly increased opportunities for further education and training, but to achieve a substantial improvement in staffing standards for the school population aged five and over—10 per cent. more teachers for this age group than the number needed merely to leave staffing standards at their 1971 levels, the changes in the age distribution being taken into account. In other words, the fact that in 1981 there will be more older children who are taught in small groups does not affect this figure of 10 per cent., though it increases the number of teachers needed to secure any given standard of staffing.
The White Paper indicated that to achieve these objectives for the projected size and composition of the school population the qualified teaching force would need to grow to about 510,000 by 1981. On the latest figures the effect of a fall in the number of births has been offset by a tendency for the staying-on rate to rise so that the net effect of the changes is to leave the total projected population for 1981 very much where it was. It is now projected that the total maintained school population by the end of the decade will be some 9·45 million. I must emphasise yet again that these latest figures are still subject to a great deal of uncertainty, as were their predecessors, not least because at the present time inevitably they count some children who are not even born.
The application to the projected population figures of pupils aged five and over of the actual staffing standards of 1971 suggests a need for some 420,000 teachers of this age group in 1981 merely to stay where we are in terms of standards. With the addition of 10 per cent. to achieve the planned improvement of these standards, the total becomes about 465,000. To staff the projected nursery population on
580
the standard proposed in the White Paper would need about 25,000 teachers, and the release of teachers from the whole teaching force for induction and in-service training on the scale proposed would require replacements totalling some 20,000. That is the breakdown of the target figure of 510,000. These broad components of the total have not substantially changed since publication of the White Paper.
Attainment of the target will require a net increase of about 146,000 teachers over the 10 years 1971 to 1981. But we have already seen some 40,000 of this increase in the first two years of the period. To go on increasing the teaching force at that rate would clearly mean the pre-emption of resources for the staffing of the schools which, in the view of the Government, would be better used in other ways. The target that we have set ourselves represents the highest which, in our judgment, it would be reasonable to aim for having regard to other claims on resources. That is the basis of our decision to reduce not the teaching force but the rate of increase in the teaching force.
We recruit most of our teachers from three main sources: three and four year courses of initial training, one year postgraduate courses, and the pool of qualified teachers—mainly married women— who are out of teaching but may wish to return. There are, of course, other relatively minor sources of recruitment into which I need not go, but we can expect to continue to get most of our teachers from the three main sources. In the event, the actual distribution of recruitment will depend in part, as the White Paper points out, on employers' preference as between these three sources, but in preparing the projections underlying the White Paper it was obviously necessary to make some assumptions purely for planning purposes.
The prospective output of newly-trained teachers is already largely determined up to 1976, because reduction in the non-graduate entry into training, which has hitherto been the largest single element, cannot now start for practical reasons before 1974 and so can affect output only from 1977 onwards.
Mr. Frederick Willey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to put this point to him. He

581
talks about resources. The resources we are talking about are people qualified to become teachers. If these people are not to be recruited to become teachers, may I ask what they are to become? These are the resources about which we are concerned. When projecting the future I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House what these people will become who qualify at school to take examinations which in turn qualify them to become teachers if they do not become teachers. This is a question of resources. We are not concerned with bricklayers building new schools, and so on; we are concerned with people capable of doing this work doing other work.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is important that the growth in teacher supply should match the educational opportunity that is available. I might ask the right hon. Gentleman what would become of those who were trained to be teachers if we increased the supply of teachers when there were not the employment opportunities for them to fill.
Mr. Willey rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have more figures to give.
Mr. Willey: I think that we have time to deal with this point. Obviously, the provision of more teachers is of high priority. We can decide that there are greater priorities because there are other professional demands upon people who might otherwise qualify to become teachers. It is useless to talk about resources at large if we are to use them for this, that, or the other. We are talking about people who take higher education and whether they become teachers or something else. There is obviously a demand for teachers. The hon. Gentleman says that we are to use the resources in other directions. It is for him to tell the House in what other directions he will use those resources.
I raise the matter specifically because we have the the Robbins Report on the expansion of higher education. There is no question but that we have matched the demand for technological and scientific needs. I think that there is a patently obvious social demand for a greater number of teachers. If the hon. Gentleman says that we can meet it with other resources, then I suggest that he is under
582
an obligation to tell the House what those other resources are. In other words, what are the two A-level people going to do if they are not to teach?
Mr. Speaker: That was a long intervention.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hesitated to give way to it. Although it was long, it added nothing new to the right hon. Gentleman's original point. This is a question of balancing educational needs, balancing the need for an increased number of teachers against other needs in the education service. I cannot go into a debate about the whole general employment and provision of jobs policy of the Government in the few minutes left to me.
To return to my point about matching the supply of teachers with the opportunities for employing them, the output from training of newly-trained teachers is projected to fall from about 45,000 in 1975–76 to about 42,000 in 1976–77 and thereafter to about 34,000 in 1980–81. The output of trained graduates has been assumed to increase to about 18,000 in 1980–81, by which time the output of non-graduates and new style three-year B.Eds, is expected to fall to about 12,000. The output of four-year B.Eds, is assumed to level off at about 4,500 by the end of the decade. The point that is still for discussion is what exact proportions these categories will have. The views of employers must carry great weight here.
The remaining substantial element in recruitment is the re-entry of former teachers, mainly married women. The rate of re-entry is projected to increase, on the basis of present trends, from about 14,000 in 1973 to about 18,000 by the end of the decade. These teachers, who bring with them maturity and, in many cases, experience of bringing up their own children, are of great value to the schools and widely esteemed by employers. They may perhaps be of special help in staffing the expansion of nursery education.
These projections point to a total recruitment by the end of the decade of about 50,000 teachers a year. Precisely what annual recruitment will be needed by then will be determined in part by the wastage from the teaching force, another major area of uncertainty. There are seen to be different wastage rates for

583
different categories of teacher. Within each category, there are different rates for different age groups. It is impossible to predict with certainty whether the elements in this complex pattern will change, and, if so, in what way.
Even if one assumed that the intrinsic rates would remain the same, the overall rate would be affected by changes in the age composition of the teaching force and in the mix of different kinds of teachers. We have to make the best possible estimates of future wastage on the basis of the information that we now have, and then we must be prepared to revise them as later information becomes available.
Allied to the problem of wastage is that of teacher turnover, to which the hon. Gentleman devoted some attention—
Mr. Spearing rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, I cannot give way.
Mr. Spearing: Answer the points.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will endeavour to do so.
Of course there are staffing problems in schools and there are particular staffing problems in London. We are concerned about them. Present evidence suggests that authorities in London find it relatively easy to recruit staff, but this is coupled with a higher than average number of probationers and a high rate of turnover.
Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister please give me a categorical assurance that the Secretary of State will not keep back figures which should be made available to calculate projections, and that she will initiate a realistic investigation into teacher turnover in schools?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am very willing to give the assurance that my right hon. Friend will give any figures that she considers necessary—
Mr. Spearing: Ah!
Mr. St. John-Stevas: —for intelligent and well-informed public debate on this subject to the House and, through the House, to the country. Of course she will.
584
But what I cannot undertake is that she will give figures that might be misleading and which cannot be firmly based on fact. What is needed now is to establish some of the basic facts—what is the turnover in particular schools and areas—and, so far as is practicable, to establish true motives and the reasons that individual teachers decide to move, in London and elsewhere.
In educational terms, the most significant aspect of turnover is in relation to individual schools, and on this we have no information at present. My right hon. Friend is therefore proposing to consult the parties concerned within the next two weeks about the practicalities involved in conducting a sample survey of schools during this coming summer term to obtain information about the extent of the turnover during the current year. I hope that that will do something to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking all the action that we can in this respect, and that this is much more than a hypothetical scheme, as he seemed to imply, but is also a practical proposition which will be pursued to its conclusion, subject to the consultations which are now taking place being successful.
I have indicated the broad outlines of the pattern which my right hon. Friend foresees for the development of teacher supply policy over the next few years. There is nothing sacrosanct about the details of this pattern. The target is determined, but there is a great variety of possible routes by which that target may be reached. The details of the itinerary may well need to be changed as the addition of later information progressively throws light on the uncertainties. But uncertainties in this field will always persist. Therefore, planning must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate them.
Finally, I return to what I think was the basis of the hon. Gentleman's charge, namely, that the Department is not providing adequate statistics upon important matters. I hope that I have shown by the statistics that I have given tonight that that charge is not true.
Furthermore, it was an integral part of the proposals which my right hon. Friend set out in the White Paper that she would establish a national forum in which she would obtain the advice of all

585
the many interested parties on the discharge of her central responsibilities for teacher supply and training. She has already sent out details of the machinery which she proposes to the other partners in the education service and has invited them to make nominations for appointment to the new Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers envisaged in paragraph 97 of the White Paper. Most of the interests concerned have expressed themselves as content with her proposals, but some of the teachers' associations have expressed doubts both about structure and about representation. My right hon. Friend hopes that, nevertheless, it will prove possible to set up the advisory committee in the fairly near future, and she is considering the representations which have been made to her. The relevance of this in the present context is that it has always been the intention that the Department would seek views of the advisory committee on the projections and assumptions which inevitably underlie the White Paper and, indeed, that this would be one of the first matters which would be laid before the committee.
It is still my hope that this can be done, as many of the assumptions cannot but involve judgments on which it is quite possible and legitimate for different people to hold different views. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman and, per-
586
haps, some of the teachers' associations, believe as I do that there is much to be gained by an element of participation in the planning of teacher supply over the next 10 years, I suggest that the best contribution which he can make, and the best next step that can be made, is to get the advisory committee established and working. That seems to me a much more fruitful way of proceeding, rather than making accusations of obscurantism to my right hon. Friend, who has been punctilious in giving figures to the House which are based on fact, not only in debate but in answering Questions which the hon. Gentleman has tabled.
Mr. Spearing: I had to ask those Questions.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Of course. The hon. Gentleman is a very good Member of Parliament and had to ask the Questions which he put down in the past. No doubt he will continue to table similar Questions in the future. However, I hope that in tonight's debate some of his fears, if not all of them, have been allayed.
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Council Tenants (Security of Tenure)
  Council Tenants (Security of Tenure)
  Kilbrandon Report
  Kilbrandon Report
  Land Use
  Land Use
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Social Work Services
  Social Work Services
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Public Authority Contracts (EEC Regulations)
  Public Authority Contracts (EEC Regulations)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Kenya
  Kenya
ENVIRONMENT
  Countryside
  Countryside
  Plastic Containers (Disposal)
  Plastic Containers (Disposal)
  Water Supplies (East Anglia)
  Water Supplies (East Anglia)
  Business Rents
  Business Rents
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  East Suffolk and Norfolk River Authority
  East Suffolk and Norfolk River Authority
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  A57, Yorkshire (Accidents)
  A57, Yorkshire (Accidents)
  Geese
  Geese
  Industrial Building (Costs)
  Industrial Building (Costs)
  Motor Cycles and Mopeds
  Motor Cycles and Mopeds
  Housing Development, Islington (Loss of Amenity)
  Housing Development, Islington (Loss of Amenity)
  Municipal House Building (Northern Region)
  Municipal House Building (Northern Region)
  LAW COMMISSION
  LAW COMMISSION
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Capital Punishment
  Capital Punishment
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Wheat (Denaturing)
  Wheat (Denaturing)
  Cattle (Processing)
  Cattle (Processing)
  Farm Capital Grant Scheme
  Farm Capital Grant Scheme
  Tree Planting (Grant)
  Tree Planting (Grant)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Sir Donald MacDougall
  Sir Donald MacDougall
DEFENCE
  Army Cadet Force
  Army Cadet Force
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
EMPLOYMENT
  Apprentice Training
  Apprentice Training
  Regional Unemployment
  Regional Unemployment
  Unemployment Trends
  Unemployment Trends
  Gas Industry (Pay)
  Gas Industry (Pay)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Commercial Radio Contracts
  Commercial Radio Contracts
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Illegitimate Births and Abortions
  Illegitimate Births and Abortions
  Community Hospitals
  Community Hospitals
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
  Gas Explosions
  Gas Explosions
  Nationalised Industries (Chartered Vessels)
  Nationalised Industries (Chartered Vessels)
  Oil-Consuming Countries (Conference)
  Oil-Consuming Countries (Conference)
  Heathrow (Night Flights)
  Heathrow (Night Flights)
  Industry Act
  Industry Act
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Counter-Inflation Policy
  Counter-Inflation Policy
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
  Savings
  Savings
  Capital Funds
  Capital Funds
  Child Allowance (Students)
  Child Allowance (Students)
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Pension Schemes
  Pension Schemes

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield):
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
The Duke of Grafton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

AID TO GIBRALTAR
LORD MERRIVALE: 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, following the recent visit, to this country, of the Governor and Chief Minister of Gibraltar, whether their discussions with British Ministers included the question of financial assistance (that is to say, towards standard grants) for the improvement of those Gibraltarian households which are sub-standard, having regard to the territory's needs and resources and the assurance to extend aid beyond 1975 provided the need continues.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this particular subject did not arise in these discussions. The announcement at the end of the talks made it clear that Her Majesty's Government would make available expert advice to help in the preparation of Gibraltar's development programme beyond 1975–76. If the Gibraltar Government so require, advice on housing will be available.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask whether he is prepared to go further than just advice on housing, and is he aware that, according to the September, 1970, Census, there were 6,241 Gibraltarian households, of which 2,029 had no bath or shower? Therefore, they were sub-standard. So will my noble friend agree that it would be to the benefit of Gibraltar as a whole if standard grants, along the lines of the
270
provisions of the Housing Act 1969, were introduced there? Finally, if the Gibraltar Government made a request along these lines, would Her Majesty's Government give very favourable consideration to it?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I know of my noble friend's great interest in these matters, and I am aware of the housing position as he has described it in Gibraltar. His suggestion of using standard grants is of course, if I may say so, one of many schemes which might be used to effect in Gibraltar, and I can assure my noble friend that if the Gibraltar Government seek our advice on this matter, and indeed wish to go further than that, then of course Her Majesty's Government will give the position every consideration.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that to-day is the birthday of the noble Earl the Leader of the House? Although this matter may be slightly wide of the original Question, will he agree to convey to the noble Earl, in his absence, our very best wishes for very many happy returns of the day?
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

WEST GERMAN RE-EXPORTS OF EAST GERMAN GOODS
2.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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, as a Member Government in the E.E.C., they will ask the German Federal Republic what imports from the German Democratic Republic they know, or believe, to have been re-exported, by categories, year by year since 1971.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, I see no reason in present circumstances for doing as the noble Earl suggests. The total of imports into the Federal Republic of Germany from the German Democratic Republic—that is DM 2,318 million in 1971, which was some £280 million at

271
the then exchange rate—is less than 2 per cent of total Federal German imports. I have no evidence to suggest significant re-exports.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may 1 ask him whether he is aware that this is a question of a loophole in the common external tariff which has widened to the extent of a volume of trade passing between East and West Germany from £150 million to £250 million sterling each way over five years, and that therefore this loophole deserves thorough investigation?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, this of course goes back to the protocol to the Treaty of Rome. I am aware that there has been an increase in the trade between East Germany and West Germany, but this is in categories which are suitable to the import needs of West Germany, and I have no evidence—if any Member of this House has evidence I shall be glad to consider it—that there is any abuse in this connection.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, since my noble friend has been so kind as to answer my supplementary question, may I put this further question to him? Is he aware of the words used by his noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir in answering a Question on this subject some while ago, when she said that there were heavy tax disincentives on re-exports from West Germany to the rest of the Common Market? Will he not agree that, if that is so, there must be some yardstick whereby re-exports from West Germany to the rest of the Common Market can be measured?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, exports from West Germany to other members of the E.E.C., which are of course subject to transitional arrangements, will henceforward be dealt with without tariff questions arising.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir said that there are heavy tax disincentives on this sort of operation? Can he find out whether or not these heavy tax disincentives have been brought into use and, if so, to what extent?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, of course I shall look into that question, but I think there is possibly some misunderstanding.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, surely my noble friend can answer the question—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is there a misunderstanding on the Government Front Bench on this matter? Since the noble Earl was kind enough to say that he will look into the matter, is he prepared, if he finds that there is not the sort of communication which there should be between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and his Department, to consider correcting any misunderstanding that there may be in the House?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said, and I shall certainly speak to my noble friend about this matter.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, may we be assured that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do anything to restrict trade as a result of our joining the Common Market?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Yes, my Lords.
LORD HALE: My Lords, will the noble Earl really consider, as a matter of urgency, the absolute necessity of a digest of statistics for the Common Market giving us a good deal of this relevant information, with comparisons of social services and so on, rather on the lines of our Monthly Digest, so that we can have some information as well as members of the Government?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hale, is addressing himself to a somewhat different question, but I take note of what he has said.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, are we to understand that the West German Government does not, in fact, know and has no means of knowing, what trade passes between itself and its Common Market partners in view of its tax disincentive reward for those who do re-export what has come from East Germany?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, the question refers to the amount of goods re-exported. I think it is evident that if goods are exported by West Germany within the Common Market they are exported as West German goods.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will my noble friend find out for us and let us know how these tax disincentives work?
LORD SHACKLETON: I should give up.

THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON VISCOUNT DAVIDSON rose to draw attention to the state of the Agricultural Industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: my Lords, it is rather a strange fact that it is nearly four years since there was a full-scale debate on agriculture in your Lordships' House. That debate was on a Motion by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, and called attention to the limitation which the 1969 Price Review placed on the Government's expansion programme for home food production. It took place on the day after the Budget for that year, which among other things imposed a freeze and a squeeze on the nation's economy, mainly as a result of the failure during the previous year to substitute home-produced goods for imported goods on anything like the necessary scale. It took place a few months after the "Little Neddy" Report had been published, which not only emphasised the potentially important role which our farming industry could play in saving imports but spelt out in great detail the increase which could be achieved in each commodity and the extra capital which would be required to produce it. It took place shortly after the demise of a Select Committee in another place which had been sitting there for more than two years and which had reached a similar conclusion from a more political angle: that a major expansion of home production to save imports would be in the interest of the national economy.
At the same time, my Lords, the natural climate had been far from favourable. The weather of the previous two years
274
had been exceptionally bad, with two particularly difficult harvests and wet autumns. Many of us, indeed, were beginning to wonder whether some of our soil structures would ever recover from the pounding which they had received. On top of that there had been one of the worst outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease on record. The farming industry was in a mood of deep gloom and depression, and it was little wonder that the National Farmers' Union, expecting a positive incentive towards expansion, declined to agree to the Price Review of that year on the grounds that it merely postponed any expansion. All these factors which made up the natural and economic climate of that time were realistically reflected in your Lordships' debate. It was at the same time notable for many excellent speeches, in particular the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, who I am delighted to see has put down his name to speak in to-day's debate.
My Lords, so much for the past. Today, in very different circumstances, I feel that it is not only timely but important that we should again debate the state of our greatest industry; and perhaps the fact that there are two Motions down on the Order Paper on the same major subject indicates a certain admission that such a debate is overdue. However that may be, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has agreed to speak to his Motion to-day, for not only is it complementary to the wider and more immediate issues which I should like to discuss but it underlines, perhaps, the fact that, although we sit on opposite sides of the Chamber, when it comes to farming we speak the same language and we understand each other's problems. I count it as an honour that the noble Lord has agreed to, so to speak, share this debate, in the same way as I value his friendship as a farmer. I should also like to say how delighted I am that my noble friend Lord Wynford has chosen this debate as the occasion for his maiden speech, and I am sure that I am speaking for all of your Lordships when I say how much we are looking forward to listening to what he has to say.
My Lords, there are many reasons for saying that this debate is timely. We are now an integral part of the European

275
Community, and have to adapt ourselves to the Common Agricultural Policy. The sudden, indeed dramatic, rise in land values within the last year has attracted considerable public concern. Even more intense feelings have been expressed about the price of certain foodstuffs. At the same time we have seen only this week the implementation of the largest wage rise on record for our farm workers. So far as the latter is concerned, I am sure your Lordships will welcome this rise in the basic rate of 20 per cent. in that it recognises not only the increasing productivity per man but the important, indeed vital, role which farm workers play in our nation's economy.
My Lords, the immediate impact of our joining the European Community has perhaps not been quite so striking as some people imagined it would be. But many of us, I am sure, are convinced that January 1, 1973, will be recorded in future history books as a date of vital significance, not only for the nation as a whole but for our agricultural industry in particular. Most dates in history books remind us either of victories or of defeats in times of war. Although some may like to think of our entry into Europe as either a victory or a defeat for their deeply-held principles, I should like to suggest that January 1 of this year will be remembered as a date heralding a period of change and adjustment in our economic and political climate which will have far-reaching and beneficial effects on all of us and future generations. In the field of agriculture, the changes are bound to be dramatic: for in the same way as the formation of a Common Agricultural Policy proved to be the most difficult and complicated area in implementing the principle of a united Europe, so was it in our negotiations with the Six that the differences between our system and theirs provided a major stumbling-block. Indeed, these differences are so deep and significant that it is important to appreciate them thoroughly if the road towards ultimate harmonisation is to be a smooth one.
My Lords, the most fundamental difference lies in the method of price support. Since the middle of the last war we have had in one form or another a system of guaranteed prices for agricultural commodities which was designed to ensure the maximum production from
276
our soil. It also, through deficiency payments paid to farmers, helped to ensure that food prices paid by the consumer were kept reasonably, and in some cases artificially low. The 1973 Price Review sees the beginning of the end of this system. For consumers, the days of cheap food are as numbered as those of deficiency payments for farmers. To say the least, it can only be described as unfortunate—and I emphasise "unfortunate"—that the dramatic upsurge in world food prices should have coincided with our entry into the Common Market, and that earlier this year we were facing price levels (due to world shortages) in cereals and beef not far less than those in the Community to which we envisaged adjusting ourselves over a five-year period. My only comment is that those prices, both for beef and cereals, have since fallen as dramatically as they rose, which only proves that a few weeks are as short a time in agriculture as they are in politics.
My Lords, the second difference lies in the fact that whereas 14 per cent. of the total E.E.C. work force is occupied in agriculture, the corresponding figure in the United Kingdom is just under 3 per cent. Whereas the Common Agricultural Policy was designed with the object of supporting the incomes of a vast number of relatively uneconomic small farmers until such time as they died or were pensioned off, our support system, and in particular the Farm Improvement Scheme, and latterly the Capital Grant Scheme, positively encouraged our farmers to become more efficient and more productive. Indeed, during the last decade the industry experienced simultaneously cost inflation and a virtual price freeze, which necessitated capital investment in new buildings, fixed equipment and modern machinery in order to ensure that the business remained viable. Statistics show quite clearly that the average size of farm holding has gradually increased and that the average number of livestock in a unit has got progressively larger. At the same time, the number of those occupied in agriculture has fallen. The net result of these trends and changes has been a dramatic improvement in productivity per man, so that to-day 50 per cent. of the nation's food is produced by 3 per cent. of its labour force.
My Lords, a third and major difference lies between the systems of land tenure. At the turn of the century over 90 per cent. of the agricultural land in this country was in the hands of landowners who let it to farming tenants. The owner-occupier was a very rare bird. By 1950, however, 38 per cent. of agricultural land was owner-occupied. By 1972, this proportion had risen to 54 per cent. This steadily increasing free market in agricultural land had no doubt contributed to the increase in the average size of holding as genuine farmers sought to expand their acreages in order to be able to practise economies of scale. At the same time, it has contributed towards the recent developments over the past nine months or so of agricultural land being offered and being bought consciously as an investment to act as a hedge against inflation.
This is nothing particularly new, but it is the first time that so many factors have combined simultaneously to bring about an explosion in agricultural land values. First, there was the fact that until this happened land values were known to be higher in the Common Market countries. Secondly it was anticipated that farming would be more profitable when we joined the Common Market. Thirdly, the pound was floated, and investment in stock market securities became less attractive; fourthly, institutional buyers came into the market with a view to spreading their portfolios more widely; and, fifthly, money received from the sale of land for development increased the pressure with the need for that money to be re-invested in similar business assets if the roll-over provisions for capital gains tax were to be obtained.
At the same time—and since I am on the subject of land prices, I might as well pursue it—the loss of agricultural land to meet the demands of urban expansion is said to have gone from 50,000 to 70,000 acres a year. Coupled with the fact that only about 1.8 per cent. of all agricultural land changes hands every year, is it to be wondered at therefore that the combination of all these factors produced a dramatic explosion?—or, at any rate, so it appeared to be; although most commentators tended to ignore the fact that land values had been relatively stable for a fairly long period before the explosion took place. It is easy enough for people to say: "What are you
278
worried about? How pleasant it must be to have one's assets doubled or tripled in value!" That is not the point. The point is that farming is a long-term business, and no landowner, whether landlord or owner-occupier, is made richer in cash terms by high land values unless he chooses to sell out. All that happens is that the return on his capital reduces correspondingly and if he wishes to hand over his land to his son he must find the cash to pay capital gains tax on a value inflated by circumstances outside his control. If he dies, then estate duty liabilities are similarly inflated. Either of these situations will inevitably necessitate selling off some of the land or borrowing at crippling rates in order to pay the tax. This will result in either fragmentation or loss of the viability of the business.
All these matters may have some very serious repercussions on the structure of land ownership in the long term; but what is concerning the genuine landlord and owner-occupier at the moment is the fact that the equation of valuing a farm has changed. Whereas until last year it was usually a question of the income expected from an acre of land which decided the capital value per acre, the advent of large supplies of wealth from sources outside the industry, within a limited area, has resulted in the capital value of an acre of land bearing little or no relation to the income obtained from it. At the same time, the continuity of land ownership throughout the whole industry has been put at risk. Perhaps I have spent too long on this problem of land values, but it is one of current concern and constant comment from farmers to-day. It may be that all the implications which follow so far as the future structure of land tenure and farming are concerned have not been properly appreciated and need consideration in some detail.
My Lords, although the words "Price Review" are not included in the wording of either of the Motions being debated to-day, it would be wrong not to make some comment on the first Annual Review to be held since we joined the Economic Community. The Annual Price Review has been fundamental to the wellbeing of British agriculture for the past 25 years. Production subsidies and guaranteed prices have been the twin

279
pillars supporting the economy of the agricultural industry and have enabled successive Governments to continue the policy of cheap food for the whole of the population. This year's Review reflects the changing circumstances. It is important, for example, to know how the scope of the Review has been widened not only to include those commodities subject to the E.E.C. régime and hitherto excluded from the Review, but also to draw attention to such wider matters as farm structure and the return to farm workers. The guarantee determinations themselves will become increasingly irrelevant as the transitional period advances, whereas the wider issues which dictate the economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry will grow in importance.
Within this context, I have only two main comments to make. First, relief that the grants for drainage are being continued at their existing level. The report called Modern Farming and the Soil, published in 1970, emphasised that there was a great backlog of drainage where it was most needed; it also stated that not only could there be little progress in restoring and improving the structure of the soil until this work is done, but that the increased momentum in drainage must be accelerated if we are to avoid structural problems associated with modern heavy machines. There is still an enormous backlog of work, which will involve many years of planning before the work can be done. I hope that it will be possible for the rate of grant to be maintained at its present level until at least 1977.
My Lords, my second reaction is one of extreme disappointment at the cut in the standard rate of grant payable under the Farm Capital Grants Scheme, from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. I am bound to say that I am at a loss to understand the reasoning behind this. There is little doubt that our system of capital grant aid for agriculture has played a major part in improving agricultural efficiency. If our agreed aim is to increase production in order to lower food prices, part of the expansion required must come from further capital investment. In spite of the fact that assisted credit is available for farmers in the Six, this has not proved as beneficial as our system of capital grants and,
280
indeed, only a year ago the E.E.C. agreed that in addition to assisted credit facilities member countries could give capital aid ranging from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. to encourage capital investment. It has been said that the level of capital grants had become too high in the context of the whole support system. But I would remind your Lordships that the present high cost of capital grants is a result of schemes which have already been approved and which stemmed from the impetus given to capital investment during the two years ending March 18, 1972, when the rate of grant was increased to 40 per cent. for that period. The Price Review states that there has been a dramatic increase in capital investment by the industry. I should have thought that the Government would wish that this momentum should be maintained. It seems to me that this cut does not accord either with the spirit or the intention of the first of our "new look into Europe" Reviews.
Agriculture is our largest single industry. It occupies 80 per cent. of our land. In the last 20 years the volume of production has increased by just over 70 per cent., while the labour force (farmers and workers together) has fallen by 54 per cent. These bald figures summarise a major technological revolution in all branches of the industry. As in all revolutions some problems have been solved and, at the same time, new ones have been created. In the case of farming, the old ones, such as the need for arduous manual work, were known only to those who were occupied in farming. The new ones appear to be becoming well known to, and shared by, the rest of the population and must be resolved within a much wider context and with understanding on all sides. Intensification of livestock into larger units has created problems of effluent and slurry disposal; the burning of surplus straw creates a public outcry; new farm buildings are built with non-traditional materials and so on.
Perhaps the greatest problem stems from the reduction in the labour force and the changing pattern of the countryside. Redundant cottages and farmhouses are bought by daily or week-end commuters who look for peace in a traditional countryside and who are often surprised when they look out of the window to see a hive of mechanised

281
activity. Many villages, indeed, are no longer agricultural even though farming is the only activity in that area. Some remote and less attractive villages may end up by being completely depopulated. All these factors will have their effect on the environmental balance, and I would suggest that the whole problem requires the most serious consideration.
My Lords, as time goes on and more land is taken for the development required by an urban society, more intensive methods of husbandry will be needed if we are to maintain our existing levels of production. It has been estimated that by the year A.D. 2,000 some 2 million acres will have been lost to agriculture, and the population of this country will have reached some 66 million. I rather hope that these estimates may not turn out to be accurate, but if they do, it will mean that the proportion of farmland per head of population will fall from half to two-fifths of an acre. At the same time increasing world population, coupled with an increasing demand for higher standards of living in developing countries, may well mean that imported foodstuffs will be less readily available. Of course, by then we may all be living on pills and artificial foods—and very likely dying from them, too.
Those who are occupied in agriculture are motivated by a variety of factors; for the nature of farming is that it is partly a business and partly a way of life. Although the emphasis alters from time to time, the practice of it is both a science and also a craft. Whatever further changes improvements in technology may bring, I only hope that these basic and underlying attitudes remain unchanged. I refer in particular to the personal relationship between the farmer and his men; between the stockman and his animals; between the arable farmer and his soil. For in the final analysis it is the best craftsmen making intelligent use of the scientists' researches who will lead the way towards increasing the home production of food upon which we shall all continue to rely.
Finally, my Lords, I would repeat a remark made many years ago which, I submit, is relevant not only to to-day's debate but also in a much wider context. The most important crop that this land of Britain grows is men—and in these days of equality I must add, women. Nurture this crop well and the others will
282
prosper. Times may have changed and will continue to change, but there is a basic truth in those words that cannot be ignored to-day. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.2 p.m.
LORD WALSTON LORD WALSTON had given Notice of his intention to call attention to the problems affecting agriculture between now and the end of the century, with special reference to labour and capital; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a pleasure in many ways to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, and I am grateful to him for allowing my Motion—which, may I say in parenthesis, I do not intend to move—to be debated at the same time as his Motion. It is a pleasure because, as he said, although we sit on opposite sides of the House we are working at the same job and often working in close harmony. Although we may disagree rather fundamentally from time to time on certain aspects, we are in complete agreement about what we want for agriculture and what we believe to be good for the country. It is also a pleasure to follow him because, if I may refer to this, I have for upwards of forty years known and respected and had great affection for the noble Baroness his mother. I think back for very many years to the days when she and my mother worked for housing in Westminster, far removed from agriculture. That is an additional reason why I am pleased to be associated with the noble Viscount to-day. Another reason, and I suppose the most important, is because I can follow what was an admirable speech on agriculture as it is to-day. Though we do not frequently discuss the subject of agriculture in your Lordships' House, when we do the speeches are always well-informed, wideranging and objective. The noble Viscount has given us a first-class example of that type of speech to-day.
My Lords, I am tempted to follow many of the points raised by the noble Viscount, but I will forbear from doing so because I am afraid that the other things I want to say will detain your Lordships for a somewhat lengthy time. So I will concentrate not on the Common Market, not on the Price Review, not on to-day's problems, but on the problems which I believe will face agriculture

283
between now and the end of the century. I do so because I think it is appropriate that Members of your Lordships' House should cast their minds forward, and spare time to think about matters of great importance which those in another place and other people intimately concerned with day-to-day problems have little time to consider; and because I believe it is vital to the future well being of agriculture that we act now in order to prepare the ground for a prosperous, healthy and efficient agriculture twenty years ahead. After all, my Lords, we do not need to look back very far to see what happens to us when that is not done. In the 1920s the planning of our agriculture, in so far as it existed at all, was gravely deficient. Thought was not given to what was going to happen in the 1930s and 1940s if we pursued the course adopted in the 1920s, and as a result we came very near to crisis at the outbreak of war. Unless we give thought now to what is going to happen in the 1980s and 1990s we may well, even without a war, come to some similar form of near crisis. I believe it is for us in this Chamber to take the lead in thinking about these matters and in encouraging others to think about them.
I believe that the two main problems which will face agriculture between now and the end of the century may be summed up in two words—capital and labour. There are already very clear signs that all is not well in respect either of capital or labour. Let me first look at the question of capital. I should like to make quite clear that I am not discussing the land itself. I am not talking from the point of view of a landowner or landlord, but solely from the point of view of the tenant farmer—though in passing I would strongly endorse the remarks of the noble Viscount about the present rise in agricultural land values. It may be very nice for people who try to value their assets by putting down figures on sheets of paper and totting them up to see that within the last six or twelve months the value has increased twofold, threefold or even more, and that overnight they have, on paper, become millionaires. But the land represented by that paper value does not produce one single extra bushel of wheat, gallon of milk or pound of meat because it happens
284
to be worth £1,000 to-day instead of £300 or £250. That is the factor that we must bear in mind. I will not labour the point; the noble Viscount has dealt admirably with it already.
Forgetting the value of the land and of the buildings, we must remember that to-day agriculture is a highly capital intensified industry. In the old days, in the 1940s for instance, the capital required by a tenant taking a farm was approximately £10 per acre. By the 1960s the figure had risen to £50 an acre. To-day it stands at £100 an acre and the rate of rise is accelerating still more rapidly. My Lords, let me give some purely personal figures. In 1970 I bought a tractor and it cost me £1,300. An identical model to-day costs very nearly double that sum, £2,400. In 1967 a large combine cost £3,600. Three years later the price of the same model had gone up to £4,500. Last year it was £5,500. This year it is £6,400. That is the scale of the price rise which is taking place. That is the kind of money which farmers have to pay out for the implements which they need to enable them to carry on their job. And not only for machinery: in the last two or three years the price of nitrogen has nearly doubled; the price of potash has gone up by about 50 per cent. and the price of dairy nuts for cows has gone up from £37 to £50 a ton. Craftsmen's wages and tractor drivers' wages in 1969 (and I shall have more to say about wages later, so I will not dwell on it now) were just over £13 a week, in 1972 £17·82 a week, and to-day, within the last few days, £21.·5. From the point of view of the farmer who has to pay those wages out, it puts a severe strain upon his capital resources.
Where does this extra money, these extra pounds per acre that every tenant farmer has to pay, come from? Let us look at a couple of representative farms. A 200-acre farm to-day has a tenant capital of approximately £20,000. If the farmer is highly efficient he can expect to make some 20 per cent. on his capital; and he is doing well if he averages that year in, year out: in other words, he has an income of £4,000 per annum. That does not sound too bad, but by the time tax of say £1,500 has been paid on it, he has £2,500 left over; and with inflation running at the rate of approximately 10 per cent. every year he needs an extra

285
£2,000 of capital. So virtually all his untaxed profit, if he is farming in the way that he should goes into increased capitalisation, not to expand his output, but to stand exactly where he is. If you take a farm of 500 acres the figures are even worse, because the tax is higher and every penny of his untaxed profit is needed to keep his capital where it is at the present time.
This is borne out by an interesting survey carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture on 210 tenant farms of an average size of 198 acres. The average of these 210 farms shows that between 1969 and 1971 their total loans, their total indebtedness, rose by £740: in other words, by something over £1 per acre per annum. That was up to 1971, before inflation really took hold. Even on those figures, it means that a 500-acre farm by the end of 1993—and I am asking your Lordships to look that far forward—would have to find an extra £12,000 of permanent tenant capital. My own guess is that, because of inflation (even if it is stemmed now, as we all hope that it will be) that figure is more likely to be doubled. So much for the present serious capital position of the tenant farmer.
Now, my Lords, let us look at what in many ways is still more serious; namely, the position of labour. We all know about the drift from the land; we have lived with it over the years. We know also that the drift is slowing down. Thank God it is slowing down, because if it continued at the rate obtaining in the 'fifties and early 'sixties there would be no labour left on the land by 1990. But although it is slowing down, workers are getting older, and while younger troops are coming in, relatively few of them stay on the land after they marry but set their sights on higher things. There was a most valuable discussion paper prepared by Dr. Bessel and produced by NEDO a short time ago, which is of importance to anybody who is looking at the long-term future of agriculture. That paper forecasts that the total full-time labour force in the United Kingdom will drop from a figure in 1968, which is quoted at 324,000, to 179,000 in 1980, a decline of 45 per cent. Even more significant, the survey shows that 17 per cent. of the workers interviewed under 25 years of age intend to leave agriculture within the next five years. They are there to begin with: they leave
286
school and take a job close at hand in the village. The wages of the young men in agriculture do not compare so unfavourably with those in industry, but because the prospects of promotion are so slight, because the ladder is not there for them to go up from one job to another, higher and higher, and because their wives are pushing them to earn more money and to have their weekends free, they are the ones to leave the land.
This survey goes on to try to find out why these people leave the land or why they intend to leave the land. Again, it is interesting to see (these are figures for all ages, not just the younger ones) that 23 per cent. of them intend to leave the land because of the weather. They do not like working in the open air all the time, in fair weather and foul. Another 23 per cent. say that they are going to leave the land because the wages are low; and 6 per cent. are going to leave because of the long hours. This is not surprising when you think of it and especially if you compare the wages of farm workers with those of other workers. I apologise for these figures, but I think it is important that we should have a factual basis on which to base the points of view that I am putting forward, so that they are not seen as the vague fears of somebody who is hankering after the old days or something of that kind. These are figures from 1970. If you take the wage of the male adult agricultural worker as being £100, and compare it with the wage of other people working close by in the village, whom he sees day by day—playing cricket, in the pub, wherever it may be—you find that the construction industry pays £140 and the road haulage industry £156. In other words, those two industries, very close to the farm worker, are paying approximately 50 per cent. more than the farm worker is getting.
When it comes to hours of work, again taking the agricultural worker as 100, the road haulage worker, the driver, admittedly works rather longer hours at 108, but the construction worker, the builder and builder's labourer, works only 96 hours. These are 1970 figures. On more recent comparisons, the latest White Paper on agriculture gives the average wage of the farm worker in 1971–72 as £22·43, whereas the Department of Employment gives the average wage in

287
manufacturing as £36·20, well over 50 per cent. ahead of the farm worker: and the hours worked are, the agricultural worker, 47·1, the manufacturing worker 44·1, close on to 10 per cent. less.
That is the situation as it is to-day. It is the trend we have been seeing, and the trend which I believe will continue at an even faster pace than it has gone over the past five years. What can we do about it? First of all, what should the Government be doing to-day to prevent this deterioration and to remedy the problems with regard to capital? There must be remunerative prices. You cannot have sufficient capital if farming is operating at a loss. I make no complaint about to-day's prices. That may sound an odd thing for any farmer to say, and of course I should like them to be higher; but I cannot honestly say that they are too low.
I am, however, seriously perturbed by the agitation which is going on in both Parties for cheap food. The noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, is quite right when he says that the days of cheap food are over; but we cannot get the sort of agriculture we want if we are going to aim at a cheap food policy. Let us bear that in mind when we are talking about remunerative prices. That is quite insufficient to provide the finance necessary for the rising costs in agriculture. Industry had precisely the same problem a hundred years ago and it met it by forming the public companies, going out to the public and asking them to invest in the equity of the concern. For a whole variety of reasons, agriculture cannot do this, or not in the same way, but there are already some schemes which wise and clever men are thinking about which are making it easier for equity capital to be put into farming, and these schemes must be encouraged, if necessary by fiscal policies on the part of the Government and certainly by technical advice and help through the Ministry of Agriculture.
I believe there should be particular encouragement given to partnerships between landlords and tenants. Let us move away from the old landlord-tenant relationship, the landlord providing the fixed capital, taking a fixed rent and having nothing else to do with it, the tenant providing tenant capital, taking the risk and hoping to get a higher return on
288
his capital. There must be a close partnership between the two which will involve not only the landlord, which I believe is a good thing in itself, in the hazards and problems and the successes of farming, but will also enable more capital to come into the industry because there will be there the security not only of the skill of the farmer and his ploughs and his cows but the actual security of the land itself. I am very glad that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation is thinking most progressively along these lines.
In addition to this, my Lords, I think we can look to the whole co-operative movement for considerable help in solving this problem. One of the reasons, as I tried to indicate to your Lordships earlier, why farmers' capital requirements have risen so much is that the cost of machinery has gone up so much. If they can be provided with that machinery without having to put out capital for it themselves, either through contractors or through co-operative movements, there will be a very great saving of capital to the farmer himself and he can restrict his capital needs to his wages, fertilisers, herbicides and so on, and it will be easier for the co-operative movements to raise capital on a more businesslike basis than is ever possible for a farmer to do. I know that the Government are giving help and encouragement to the co-operative movement and I hope they will continue to do that because I believe that this is one of the ways in which the problems of capital in the years ahead can to some extent be solved. In general I would say that we must have more hard thinking; we must have more co-operation between Governments, financiers, bankers, people knowledgeable about these matters, and the farmers themselves in trying to solve this problem.
Now may I turn to labour. Above all, wages is the crux of the matter. In spite of the recent rise in wages the farm workers still lag far behind and it is my own view, supported by the figures which I have already given, that they are at least 50 per cent. behind wages of comparable skills in the majority of other industries. I suggest very seriously that the first job of the new Pay Board must be to raise agricultural wages and, what is more, that it should raise them by 50 per cent. from the present level, given the fact that other wages remain at the same level. If other wages rise, that

289
50 per cent. must be pro rata increased. That is the only way in which farm workers can really be brought into line with the wages of workers in most other industries. Possibly it will take three years. I do not think that that is unduly long, but it should not be any longer than that otherwise the drift from the land will continue. Of course that will mean that food will cost more—there is no doubt about it. But it will not cost quite so much as people think. Wages to-day comprise no more than 15 per cent. of total farm costs, and farm costs are less than 50 per cent. of the cost of the food, the price of the food in the shops, so a rise of 15 per cent. in wages would in fact mean a rise of only 3 per cent. in the retail price of food. I urge upon your Lordships not to fall victim to the present danger of talking of food prices as if they depended solely upon farm prices. Processors, distributors, retailers, all the other people involved, also have a very big say in how much our food costs when we go into the shops. Apart from this, do any of us really want cheap food at the exploitation of the farm worker? That is what we have been having in the past and that is what those who will oppose a significant rise in the wages of farm workers on the grounds of an increase in the cost of living are in fact saying.
Wages, my Lords, is the first and by far the most important aspect and is something on which action can be taken by the Government if they so wish. Secondly, I believe that there should be better conditions of work. Your Lordships will remember that one of the reasons given by people who leave the land was that of weather conditions. We cannot expect even this great and powerful Government to control the weather of the country, but we can take steps to see that the farm worker is protected to a very large extent from the weather. Already the makers of farm machinery are examining these matters. The National Institute of Agricultural Engineering is giving a lot of thought to it, and not only to protection from the weather but to a general improvement in conditions of work—protection from the dust on the combine harvester in the harvest field, protection from the bumping of the field by better springing and protection from noise. The decibels on a tractor are far in excess of those on a heavy goods vehicle. These are matters
290
which require fundamental research and I hope the Government will continue to give support to the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering specifically for its work in this field.
Thirdly, my Lords, housing. The noble Viscount rightly mentioned the difficulty there is going to be with regard to houses, because of the way in which the former farm workers' cottages are being sold to weekenders, to commuters, to businessmen and so on. I have no objection to that. It is good that people of that kind should come and live in the country. It is good for them and it is good for the former country dwellers. But it means that there is a growing shortage of houses for young farm workers, and too many local authorities are inclined, when they increase their housing programme, or when they formulate their housing programme, to put up relatively large estates in a few villages which are going to be developed for industry on the outskirts of small towns rather than a smaller number in the actual villages where the farm workers are living. There is much to be done, and it must be done now if we are to ensure that agriculture continues to be the efficient contributor to the national economy that it is at present.
Of course we can do nothing, and very many of us here in this Chamber to-day will not live to see the results of our inaction. We shall be able to jog along without too much pain for several years to come. But sooner than we think we shall find that instead of that prosperous and efficient agriculture, well supplied with capital and with skilled labour that we are proud of to-day, and that we benefit from, we shall have instead farmers struggling with insufficient resources and with no labour to work the land. Our fertile land will no longer be cultivated as it must be, and we shall depend upon others for an ever-increasing proportion of our food at ever higher prices—because again the noble Viscount was right in pointing to the world food situation which we must take into account as we look upon our own. Uncultivated fields, a declining rural agricultural population, a declining agricultural production, and greater dependence upon expensive imported foods—the avoidance of all these things, my Lords, is one of the greatest challenges that face the statesmanship of our country to-day.
3.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, it is a measure of the concern of your Lordships' House for the state of agriculture, and a measure of your Lordships' unanimity in wishing to do something about it, that we are to-day discussing two Motions which are, in effect, on the state of the agricultural industry and the movers of these two Motions have agreed to merge their interests in one debate. This may mean that some of us will perhaps appear to be repeating some of the things which have already been said, but I hope rather that it will be taken that among us there is a certain degree of consensus about what is important to agriculture, and that some of us are endeavouring to underline what we consider to be the more important points.
At this time when prices are soaring in the market place people are inclined to blame anybody and everybody for the situation—everybody, that is, except themselves. There is sometimes a sense of panic abroad, and this atmosphere of near hysteria is dangerously likely to intensify the difficulties, to intensify the effects of shortages, and even to intensify the shortages themselves. It is certainly not conducive to a calm appraisal of the situation, and yet it is exactly this, a calm appraisal, that we must give to British agriculture if we are to create conditions where British farmers can play their full part in helping to solve the country's economic difficulties and in helping to steady the cost of living. British farmers can help to steady the cost of living—although even they would not presume to be able to do so "at a stroke". As the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, has already pointed out, our farmers are among the most efficient and most productive in the world. With only 3 per cent. of the national labour force they produce over half—my figures suggest it is nearer to two-thirds—of our temperate foodstuffs.
We are now nearly or totally self-sufficient in liquid milk; in pig meat, except in bacon, and in poultry and eggs; and we could be self-sufficient in other products also if we created conditions in which British agriculture could thrive. British farming should be a never ending source of pride and wonder, instead of being looked upon merely as the object of earthy fun in the manner of a Giles
292
cartoon. Indeed, if the whole country were as efficient as the farmer and his boy there would be no economic difficulties for us at this time. So I say that it is the duty of any Government to create the conditions in which farming can thrive, and it is to the advantage of all of us to support every Government in doing so. We must expand our home production, especially in the areas of livestock production from grassland, in which this country is supreme. We must achieve a standard of living for farmers and for farm workers that is in some way relative to the hard work which they put in their indisputable skills and their heavy capital investment.
What conditions are these which we would seek to create? First and foremost, I would suggest that we must offer stability to any branch of farming which we wish to see flourish. Agriculture by its very nature is a long-term business, but it is in the building up of an enterprise and in the maintaining of its efficiency that the long-term view has to be taken. One can destroy an agricultural enterprise very quickly. If you remove support from an agricultural product or artificially or suddenly cut off demand, you will very quickly create a scarcity of that product. You may also affect the availability of other products. If you have been wrong in your estimates and wish to restore the supply of that product, it will take a long time and considerable inducements to do so. This is exactly why we have seen a shortage of beef and a high price for all meat at this time. The European Economic Community produced a butter mountain. It had to get rid of this mountain, and in doing so it created a shortage of mothers to produce calves for veal and beef. In this country we could do nothing about the situation because on the cattle side we were heavily committed in trying to produce replacements required by the brucellosis eradication schemes and the sheep industry, to which we might have looked to fill the gap, had no reservoir to draw on as its hill flocks had been decimated by long years of inadequate prices.
It is not the farmers' fault that meat is scarce and dear. It is our fault that we did not foresee the consequences of deliberately making agriculture cut back on sheep production. It is our fault that

293
we did this to the point at which many hill sheep hirsels went out of existence, and are still out of existence, and where many shepherds left the land and our reservoir of meat producing animals dried up by so many thousands of head. We are like the "goats" in the story of the Calvinistic Minister's interpretation of the Last Judgment, who cried to the Lord: "Lord, Lord, we didna ken!", and to whom the Lord, in his infinite mercy, replied: "Well, ye ken noo!" We may know now—but we should have known all along. We should surely know that we cannot afford on this overcrowded planet to do away with any form of agricultural production, except in exchange for some other more desirable or more efficient form of farming. It has already been said that we have said, "goodbye" to cheap food forever. But this should not mean that we should say, "hello" to expensive food. This should mean that in exchange for a fair price we should get a fair quantity and a fair variety, and we should see that we have no serious shortages of supply.
That brings me to the second of the conditions which I consider essential if we are to use our land properly and fully. Like the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I consider it essential that we have adequate capital resources. For efficiency nowadays a huge amount of capital has to be invested in machinery and fixed equipment, and large amounts of capital are required for stock whenever an enterprise is expected to expand. We must ensure that the capital needs of agriculture can be catered for. Why then, I ask, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, at this moment cut capital grants? It is not called for by membership of the E.E.C., so why do it? It seems a particularly "penny wise" thing to do at this time. Can we not reverse this mistaken decision? Capital grants do two things for farming. They increase the total amount of capital available to the industry, thereby enabling it to expand and modernise, to stay productive and efficient. Secondly, they keep down the cost of money to the industry, thereby helping it to operate at the low levels of return on capital which we have made traditional. One thing is sure: if we insist on cutting back on capital grants we shall have to pay agriculture more for increases in both production and productivity.
294
Nevertheless, whatever price farming has to pay for capital or whatever return it will get on capital invested it will still need massive amounts to stay efficient. The policy most likely to provide these massive amounts in the best way is the policy which has been put forward from these Benches for nearly as long as I am able to remember—the establishment of a land bank. A land bank has been desirable for many years. It is now becoming almost essential—especially so, if one is to recruit new talent into the ranks of an industry which is becoming more and more capital intensive. Many other countries have such banks. The French land bank, for instance, is reckoned to be the fourth most powerful bank in the world. A land bank becomes even more important if one values the basic tool of farming—the land itself—at its true value. It is ridiculous that we should pretend that we really value land as from 10 to 100 times more valuable if it is used for housing than if it is used for producing food. This means that agriculture can always be forced off good land by housing and industry and made to reclaim poor or derelict land in its place. Why should not urban needs be met more often out of our poorer land? The answer lies in the relative depths of pocket between town and country. A land bank should be able to help us to achieve a fairer bargaining position between urban and rural land users and with it a new and—who knows?—a better approach to town and country planning.
I, for one, am not sorry to see the disappearance of the subsidy as a tool of agricultural inducement. At best, it was a blunt instrument; at worst, it encouraged the wrong things and went into the wrong hands. It was mainly a way of keeping down farm prices below a true level and of deceiving the people into thinking that food could be had more cheaply than was true. It often discouraged productivity and efficiency. What has always produced the goods in farming is a fair price plus a market demand. But the making available of capital and the giving of capital grants is not subsidisation; it is a proper national investment in perhaps our greatest national asset.
There is another thing we can do quite easily if we want to get the maximum production of food. That is to

295
rid our minds of prejudice against food produced in a building as compared with food produced in a field. Intensive methods are here to stay and, properly handled under the sort of regulations which we have devised in this country, like the Brambell code, they are not only acceptable but essential if we are to avoid paying even higher prices for meat products. Why then treat them as though they were some form of cheating? Why make them pay high rates? Surely this is not demanded by the E.E.C.? A very easy way of encouraging the production of more animal protein at reasonable prices is to de-rate intensive farming units.
In this country we seem to grudge paying for essentials or what is good for us while at the same time being willing to pay any price for non-essentials or what is bad for us. We grudge the price of a pint of milk but happily pay four times as much for a pint of beer. We are happy to see large areas of the world under crop for carcinogens and will pay fabulous prices for the product which they produce, but we are horrified to see the price of oats, peas, beans, or barley rise. We have got to readjust our thinking.
We may never see low prices for food again, but we should see that we get fair supplies in return for fair prices. If we want adequate supplies we must look after the farming industry properly. We must start by re-valuing the farmer and the farm worker. Both deserve more for their labours and investment than they get. We must see that the industry has an adequate supply of capital, and if we want to keep prices as low as possible we must see that the cost of this capital is kept low—so why not restore the level of capital grants? We must see that all forms of food production get a fair crack of the whip—so why penalise intensive methods with high rates? Finally, if we want agriculture in this country to be put into a really strong position we should seriously consider setting up a land bank to service the industry. Farmers and farm workers have never let this country down, and we shall prove ourselves mad if we do not give them proper conditions in which to continue to serve the nation. We shall prove ourselves stupidly ungrateful if we do not recognise the vital role which they and their industry can play at this time in ensuring the welfare of the country.
3.46 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Davidson reminded us that it is four years since we had a full debate on agriculture in your Lordships' House and I am sure the House will be grateful both to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for putting down their Motions and enabling your Lordships to have this debate this afternoon.
Price Reviews and Determinations may be fresh in our minds but I, like the other noble Lords who have spoken before me, will deliberately avoid specific reference to them, certainly in my opening remarks, because I hope that to-day we may look at agriculture in the wider context of where it is likely to be going over the next few years; what part it should play in our national life and what we expect from it. When I say "we" I do not just mean those engaged in agriculture, but the nation as a whole.
As a starting point let us look back a mere three years—and here I seek to make no Party point whatsoever because I think we should take a broader view than that. Agriculture has, during this time, undergone a massive upheaval and has been involved in many expected, and unexpected, stresses. Three years ago there was widespread despair in the agricultural community. We need not go into the reasons for this despair but merely record the fact that it was there. Farmers were blocking the roads with their tractors (a spectacle which did not necessarily enhance either their cause or themselves, although it drew attention to both) and they were marching on London. Confidence was lost and there seemed to be no sense of direction. Then this Government came into office—and again, I stress that I am making no Party point whatever—
LORD HOY: It does not sound like it, my Lords!
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am merely stating what I consider to be the case and I am not apportioning blame. There was a major task which fell upon whoever held the office of Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This was to restore—and indeed to inject (if one may use such an "instant" phrase)—confidence into agriculture.
Whatever our views of the present Government may be, whatever our views

297
of the Common Market may be, one must record that farmers do now have a confidence in their industry and in the future. We are adopting, without undue chaos, a change to a totally different method of support, and agriculture (and indeed the acceptance of the Common Agricultural Policy) has not prevented us, as at one time some people thought it might, from becoming full members of the European Economic Community.
These have been great changes and the effect of them is only just beginning to be felt. We have recently seen the price of fresh, and indeed imported, food rise, and there has been—and quite rightly so—an outcry from the public at large about, and against, this. The Government share the concern of the public. There are some who would seek to show that these prices have come about because we have become members of the E.E.C. I would not wish to deny—nor have the Government ever denied—that membership of the E.E.C. will involve some rise in prices, but the problem goes much deeper than that.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, would the Minister confirm that various prices, such as those of grain and beef, have fallen by approximately 15 to 20 per cent. since Christmas? Would the Minister also like to make this point very clear to the population at large because it has not been brought home to the public?
EARL FERRERS: Not particularly, my Lords, but if my noble friend wishes to do so when he comes to speak, he is of course entitled to do so. I would rather not get sidetracked on to individual prices at this particular moment.
The problem goes considerably deeper than that. For many years we in this country have enjoyed the benefit of cheap food and deliberate cheap food policies. We were able to purchase much of our food on the world market at prices which were low because there was a surplus of that type of food in those parts of the world which were rich enough to buy it. It was relatively simple, and indeed expedient, therefore, to subsidise the British product so that the food which was produced on British farms could compete with that which was imported cheaply. But we have suddenly—and I emphasise the word "suddenly"—moved
298
out of an era of relative world food surplus of some of the prime agricultural commodities into one of relative world food scarcity. It is not the Common Market which has "bumped up" the price of our grain but the disastrous corn harvests in Russia and China. It is not the Common Market which has been responsible for the rise in beef prices but a combination of less beef coming on to the world market, more beef eaten by those countries which are traditional exporters of the commodity, and the high price of grain putting up the cost of feed. It is not the Common Market which has caused the increase in the price of our lamb, pork and poultry, but the effect of the law of supply and demand operating when one of the commodities in the game becomes in particularly short supply.
How can one react to this? One can complain and demand legislation, but there is only one real cure for this particular problem and only one real way to do this, and that is by increasing the supply. It is that which the Government have tried and are trying to encourage and there is already evidence that this has been successful. If one compares the June Agricultural Census figures for 1970 and 1972 one finds that the cereal acreage has increased and the rise in the area under wheat and barley has more than offset the decline in the acreage of oats. In 1972, last harvest, over 15 million tons of cereals were produced in the United Kingdom, and that is an all-time record. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said that we should increase our livestock. There the figures are even more dramatic. Between December 1970 and December 1972 the dairy herd in England and Wales increased by 4½ per cent. and the beef herd by over 16 per cent. But there is one really important figure which I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention. If one wishes to see whether the beef herd is likely to increase, one must look at the number of beef-type heifers in calf for the first time, for they are the animals which will enter the breeding herd to provide the beef calves for the future. These animals—beef-type heifers in calf for the first time—have increased by no less than 87 per cent. That would indicate that the expansion in the beef herd has started and is likely to be maintained.

299
British agriculture has a large part to play in the Common Market. I should not be foolish enough to think that there are not substantial problems or that the Common Agricultural Policy in all its ways is entirely suited to the United Kingdom's needs. The Government have always thought that the future of our agriculture will best be ensured by our playing our full part as a member of the Community. But under the Common Agricultural Policy, our farmers know that there is a need for an increase in production. Every ton of food which is produced in the United Kingdom is a ton less which has to be imported. When one thinks of the high degree of mechanisation in British agriculture; that we have a climate which gives us, normally, adequate amounts of both moisture and sun; that we have a holding of stock and a sense of stockmanship which is of the highest quality; and that we have an industry that is in general better structured than any in Europe, we can reasonably claim that we can give our European counterparts a pretty good run for their money.
Our industry provides, as my noble friend Lord Davidson reminded us, 3 per cent. of the gross domestic product, and that is produced by less than 3 per cent. of the labour force. The French agricultural industry, to take only one example, in 1970 produced between 6 and 7 per cent. of the gross domestic product, but required 13 per cent. of the labour force to do it. While there can be no doubt that in general our industry is better structured and has a higher labour productivity than most of the other member States, let us not for one moment be complacent because there are plenty of highly efficient farmers on the Continent who can compete with the best in the world. The better structured that our industry is now and the better the labour productivity which we may have, the more room there is for our Common Market counterparts to improve their position relative to ours. One merely has to drive through the plains of Northern France to see vast rolling acres, without hedges or ditches, frequently growing only small acreages of a crop, to realise the huge potential for competition which lies there if size and efficiency are the criteria. In other words, our
300
industry must continue to improve in order to maintain its relative advantage,
One could infer from that that the only way in which we can compete in the future is for our units to get larger. I believe that it is a brave man who puts too much store on what he sees when looking into a crystal ball, although it is an interesting exercise to carry out. It is likely that the need for economies of scale will encourage units to get bigger so that the effect of skilled manpower and expensive machinery such as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned in his opening speech, can be disseminated over larger areas. On the other hand, and here I would touch upon a point which my noble friend Lord Davidson made, the incidence of death duties (rightly or wrongly, from the point of view of agriculture) can on occasion have a contrary and fragmenting effect. But the evidence continues to show that the average size of farm is increasing.
At a time of rising land prices a holding can suddenly become far more valuable and therefore become subject to an even larger share and a larger rate of estate duty. But there are other aspects of the rise in land values. They have enabled farmers to raise working capital with which to intensify their production. There are a number of ways of doing that. Institutions purchasing land on sale and lease-back arrangements have extended their facilities. Syndicates providing outside capital, subject to certain statutory restrictions on promoting their capital-raising activities, can purchase farms, and individual members can claim estate duty relief on their investments. There is also a tendency for family limited companies to increase. Then there is the latest scheme to which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred, of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation by which the owner-occupier retains 51 per cent. or more of the equity but could raise working capital on part or all of the remainder with an option to re-purchase. With all these arrangements available or in prospect the Government find it difficult to prognosticate with any degree of accuracy over the future size and nature of agricultural holdings.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? So far he has dealt with the methods which are open to the owner-occupier.

301
He has not touched on what, to my mind, is a much more serious problem, namely, that of the tenant farmer who has no land. I hope that at some stage he may give us some of his thoughts on that aspect.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is perfectly true, and I accept the fact that the tenant has different problems with regard to financing than does the owneroccupier or the landlord; but he has one advantage, that, on the whole, rents do not reflect the interest which the capital value of the land could obtain elsewhere.
With all these different points to which I have referred in mind, one must be aware of one thing; that is, that these services and these facilities enable farmers to take advantage of the rise in the value of their land so that they may continue farming in an era when increasing capital investment on a large scale becomes a growing necessity. The side effects of this can be a change in the ownership of land to an entity whose main concern may well be not agriculture, but could be (but not necessarily is) predominantly financial. This may well be a good and healthy thing. I would not seek to argue its merits, but merely draw attention to the change.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, envisaged a considerable drop in the number of those engaged in agriculture. As he said, the agricultural labour force has declined at varying rates for many years. In the last two or three years the rate of decline has slowed. With a more rapid rate of growth in the economy generally, it is possible that the rate of decline may increase again. The decline used to be spoken of as a rush from agriculture, of people leaving the land to get away from its poor housing and poor rates of pay for the lusher pastures, if they can be so described, and the attractions of the town. Conditions have greatly changed now and housing and remuneration have greatly improved. But I have never been convinced that this was solely or primarily a rush. It was to a considerable extent a push necessitated by an ever-increasing demand for lower costs of production and mechanisation. But let there be no mistake about this: whether it is a rush or a push, the skilled farm worker is a unique person, skilled and practised in a variety of different jobs, and he always was and always will be in short supply,
302
and should command, and is bound to command, a good return for his work.
One then wonders what the future holds for the small farmer. There is no merit in being large unless size confers upon the enterprise advantages which are denied to the smaller one. And, of course, it frequently does. But the converse can equally be true. There is no merit in being small unless a limited acreage in turn confers advantages of which the larger unit cannot or does not make use. Frequently it does. Where the large farmer can gain in scale of operation of some enterprises, the small farmer can gain in the attention to detail of other more demanding enterprises. And there is no reason why these two extremes of the agricultural structure cannot exist together in the future. What is likely to be fatal, though, is if the small farmer tries to emulate the larger farmer in the crops which he grows and the machinery which he uses. He then gets the worst of both worlds and suffers high costs without the economy of scale, and this, of course, is the recipe for disaster. There is room for a wide spectrum of farm size within British agriculture, and as the Daily Telegraph said in an admirable editorial article last week:
"Not every farm can or should be of vast extent with high profit margins, any more than everything moving on the road should be a 'long vehicle'".
My Lords, land is the raw material of agriculture, but land has functions other than agriculture, and agriculture has functions other than the production of the cheapest food in the largest quantities. The poet, the artist, the musician, and indeed even the townsman seeking escape from his urban surroundings, have all taken inspiration from, and refuge in, the countryside. We have a right, and indeed a duty, to make our land fruitful and productive, but that should not be the sole aim. There should be a place for those things, whether they be animal or vegetable, which do not command the highest price in the market place, or even a price at all, to have a home and to live and to grow, simply because they are a part of life. An old tree can be worthless to a farmer, and indeed an obstruction to his enterprise which he would willingly pay £20 to have removed. But to another the same thing can be an object of beauty beyond price.

303
A hedge can divide an otherwise large and convenient sized field, but to some, possibly birds or animals or insects, it may be a refuge and a home and a breeding ground. There is always a balance to be kept of opposing views, and it is not always the economical view which should predominate.
My Lords, the machine age is with us, the scientific age is with us, and these two developments have enabled farms to become more intensive. And this move, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, is likely to become more accentuated. Factory farming has found many enemies on welfare grounds, but few would deny that it has contributed substantially to the output of food for home consumption at prices which are well below traditional methods, although there are those who would vigorously claim that this does not justify the methods. One might well wonder where we should be now, with the price of food so high, if we had been denied the output from those premises which come under the all-embracing term of factory farms. I accept that here is seed for argument, but there is a balance which must be drawn, and we must continuously challenge our existing practices to ensure that the prevailing balance is the right one.
I entirely agreed with my noble friend Lord Davidson when he said that agriculture is part art, part science and part business. All the modern techniques which research has provided, whether they are scientific or mechanical, have their drawbacks as well as their advantages. It is the soil and the animal, both living organisms, which are the prime ingredient of agriculture. These others are merely the tools which research has given the farmer to help him in his task. It would be a poor man who did not avail himself of the tools, but a fool who let them become the master. In the end—and I think that this is a satisfying thing from the human point of view—it is the man and the quality of the man which will determine the degree of success of an enterprise. In other words, what really matters is husbandry and humanity.
We want to see a flourishing agriculture, one in which the nation and the
304
people can both benefit and take a pride, one which is conscious of, and successful at, keeping a balance between technical advances and nature, one which adapts progress and does not merely accept it, one which provides a livelihood for those engaged in it and an acceptable environment for those who are not, The future for agriculture inside the E.E.C. offers opportunity for the farmer and opportunity for agriculture to help the nation. It provides an opportunity for expansion. It provides an opportunity for a reasonable return to those who are engaged in it, whether they are farmers or farm workers. It provides these opportunities, but it does not guarantee success. It provides the conditions, but whether advantage is taken of the conditions will depend upon those who are engaged in the industry. This is as it should be. The Government want to, and have, set the stage. We want a flourishing agriculture, but it is up to the industry to achieve it, and I believe that they will.
LORD NUNBURNHOLIVIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl two questions? With the ever diminishing area of agricultural land, and only a marginal increase in food production by proficiency, would it not be possible for the Government to encourage the reclamation of about 150 square miles of the Thames Estuary, and maybe the whole of the Wash, and, on a more marginal basis, hill land and heather-land which is now not being used for agricultural purposes? If this were done, we should have quite something to look forward to.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not believe that even the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, would expect me, off-the-cuff, to give an answer as to whether the Government would be prepared to reclaim 100,000 acres of the Wash. If he wishes that question to be answered, I shall be delighted to go into it in detail, but not at this stage.
4.10 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I can only congratulate my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme, who has delivered what is so far the most succinct speech in this debate, and I have no doubt that we all look forward to hearing the answers to his questions when the Minister replies.

305
There are many sections of the agricultural industry, and it has been pretty noticeable that one section—that is, the consumer—has so far had very little mention. I propose to come to the consumer's point of view at a later stage but I want, first, to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who talked about getting rid of subsidies and so on and then said that there must be bigger capital grants, cheaper capital and reduced rates for intensive production, that those three concessions can be made only at the expense of the local ratepayer. So we must be a little careful when we are demanding cuts for everybody else and a little more for ourselves. I compared that speech with that of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who said, "I do not want to introduce any Party political points, but I remember that three years ago the farmers demonstrated in Whitehall. They would have nothing to do with the Government of the day. They were in a poor and parlous condition, but"—
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? If he is going to quote me, I know that he will do me the courtesy of quoting me accurately. I never said anything about their not having anything to do with the Government of the day.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I will concede that they were protesting against the Government of the day. If I make the noble Earl's meaning a little clearer, then we shall all be able to understand what he was talking about. When that behaviour is recalled, I can only contrast it with the fact that the miners doing the same thing in the recent strike did not bring forth all these protestations; on the contrary, they were condemned out of hand by people sitting on the other side. I shall not take the Party political points any farther. I would merely suggest that they ought never to be introduced with the words, "I have no interest in Party politics, but…" The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who wanted to emphasise a point about the fall in cereal prices, was rebuked by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who said that he did not want to be diverted, after that very point had been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, in opening the debate. I thought the noble Viscount made the point very clearly indeed. I hope my
306
understanding of it was correct, because I did not understand the complaint later about its not having been made.
The agricultural industry of this country is one of the most proficient industries in Britain. It has an efficiency which ought to be envied by most other industries, and measured against its output it compares more than favourably with any other industry that I can think of. The rewards have not been very great—and I am talking about rewards for everyone connected with the industry, the farmer as well as the farm worker. We have a habit in this House and elsewhere of saying, "We think that the wages paid are low", and we always argue that if they are earned as a result of production we do not care how high they go. But having said that, on many occasions our actions fall far behind our speeches. So that looking at the agricultural industry to-day, we ought to keep in mind the fact that farm workers are a very highly efficient section of our working community, and that without them we shall not get such good results. But what we ought not to do is to exploit the position so that we expect them to live, as my noble friend Lord Walston said, with a wage rate about 50 per cent. less than the rest of the community. Then there are the farmers who have invested in this industry, and like any other employer they are entitled to expect an adequate return on their investment. Measured against many other industries, their returns at the present time could not be regarded as extravagant—far from it.
I come now to the third section, the housewife, who has to buy what the industry produces. I think I agree with my noble friend who said he would not argue that prices are too low, but the housewife has been having a very difficult time indeed. The constant rise in food prices has been making life very difficult for her. Of course, this problem is not confined to this country alone. One has only to look at the United States of America, which is supposed to be the most highly developed country, but where housewives are uniting to protest against the price of meat. There may come a time when housewives here are doing the same thing. The announcements about food prices, yesterday and to-day will certainly not bring the housewife any solace. Yesterday, my noble friend Lord

307
Shinwell quoted the speech of Mr. Anthony Beresford, the President of the Food Manufacturers' Federation, who predicted that before the end of this year the price of butter would go up by 24 per cent., the price of sugar by 18 per cent., the price of dried eggs by 20 per cent., the price of meat by 12 per cent. and the price of fish by 10 per cent. It is no use the House trying to burke this issue. If prices are to go up by those amounts, whatever the cost to the industry might be, it cannot be said to those engaged in this industry, or in any other industry, "Your wages are expected to remain where they are". You cannot freeze wages without tackling these very high price rises. I was interested to note that at the convention where Mr. Beresford made his announcement, the Minister of Agriculture was also present. Mr. Godber did not contradict Mr. Beresford's forecast but, to avoid any misunderstanding, may I quote what he himself said, as reported in yesterday's Daily Telegraph? The Daily Telegraph said:
"Mr. Godber, Minister of Agriculture, who opened the convention, said that there were still some increases in raw material prices which had to work through to manufacturers' food prices.
"Several price rises had been held back where cost increases were very substantial. These would be considered by the Prices Commission at an early stage, and he expected that in Phase II of the freeze there would have to be further rises.
"Therefore, we have not yet reached the peak in my view, but I hope that it is not far away."
It cannot be pretended, when things of that sort happen, that there will not be some effect on the housewife, nor retaliation.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but he was on a very interesting point just before he began to talk about the rising cost of food to the housewife. He talked about the return on the farmer's capital. Can he give a figure of what that return is?
LORD HOY: No, my Lords. I am certain that the Minister could, because he will have brought the figures along with him, having had them supplied to him. As the noble Lord knows, when a Minister is coming to a debate the Department sees to it that he has all the
308
figures with him, as they did when the noble Lord was a Minister. But now he and I are on the Back-Benches we have got to supply our own figures. So all I say to him is that if he is interested in that figure he must ask the Minister.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him on the point that he was making in regard to his quotation of what was said by Mr. Bcresford? Mr. Beresford made a further statement yesterday elucidating the original statement which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, quoted. Yesterday he put emphasis on the price reductions that were taking place, and he added:
"Phase I will have its difficulties in food prices, but as far as the future is concerned it is relevant to note that the rate of inflation as a result of Government policy is decreasing".
My Lords, the details of the argument on this point are to be found in yesterday's Hansard. I was quoting not what the Minister of Agriculture said, but what Mr. Beresford said.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I shall certainly have a look at that. I quoted it quite clearly and concisely, and the noble Lord is not, I think, denying that I quoted it accurately. May I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, although the clock records that I have been speaking for ten minutes, I have kindly given away five of them to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in two interjections. If these things can be remembered, perhaps I can get on to what I should like to say.
My Lords, the forecast by Mr. Beresford, which no one has denied, was that the price of butter would go up 24 per cent. by the end of this year. With regard to butter, I want to say that we have not had long to wait. This morning's Press announces—and I have had this confirmed by the best-known authority—that on May 1 the price of a pound of butter will go un by 4p. That is l0d. in real money, and when I saw that there was to be an increase quite as substantial as that I was really interested, because Britain apparently has her own private mountain of butter. I do not exaggerate it—her own private mountain of butter. It says here that it amounts to not less than 105,000 tons, and that it may be as great as 150,000 tons. Hitherto when we used figures of this size in this House and in another place

309
we were discussing coal, not butter. My Lords, 150,000 tons! It seems that these are our stocks, and it appears that we are determined to hold on to that stock until May 1, when the price will be increased by something in the region of £42 per ton. If we accept even the lower figure of 105,000 tons as being correct, it means that, simply by holding this amount in stock, those who then sell it to the Intervention Board will have made another £4½ million. By simply storing it and then handing it over, they get another £4½ million.
That is why I say that the consumer has an interest; because, whatever the end price is, it has to be met by the consumer. This, of course, destroys the first argument of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about the Common Market not being responsible for increasing prices. It may not have been responsible up till now, but certainly on this occasion it cannot be denied that butter prices to every housewife in this country will go up by the price stated. One has also to remember that the Intervention Board has to take this butter even if it does not want it. It is compelled by the agreement to accept it. In fact, at the present time the Intervention Board has so much butter on its hands (if that is the right phrase; if you can have butter on your hands) that it is attempting a cut-price deal with Russia to try to dispose of it. This seems to me to be the economics of bedlam.
My Lords, perhaps that replies to the question I raised on the day of the Price Review. Your Lordships will remember that on two occasions I asked the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, how the Government were going to recoup the increase of £30 million given to the dairy industry at the same time as prohibiting any increase in price to the consumer. I suggested that it might be that the money would be recovered by an increase in the price of both butter and cheese. I suggest that we now know about butter; because we are quickly moving to the position which was outlined by a previous Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Prior, who indeed, I think, is at present Leader of another place. I remember one occasion on which we were debating the fishing industry—and I shall be grateful to know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, agrees
310
with this point, about cutting off subsidies, because on that occasion we were discussing the fishing industry, which is not unimportant in the noble Viscount's part of the country. The present Leader of the House of Commons then took part in a debate, and he said we ought to get rid of subsidies altogether in both the fishing industry and the agricultural industry. I do not know whether the noble Viscount subscribes to that view.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, but he seems to be going at me about this question of subsidy. There is a difference between a subsidy and a grant. There is a technical difference; and it was this difference which I was emphasising. A subsidy for merely producing an unwanted sheep provides an amount of subsidy per head for the unwanted sheep, but it does not create a demand for the sheep. What I was saying was that where you can create a demand in the market-place for a product and you then provide the farmer with the capital, this will more efficiently produce the product than simply to pay out money because the farmer demands it, whether there is a demand in the marketplace or not.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I think I should intimate that this is the last time I shall give way. I have had three speeches interrupting my one. I want to say to the noble Viscount that he was under no misapprehension if he thought I was going for him. I was. Indeed, when he argues, as he is now arguing, as if I do not know the difference between a grant and a subsidy, I must say that I administered them for over six-and-a-half years, and at least I was able to understand what they meant, if nothing else.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I hope I did not—
LORD HOY: Yes, the noble Viscount did. I listened to the noble Viscount with great courtesy. Indeed, it was because I was so courteous that I did not interrupt him. The Leader of another place said that he wanted to get rid of all subsidies, and the noble Viscount has not quite replied to that yet even though I said something about the fishing industry. Mr. Prior said he wanted to get rid of

311
them all, and I remember his words so well. He said:
"… the nation bas been mollycoddled for too long…".
But at a later stage he became P.P.S. to the Prime Minister, and he was still acting P.P.S. when the Prime Minister made his famous speech, which was recalled by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. That was the bit of his speech which I enjoyed most, when he recalled Mr. Heath's claim that he could cut prices at a stroke. It has not happened. Indeed, one remembers that Mr. Prior himself, when challenged about it, said, "Surely, when the Prime Minister made that speech nobody was expected to take it seriously". One does not say these things about Prime Ministers.
The Minister in the course of the Price Review mentioned by the noble Earl declared that the only way of overcoming most of our difficulties was to have greater output by our own farms. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, I could neither understand that nor match it with the action of the Government; because one of the first things that he announced was that as a result of that action, capital grants would be cut by no less than £15 million. In other words, the industry was to find this £15 million for itself. I do not understand how you can encourage people by taking their money from them. This is what happened: capital grants were cut and this amount is what it will cost the industry. I know the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will not agree with what I am about to say next. When that cut was being announced, the Government also made a substantial cut in the calf subsidy. The noble Earl thinks it ought to be abolished altogether. He and I do not agree. In relation to the calf subsidy, I have always felt that what is important is to put in this subsidy right at the beginning of the cycle when the money is required. This is where it makes its big contribution. So I think that those two actions were quite wrong.
Thirdly—and again this matter was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson—there is the cost of land to-day. It would be interesting to know what an acre of land to-day costs on average compared with its cost a couple of years ago. The burden one can lay
312
on the farmer of a reasonable sized farm because of the great appreciation of cost value can be very high indeed; it can make things almost impossible. That is why I think that unless many farms get larger, a great many people will dispose of them. There is also the possibility of fragmentation as a result of selling off parts of the farm to pay death duties. What will the Government do to meet that situation?
My Lords, I want to conclude with three small points; they are very important but I can put them shortly. If the industry is to make the progress we want it to make it must know what is going to happen to the Boards which are at present in existence. We have had one lesson—and I have spoken about this on other occasions—with regard to the Egg Marketing Board. The egg industry itself started to deteriorate when the Egg Marketing Board went. I do not blame this or any Government for it; it was because of lack of support by the industry itself. It betrayed the Egg Marketing Board—and this is the kind of unholy mess into which it has got. If we are going to have co-operatives in marketing I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to reestablish the Egg Marketing Board, perhaps with much more power than the old one. And what is going to be the position of the Milk Marketing Board? Is it to be kept? Are any changes to be made if it has to be kept; for this is extremely important? Finally, what is going to happen to the Potato Marketing Board? This plays a very important part inside the agricultural industry. Is it intended to retain it in its present form or, as I have heard it rumoured, will it be retained with considerably altered powers? It is not only we who want to know: the industry itself wants to know what the Government decisions will be.
Finally, my Lords, on prices, I think it would be wrong for me to finish what I have to say without congratulating the Minister on the stand that he took at Brussels about the prices inside the Common Market. But he is faced with a difficulty because, as I understand it, his only other partner inside the Nine was Italy; so he is going to be in difficulties with the Seven against him. How is he going to prevent that? I congratulate him for the stand against further increases in prices, but when it comes to

313
the showdown what action is he prepared to take? I know that he has a power of veto and I know that it would be wrong to use that power if it could possibly be avoided; but what he cannot avoid is the making of the decision. That is what the House would like to know.
4.35 p.m.
LORD WYNFORD: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships' indulgence and patience on this, the first occasion on which I have addressed your Lordships' House. As I sat first in this House in 1945, so many of your Lordships may be excused for thinking, "About time too!" The 15 years after the war were not good times for a professional soldier to participate in the work of your Lordships' House, and since then I have been managing, or learning to manage, agricultural property at my home in Dorset. I found much to learn about this industry and its problems. In mitigation, I would simply say that I have taken such opportunities as have come my way to make short and infrequent sallies to your Lordships' House to learn the wisdom of your ways.
I must declare an interest. I do not myself farm, but I own a property comprising three farms, one large, one medium and one small, all of which are let on life tenancies. I am not, therefore, able to farm, but I do all my own management, my own planning, my own planning for maintenance as well as for development. I do stores ordering and all the day-to-day work that many of your Lordships may know comes the way of somebody in that position. I also do all my own accounting, wage paying and the rest. In other words, I claim to have my feet in the mud as well as under the desk—and I know that a good many of us, probably all of us, spend too much time at the latter. But I think I know now something about farmers' problems and their ways.
With your Lordships' indulgence, I propose to confine myself to the problem of the retention in the industry of sufficient capital to allow it to grow and develop so that it can better compete in Europe, make an increasing contribution to our balance-of-payment problems and so have a steadying influence on our own food prices at home. I realise very well that I should gain very little sympathy from any side of the House if I simply cried "Havoc!" at capital taxation as such.
314
What I want to draw attention to is the distorting effects which steeply-rising land values (about which we have already been hearing) have on capital taxation as we now have it, a taxation which was originally geared to quite different land values and quite different money values.
Any idea that estate duties or death duties are the worry of the large landowner went out of the window six to nine months ago when the prices suddenly escalated. I will not reiterate what the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, said earlier about those rising values. I think he made that position quite clear. I will merely quote a series of examples from my own home area where I know the position very well. What has happened is that values have suddenly moved from the £250 to £300 an acre bracket to the £600 to £800 an acre bracket. That has happened in the past six to nine months. Some sales, in fact, have exceeded £1,000 an acre, and not for exceptional land, either, but where very large blocks were involved, or indeed, very small blocks. I am speaking all the time, my Lords, entirely about agricultural land. May I take first the owner, occupier, the farmer? I should like to consider the relatively small man, or rather three men, with farms of 300, 400 and 500 acres which are relatively small farms in these days. Under the new values, those three owner-occupiers will find themselves liable to estate duty at about the following rates: the 300 acre man will have to find £80,000, the 400 acre man £100,000 and the 500 acre man £155,000.
Naturally, I have had to make some assumptions, in arriving at those figures. I have, for example, assumed mixed farms; some dairy farming, pig breeding, sheep and some arable. I have also assumed the lower end of the price scale to which I referred earlier; that is to say, about £600 an acre as the value of the land to-day. I think that the figures I have given are fair, at any rate for the sake of argument. Those figures, may I remind your Lordships, take account of the 45 per cent. abatement on agricultural land and small businesses. That, of course, is very important to the industry.
What are the remedies, my Lords? What are these three men to do about it? They have several choices. They

315
can attempt year by year to save some cash and put it aside for the eventual payment of the duty. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, pointed out earlier that this is hardly practicable because of the narrow profit margins in this scale of farming. But if that should be done, the effect would be that that cash is lost to the farmer. It is lost to development, and the farmer has already suffered the reduction of the farm capital grant scheme from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. It is lost to re-machining, and to increased stocking, and to all the other aids that the farmer might be able to devise to promote higher productivity.
Second, my Lords, he may do nothing, and then his executors will have to face the problem when he dies. There seems to me to be no real alternative for them but to sell at least part of the farm. It will certainly become less economic and it may well become non-viable. Then fragmentation will have set in, the very thing that we have been trying to avoid by the creation of what we call the farm amalgamation scheme for which grants are given. That is aimed specifically at increasing the size of units in order to lower costs and to raise productivity. Those two things together should result in cheaper food. I know that we have been told that as yet there are no signs of fragmentation having set in. But the increased values began only about six or nine months ago and we have not yet felt the blast. Our competitors in Europe have suffered for generations from the evils of the Code Napoleon, from the fragmentatory effects of that Code. Now they are making headway towards a remedy. Their unit sizes are increasing. They have been at a grave disadvantage but perhaps they are not so much now.
Our farmer has one other remedy. He can give his farm away. But at the moment of gift, no cash having changed hands whatsoever, he is faced with a 30 per cent. capital gains tax on the difference between the 1965 value and the value at the moment of gift. Inflation, the increased value of land, has seen to it that he cannot make that gift without suffering this capital tax. Furthermore, my Lords, if he gives his farm
316
away—and he may well delay taking that unwelcome step—and, having given it away, he dies within seven years, estate duty will have to be paid on top of everything. The estate duty will be in no way reduced by reason of the capital gains tax paid at the time of gift. Surely that is plural taxation? Consider also, my Lords, the stunting effect on the development of the farm during those seven years of uncertainty. Is the old man going to make it, or not? This is a real blight on the land and it would have been better for that farmer, and possibly for the farm, if he had died before he made the gift. That summarises the dilemma of the owner-occupier. May I remind your Lordships that we have been considering the case of the relatively small farmer, the working farmer? He may have to milk twice a day if it is a dairy farm; his wife may help him, and his son, and he may have one or two paid hands.
Now may I consider the man who has let his land? Once again, I should like to apply my remarks to the relatively small man with, say, three or four farms in a group which is grandly called an estate. I should like to consider a case where there are no particular developments or mineral rights to complicate matters, where it is a purely agricultural holding. This man, as I think everyone would agree, tries to do the best by his farm, and, incidentally, the best by the countryside. In these days he has to keep a watchful eye on conservation, and rightly so. He has to see to the growing needs of a predominantly urban population which is increasing, and this involves him in some expense. It takes a great deal of his time, as I can say from personal experience, and possibly time is money. He does not expect high yields, he never has. That has never looked remotely possible. I suppose that during the past 15 years the yield would have been 1 per cent. to 3 per cent. net before tax that would be the accepted limit. In the 15 years before that, just after the war, the yields were about half that amount, certainly very much less than that, because we were catching up with maintenance and development after so much had been left during the lean war years. However, he is content to rely first on long-term appreciation, second

317
on the amenity and, third, on the sentimental connection. But now such equilibrium as he has managed to observe in his long-term plans is all upset by these steeply-increasing values and their effect on capital taxation. As in the case of the farmer, estate duty escalates at once, but the options for this man are narrow. He cannot possibly save out of those low yields in order to pay estate duty. Whatever he saves he may well have to spend in premiums for life insurance policies year by year to provide for estate duty when the time comes. If he makes a change of ownership to an individual, to a number of people or, indeed, to a company, he is in the same capital gains position as was the farmer—30 per cent. straightaway, no cash passing hands. So I do not think I am exaggerating if I say that here again fragmentation must follow. There may be some who would think that it was not the end of the world for England if her estates were diminished in size, but all I would say is that if fragmentation does follow for an estate, it is very likely that one or two or more farms will suffer fragmentation at the same time.
My Lords, there may be some who think that the landlord/tenant system as we have it to-day is an out-of-date anachronism. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to partnerships and other things as possible developments. But these things cannot be done overnight. We have a system that has to be adjusted. We have this landlord/tenant system and it has worked extremely well for a very long time. It is delicately balanced, and has been described by one great authority as the most sophisticated system of land tenure in the world. The Continent has nothing like it. There, owing to the ravages of fragmentation, a farmer may find himself with several landlords—indeed he may have 10 or 20.
How many young men coming out of university or coming out of the agricultural college to-day can possibly afford to buy a viable sized farm, then to stock it and equip it, without tying round their necks a massive mill-stone of borrowed money? The answer in many cases, of course, is a lease. Thank goodness that roughly half our acreage in England and Wales (and I speak of England and Wales) is still worked in that way. But there is an urgent need to stop the trend,
318
which has already gone too far, of owners trying to get their land in hand and away from leases, a trend which to some extent is given rise to by capital and income taxation. We have young farmers to-day who are highly expert; they have plenty of initiative, are virile, enterprising and venturesome, and we must bring them on to the land as quickly as we can. This great industry of ours has given us a higher and steadier rate of productivity rise than any other since the war. Why should we now hamper it by imposing on it grossly distorted capital taxation of what is in fact the farmer's raw material, running at two or three times the level of his competitors in Europe?
4.55 p.m.
LORD WOOLLEY: My Lords, it is my pleasant privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, on his maiden speech, to which I am sure we have all listened with the greatest interest, as indeed this House always does listen to noble Lords who are really knowledgeable from practical experience of the subject on which they speak. The noble Lord has given us his first-hand observations from his practical experience on a most important problem.
I do not intend to speak for very long, partly in deference to the excellent coverage that there has been of the subject by speakers up to now, but also in consideration of those noble Lords who still have to speak. But I cannot forbear to say a few words on this subject which is dear to my heart, and on which I also perhaps have to declare an interest. I think probably everyone who has spoken might have to declare an interest in this matter, even if it is only as previous Ministers of the Crown with heavy responsibilities.
I should like to apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, and at the same time to express my appreciation to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for introducing this debate, in that I missed the noble Viscount's speech. However, I have gathered a great deal of the speech from the references made to it by subsequent speakers. I am sure the noble Viscount has covered all the important points that concern us to-day. I was detained by a natural hazard of the electric lines blowing down on British Rail, which delayed me for 40 minutes,

319
and as I always cut things rather fine, being a busy working farmer, that made me just miss the noble Viscount's speech, which I imagine lasted about that length of time. Being well accustomed to being frustrated by natural hazards, I took this with such philosophy as I could.
My Lords, I was most interested in the wide-ranging speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who speaks from great experience in agriculture, in which he has always been a leading figure. He indeed covered a tremendous range of the problems in the industry, which I will not attempt to emulate. One may or may not agree with all the views put forward by the noble Lord, but they were clearly put, and were important views on important points. I am not going to spend time in talking about the achievements of the industry because this has been done by other speakers. It is a happy position for anyone who has been much concerned in the particular activity to hear the tributes to the contribution that is being made by this old and very vigorous industry of agriculture, with its modern outlook and its ancient traditions.
If I may say so, I was much in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his approach to the question of labour and that of size of holding. I think we sometimes tend to run rather too far too fast in our thinking about how these things are going to develop. I personally should hate to think that the mixed pattern of agriculture was ever going to be completely distorted. Change, of course, it will; it is always changing: but I do not go along with deliberate policies of trying to coerce or push people out in order to get ever bigger holdings. Let the natural pattern evolve on sound and fair criteria, and be it what it will. We have evolved in that way, I think, a better pattern than perhaps most other countries in Europe. In saying that, my Lords, I should like, as it were, to ask your Lordships to pause and look at this situation. We are talking about agriculture to-day at a time when we have very recently become members of this larger European Community, and now all that is going to happen there lies in the unknown future. It is all hypotetical; we do not know. It is no use saying that we will do this and we will do that. We do not know. What we do know is
320
that we stand as a well equipped, efficient, vigorous industry that constantly is being compared favourably with the industry in other countries with whom we shall be in close association. I think sometimes this may be exaggerated. There is a danger in assuming that we are so much better than everybody else. I think we are good, and probably on average we are better, but let us not assume that the French are not good, that the Germans and the Italians are not good; certainly the Dutch are very good indeed. However, I think our industry is greatly envied in the progress it has made, the way in which we have made it and the system we have operated: and too little tribute, in my view, is being paid to the means whereby we have achieved the position in which we stand to-day.
We are talking about agriculture on the advent of going into Europe; we are talking about its being so efficient, how it can compete more than adequately with its competitors in Europe; but we do not take enough time to think about the means that have brought us to this point. I believe that this has been the best devised, the most sophisticated and practical system that has ever obtained in this country or anywhere else in the world. I have no doubt in my mind about that. It has had its difficulties, of course. Many of us have been very conscious of those difficulties and some of us who have gone through many, many Price Reviews know the strain and stress and the battle, and we know what it has been like to be up against the Treasury. The Treasury, I am sorry to say, often had far too much influence, and that influence has been based on far too much shortsightedness. That has been one of the main difficulties in the working of our system.
Let us look at it for a moment or two. I make no apology for, as it were, harking back. It is important to look at the road you have come, because from that road one learns experience which can stand one in good stead in the road one has to travel that lies ahead. We have combined in this the needs, the interests, of both the agricultural industry and of the whole national community that the industry serves. This is its purpose. This is its only justification: to serve the community. If it ceases to do that, it is in a non-viable position. This

321
has been done by this combination of price guarantee, market price, careful review and particularly the combination of price and production grants. And here I am a little baffled—and perhaps the noble Earl can enlighten us when he replies—because on the one hand we have been told that subsidies are a thing of the past, that they are no longer appropriate and we must stand on our own feet. As Mr. Prior said when he was Minister, "We must look for our returns to the end price, to the market place." Yet now we are told by the present Minister, Mr. Godber, that he is exhorting the Community not to raise the end price but to increase the production grant; in other words, to go back.
Now this does develop a sense of spinning and one gets a little mentally dizzy. Not only is it a question of Mr Godber being Janus, but it is also Janus revolving at a fast rate, and I think we need to know the position. It is true, as the noble Earl has said, that there is much greater satisfaction in the industry to-day. They feel the sun on their backs somewhat. That is quite true and I think the Government are entitled, without making political points—which, if I may say so, the noble Earl made extremely well—to take some satisfaction in that fact. But this state of affairs is because of a combination of circumstances. I am not going to attempt to go into all of them. Farmers to-day are much happier and their level of profit is much better, and I believe (the noble Earl may give the figures) that the return on capital—and this we have worked for for years—has approximated somewhere near to the return on capital in industry generally. That was a measurement that we sought to get for years but had the greatest difficulty in getting. I could never see how one could interpret the words of Part I of the 1947 Act, "a proper remuneration", unless in some way one defined what was a proper remuneration; and how does one define it except in comparative terms? So we have made headway along those lines, and that I am very glad to see.
But in this bluer sky there are clouds that are worrying farmers, and some of the recent actions of Government have worried them. Their action in relation to dairy products in the Community worried farmers considerably, because
322
this seemed to them to be somewhat of a betrayal—if that is not too strong a word. Also I think farmers find it extremely difficult to understand (and this point has already been made by other speakers) how, at a time when we are seeking to improve efficiency and increase production, when capital is increasingly difficult to come by, when inflation is affecting us all so very much, the Government should choose to make two successive annual cuts in capital grants—lhat really is illogical—and also in the calf subsidy which I believe played a significant part in increasing particularly our stock of beef-type cattle to which the noble Earl has referred and which had been going up very satisfactorily.
We enter an unknown era. I have said that I believe it is important to bear in mind the valuable experiences that we have gained in the past and which are being cast away, in my view, far too carelessly, with hardly a word of acknowledgement. Let us look at these things, because I believe that as we go along we shall have to think more about them, whether we are in or out of Europe; and de facto we, of course, are in Europe, but de referenda one does not know whether one is in Europe or out of Europe. At least let us bear these things in mind. I have never believed, I do not believe now, that the Common Agricultural Policy can work satisfactorily for a Community of nine nations. It never worked satisfactorily for a Community of six and I am quite certain that with Britain one of the nine it will not work satisfactorily. Therefore we should not let go carelessly and indifferently all the very valuable pools of the past. We may need them again. We may need those principles, and, who knows, we may yet hear Sir Christopher Soames advocating them inside Brussels. I should like to be there to hear him. That could happen and I believe it will happen. I do not know what will happen to this set-up, but I have no strong faith in operating the Common Agricultural Policy as it is now.
Various noble Lords have said that cheap food is gone forever, but one must go and tell that to the Russians. The Russians will be delighted to have the prospect of some very cheap butter flowing from the butter mountain. Whether

323
this will lubricate the Ostpolitik I do not know, but at any rate I am sure that they will welcome the cheap food which we have decided to forgo. I am not for cheap food. I am in favour of food at the best possible value that can be given to the public of this country. I believe that that can best be done, and has best been done, by a combination of reasonable import regulation—and this was inadequate; it was gradually improving—and guaranteed price. Let me say that in real terms the cost of subsidy in 1972–73—and this is before the Common Market had begun to take effect, before we were in the Common Market; this is on the old basis—having regard to the change in the value of money and to the increase of 40-odd per cent. in the volume of output, is 45 per cent. of what it was ten years ago. This I think demonstrates that this has not been a runaway system that was insupportable. I know that ten years ago I calculated it was about 5 per cent. of our total food bill at retail price levels, so I presume at the present levels it is about 2½, per cent., and I think we have had extremely good value for money for that amount of public expenditure. My Lords, I would again thank the noble Lords who have introduced this Motion. I have been very glad to take part in the debate and I am sure there are many important points that other speakers are going to deal with.
5.12 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down speaks of course from a vast wealth of experience, and I know that everybody in the agricultural industry will always be grateful to him for what he has done for agriculture. As, so to speak, a survivor of the 1969 debate I would congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, on his masterly opening speech this afternoon, after the passage of four years, on this vital and complex subject. I would also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, on his maiden speech and on the points he made about fragmentation and the Napoleonic Code and so on. I very much agreed with what he had to say.
I think all of us here have it in common that we are upholders of British farming and of the expansion of home
324
production as the salvation of the producer and consumer alike. It is now clear that agriculture has a key role, similar to its position in war time, brought on this time by several factors such as inflation, pressure on sterling, entry into the E.E.C., and world shortages. We have not heard so much recently from those economists and planners who a year or two ago advocated the turning of vast stretches of country into glorified playgrounds and National Parks, et cetera, and buying our food cheaply from abroad. What price that idea now! But this key role must be a responsible role and I feel sure that the industry has no wish or inclination to abuse the position. There is no history in agriculture of industrial action such as strikes, the withholding of supplies, and so forth, and I feel that the country can and must trust the agricultural industry. People should not grudge the farmers making a profit. Profits are good for several reasons. First, the farmer is a person who very much "lives above the shop", and the first thing he does is to go and buy a new machine or literally plough the profit back in some way. Not only will this reduce future unit costs, but of course he will be providing much employment among machinery and fertiliser manufacturers, builders and people of that kind.
Second, if products show constant profit we shall not get a repeat of this winter's beef situation, which, as has been said already this afternoon, was really caused by the depressed and uneconomic price of beef over very many years. This was a point that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made, and I very much agreed with him. Third, I should like to see investment come from profit in agriculture and the industry to be independent of Government capital grants. But if certain products are not going to be worthwhile to produce, cheap surpluses from abroad will not be available to fill the gap. Ever since early 1970, when Mr. Cledwyn Hughes was the Minister, it has become obvious that the increased prosperity and some seasonal shortages in countries which had previously produced surpluses meant that overseas communities were using more of their own produce; and by 1971 it was clear that few world surpluses were around to depress the home market

325
prices. Not only is the cheap food policy vulnerable on this count, but also we have to consider, as we are now in the Common Market, questions of five-year phasing up of our food prices to E.E.C. standards.
In spite of the sensitive position of food prices, I believe that, intentionally or unintentionally, we are on the right lines. We should not automatically fear higher food prices so long as—and this is important—the Government reduce taxation or use all money saved in subsidies to help those most affected by higher prices; for example, old-age pensioners. In the period 1972–73 because of higher market prices, the Exchequer was able to save close on £100 million and I think this figure will certainly increase, partly because of the phasing out of capital grants. Higher farm incomes will clearly mean more revenue to the Exchequer from income tax, however reluctant the farmer may be to part with it. But, apart from the Exchequer, farm workers will, and must, have a greater share—and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, made all these points very well. We should they lag behind people such as road haulage drivers? Unrealistic food prices have always meant lower wages for the agricultural worker, and this cannot be right in dealing with these vitally important people. So much for the general position.
I want your Lordships now to consider one or two other items and I would start with the largest crop that we grow in this country; namely, grass. Our damp and mild climate was called by Sir Winston Churchill our
"salubrious if not altogether unmixed dispensation"—
which means that we grow unequal grass in this country. In my case "the green, green grass of home" means the rolling fertile acres of the shire so well known to my noble friend Lord Ferrers and to many other noble Lords here this afternoon, including the noble Lord, Lord Hives, and the noble Lord, Lord Allerton, who is going to speak in this debate. Not only does grass cover 73 per cent. of the British mainland but a really good crop can produce 150 cwt. of dried matter a year, compared with 80 cwt. of potatoes and 40 cwt. of grain. It is certain that because of the rising prices of concentrates and grain there will be much more intensive use of fresh and conserved grass
326
for feeding ruminant animals. There is a great renewed interest in dried grass as the best way of continuing the feeding of grass in its best condition throughout the year. The capital cost of the equipment is the main snag here. I believe there is great scope for the engineering industry to produce a machine for making up to, say, a thousand tons of dried grass per annum. The main indirect product from grass is milk. Indeed, of our 180,000 full-time farmers in this country 120,000 are engaged in some way in milk production. Unhappily, one detects a certain amount of sourness—not in the milk itself, but in the faces of dairy farmers at the moment. Milk production is a slog: seven days a week, 5.30 a.m. start, winter and summer alike. The cost of production, mainly because of the increased concentrate prices, has gone up in the last year by 2·8p per gallon. The guaranteed price increase of 1·5p per gallon is not considered to be an adequate reward for all the effort. I believe that the system used has been largely to blame. Sixty-six per cent, of milk production has gone into the liquid market and, as your Lordships know, this amount has formed what is known as the "standard quantity" for which alone a guaranteed price has been paid. Milk produced above 66 per cent. has to be sold for what it will produce in the manufacturing market and has always depressed the price the farmer has received.
The key to the future of this vital sector of farming—a sector which is of course also responsible for so much beef—is in the Common Agricultural Policy of the E.E.C. If I understand it aright, milk for manufacturing is much more favourably treated in the E.E.C. and farmers' returns now will move steadily upwards until they ultimately approach the Common Agricultural Policy target in 1978. But what I believe is more important is that British dairy farmers will at last have broken out of a system under which any expansion of total production almost always caused a reduction in producer's price per gallon. I think this is a great thing, and a much deserved improvement for the dairy farmer. If I am right about this, and if the weather, or any other uncontrollable factor does not play havoc with predictions, I would say that the economic barometer for agriculture in Britain as a whole is at last "set fair".
5.23 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, like many noble Lords here I must declare an interest in that I am a practising farmer and I spend quite half my life engaged in the industry. We have had an exceedingly interesting debate. I have listened to all the speeches so far and I think all have made a great contribution to the subject. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, on his maiden speech (which I found extremely interesting) on a subject on which I do not think any of us had intended to speak. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, is, I suppose, the most experienced and the most knowledgeable, having led the farming industry for so many years, and his words are always of enormous value. I agree with everything that he said.
I should like to speak on an aspect of farming which is to-day of vital importance and which is practised in the Border area where I farm. Every day in the newspapers we are being asked to produce more beef and more mutton in the United Kingdom and throughout the whole of Europe, and that is something which is the staple produce of the area in which I live and work. One of the reasons why there has been a big reduction in the production of beef and mutton in the great Border areas of Scotland is quite simple. Over a number of years—I think one can honestly say about 10 years, from 1957 until 1967—the production of mutton and beef was hardly paying at all. In fact in the case of sheep it really was not paying at all, and in that area a great many farmers went out of business altogether. They could not stand the fact that they had no reserves: perhaps their acreages were not big enough; they could not make money, and so they sold out their land to the Forestry Commission or to private forestry companies.
I know that a great many of your Lordships are enthusiastic supporters of forestry. I am a rather mild supporter of forestry, because we cannot eat trees and I think it is better to produce from the land of this country something that we can eat and to import the timber that we need from those areas where they can grow it more easily and cheaply. However I know that is not the view held by many of your Lordships, so I do not press
328
it. But I greatly regret that thousands of acres in the Borders, stretching from the Carter Bar, the great entry into Scotland, right down to Kielder, the Ettrick Forest and the other areas are all new covered with trees.
In order to counter that fact, those of us who continue to try to produce sheep and cattle (which is what we have been asked for to-day) are increasing our production in every possible way. We are being helped now by the fact that the tide has turned—I think that has been said by most noble Lords here—and sheep and lambs and cattle are now fetching remunerative prices. That is partly due to scarcity and also partly to the fact that many of the arable farmers who have been growing nothing but cereal crops for so long are now coming into the auction markets and buying sheep and cattle (sheep in particular) to graze the land in order to try to put fertility into it. This is a great help to those of us who have only hill land and can only grow sheep and cattle.
So at last the livestock farmer is getting a decent return on his money, and on this point I should like to congratulate the Government very much on the stand they have made in Brussels on the subject of hill farming and of land that is difficult to farm—in the rest of Europe as well as here—so that the assistance which is given to hill farming throughout the country is continuing and not being cut off. With other noble Lords I regret the reduction in capital grants, although I will not conceal from your Lordships that I have taken every opportunity to get capital grants for buildings of all kinds because I had a nasty feeling, having lived a long time in this industry, that some day somebody would come along and say, "You are going to have 10 per cent. less"—or 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. less. In fact I was always terrified that the subsidies were going to be cut altogether. I am glad to say they have not done that; but they have reduced the capital grant which I think is a pity, although, speaking for myself, I was so certain that it would happen one day that I took jolly good care to do all I could while the grants continued.
The methods by which we can now produce beef, in particular, and sheep remain very much the same on the hills, but buildings are of vital importance. This is one of the ways in which we

329
can increase production. But of course the public and the mass media are shouting about cost and it seems to me that many people believe that we can increase our production of animals in a very short time. Well, we cannot. We all know that. The course of nature is not something that we can speed up. All we can do is to try to prevent animals dying from disease or land being taken away and used for r other purposes. I have spoken about trees, but do not let us forget the urban developments which are eating up land every year, and also the great urban motorways. All that has to be balanced against the production of food; but to speed up the production of food is not possible.
What is possible is to be perfectly certain that people who produce food do not go out of business because the prices they get are so low that they cannot continue their production. That is what has happened in the last 10 or 15 years; people have stopped producing beef and mutton because it did not pay them to do so. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who is not here at the moment, that we all want to see the agricultural worker, who is absolutely vital in all this picture, given a fair and generous remuneration. I say to the agricultural workers that I employ, that so long as I am not running into debt and so long as my farm is still a commercial enterprise, I will pay as much as I possibly can. But very often one cannot do as much as one would like, for the reason that the end product does not fetch a good price, and equally because the cost of the machinery, fertilisers, and so on that we use is rising all the time. I may be a pessimist, but it is only at this moment when rising cost has not met rising prices that we are making quite good profits, and those profits, as some noble Lords have said, are being ploughed back into the land as hard as we can because that is one way to increase production.
We are now on a good wicket. I think that it is a rising wicket, and I do not think that it is likely to go down. But I should like to put out some counter propaganda against the mass media who are talking all the time about such matters as controlling meat prices. Most of us here lived through the war. We know
330
what controlling prices meant. The only way it could be done was by rationing. You cannot control meat prices to-day because meat in the sense of selling is a generic term. It means a whole mass of things. It does not just mean one kind, type or cut of meat; it means dozens of different things. In addition, it means the manufactured meat that people eat: meat pies, sausages and other things that the public use. In regard to control, unless you are going to ration (and to me rationing would be the end of everything in this day and generation, when we have to some extent an agreeable and free life) someone should say categorically that it is impossible to control meat prices because anybody who knows about meat knows that that is impossible. I back up the Government very strongly in their statement that it is impossible. As I said, there is only one way to control things and that is to ration them, and I am dead against rationing.
Speaking now as a member of the European Community I believe that one can say that the rising standard of living everywhere, particularly in Europe, will provide us with a great market for all that we can produce in this country. Therefore, everything that can be done to increase our production should be done. I should like to add my congratulations to the Government on their stand in Brussels the other day about the demand for a rise in prices. I am sure that they are right to resist that. This is not the moment, nor is it the wise thing to do when the natural course of events now is giving a fair return to farmers. The agricultural worker will get a higher wage—and I am all for that—and I feel therefore that we are on a much better wicket than we have been for many years.
I should like to ask, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked, about marketing boards. Although I have nothing to do with milk, I am particularly interested in the Milk Marketing Board because it is undoubtedly one of the best organisations in the world for this product. I have, as I think some of your Lordships know, a personal interest in this organisation, since it was my husband who started it back in 1933 or 1934. It began then under very difficult circumstances and my husband was accused of every conceivable kind of evil and wickedness. To-day it is the lynchpin, the pillar of

331
the dairy industry, and I hope very much that no one will be foolish enough to try to do away with the Milk Marketing Board. I hope that the Minister is able to give the assurance for which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked, and for which I ask, that those Marketing Boards that are working highly successfully will be continued.
Everybody is very anxious to respond to the calls for more production, more food. We have new economic methods with which we are working; new machinery is being invented which we can use, and that all helps to increase production and to reduce costs. Everything that we can do to develop that further is admirable. The Government must bear all this in mind. At no point must they allow prices to go so low that people go out of business, and then come along and ask why we have a shortage of meat and beef. We all know why: it is because the people who produced it in the past had to go out of business. It is much more economic to help them at the time they are producing food than to do it when there is a shortage and prices rise enormously. I hope that the Government will stick to this policy because I am sure that the industry will then continue to flourish.
5.37 p.m.
LORD CONGLETON: My Lords, a year or so ago I was obliged to apply for a new passport and to make quite certain of obtaining it within the limited time before my departure abroad, I visited the Passport Office in person and was there swiftly and courteously granted access to a senior official—a person of charm and perspicacity. I began to recite the answers to those questions which are asked on such occasions and all went well until I came to what, paradoxically for me, was the simplest of all: "What profession did I follow?" Unhesitatingly, I replied that I was a farmer. Now here, my Lords, I have to report that a look of complete disbelief came into the official's face. There was a moment or two of silence and then he said, "That, I am afraid, will not do. But I'll tell you what, we can put 'Gentleman' in front of 'farmer' and that will make it all right." I did not protest, my Lords.
332
So I have an interest to declare this afternoon, not as a member of that high order of human beings to which the Passport Office assigned me but as a member of that equally high order of humanity, as a farmer. I join in thanking the two noble Lords who are responsible for our debate this afternoon, the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, in particular for his kindly reference to some previous remarks of mine in the 1969 debate on this topic, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, both of whom are noted East Anglian agriculturalists. I hope they will allow the validity of the remarks and views of one who farms in Wessex, like the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, whose maiden speech I much enjoyed. I am, of course, obliged also to declare an interest in that I belong to all those indispensable organisations best known simply by their initials: N.F.U., C.L.A., R.A.S.E., N.S.A. and so on. I am bound to say that the thoughts lying behind my opinions expressed this afternoon will have been engendered by discussions with my farming friends and with some of those bodies, but the opinions I express are my own.
It has been pointed out already that there has been an interval of four years since your Lordships last discussed farming matters in a full-scale debate such as the one we have this afternoon. Much has happened. There is a great deal of ground to cover and a great deal of that has already been covered in most masterly fashion. I was becoming increasingly worried as to whether there would be any points left to make when the time came for me to speak. However, I intend to make a specific comment concerning the sheep sector of the agricultural industry which seems to me so often on occasions when farming is discussed—whether in your Lordships' Chamber or elsewhere—to have been slightly neglected. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, referred to it, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, but very briefly. It seems to me that here perhaps is a chance to fill some of that gap, which is the shortfall in red meat production. I shall make a specific comment on that, and I shall then go on to make some more general comments concerning the way in which certain aspects of the industry seem to be pointing. The Annual Review 1972 (Cmnd. 4928) stated that the decline in

333
the sheep breeding flock appears to have been halted, and now the Review for 1973 (Cmnd. 5254) maintains that the breeding flock is on a clear upward trend following a period of declining numbers. There is still quite some way to go before the peak post-war figure of something just under 30 million ewes and lambs recorded in 1965 is reached, but the 1972 figure that I have here indicates that the head of ewes and lambs was in the region of 27 million. Obviously, therefore, the picture is encouraging; the figures are moving up.
The sheep enterprise is one of particular interest to me. I have maintained a flock on one of my farms for 14 years, and during that time I have endured the barbs and derision of the agricultural economists, and sometimes those of my neighbours, for doing so in what has not always been an easy period for this particular enterprise. I have never been able to understand why farmers, who apply themselves with immense concentration to the dairy side of their activities, aided and abetted most skillfully by the research and the wisdom resident in the experimental husbandry farms, the universities, the agricultural colleges and so on, should never have shown the same willingness to tackle the problems of improving the standards of sheep husbandry of lowland farms. It has always seemed to me to be left in the background. Some years ago the sheep were something that came after everything else; the cattle came first, then the crops and then there were the sheep; at least, so it was in the part of the world where I farm. I do not know whether it has been the abuse and misapplication of techniques of analysis in enterprise and whole farm-costing, or what has been the cause, but in my view the sheep sector of the farming economy has not been helped very much by the economists over the past ten or 15 years.
If I understand the general sense of what has been said this afternoon, it is this: that what the country needs is as much food as possible produced in this country, and at as low a price as possible. And this must mean low cost production; we have simply got to keep the costs as low as possible. Here the sheep farm, I suggest, is a winner. The 1973 Review does give financial incentives in this direction, following those of previous
334
years; the guaranteed price is stepped up. But I would also like to see encouragement of a rather different sort given to the expansion of the sheep industry. The technical and veterinary advances of the past 20 years now enable farmers to maintain far higher stocking rates—and in the end it is the stocking rate which determines the profitability of a livestock enterprise—than were possible before the advent of some very remarkable vaccines and other aids to combat all those diseases which led to the belief that one sheep's worst enemy was another sheep. My belief is that there is no longer any validity in that saying so far as the lowland farm is concerned. When I prepared my notes I was afraid I would end up by delivering a lecture on sheep husbandry to your Lordships, and I am afraid it does seem to be developing in that way, but I cannot make the points that I wish to make without going into some of the attractions of this sheep job. The main attraction, it seems to me, lies in the low capital outlay required; it lies also in the flexibility which it can bring to any cropping system on a farm; it lies in the direct return of animal residues to the fields and not to the slurry tank or the main sewer or the nearest ditch, and all this is done without cost by the animal itself.
If I may digress here, I think I am not alone in feeling that it is a pity that economic forces have made farmyard manure a potential pollutant, instead of a valuable fertiliser and soil conditioner. The subsidy given to inorganic fertiliser exacerbates the situation by acting as a negative subsidy against organic manure. We know that there is quite a lot of work going on towards the better use of slurries and sewage sludge, but perhaps these matters do not receive quite the priority that they deserve.
I did digress, and I am now going back to the sheep. In past days in my part of the world, the hurdled flock was an integral part of any lowland farm. We still have the sheep, I am glad to say, but we can do without the hurdles, very largely because of the introduction of electric netting. This is a splendid development which has made the job easier for the shepherd and easier on the flock master's pocket as well. Fencing is really the only fixed equipment item that is required on a lowland fat lamb producing flock. You do not have to

335
have buildings. I know there is an argument for winter housing of sheep on the low lying wetter farms, and stocking rates can be increased in this way. But buildings cost money, and it must surely be the aim and object all the time to keep the costs as low as possible. I was a little bit disappointed that no encouragement has been given in the Price Review by the restoration of the fencing grant. That is one obstacle. The chief obstacle at the moment to the expansion of lowland sheep flocks lies in the lack of expert shepherds and the lack of expert knowledge about the management of flocks. This is a legacy of those many years of neglect and denigration of sheep as an enterprise on lowland farms. I do hope that the county agricultural colleges will pay proper attention to the place that sheep can play on lowland farms. I do not know the means by which these things are transmitted or how they are put into effect. But it seems to me that the great and immediate need is to increase the number of shepherds, and the knowledge of management of lowland farms. Before I leave sheep, I will give an illustration of the present situation on the farm where I maintain this flock. With an annual stocking rate of 4; ewes to the acre, and a lambing percentage of 160 per cent., this sheep job is coming out better than 30 cwt. of barley, which is about the average over the past three or four years.
Now I must make mention of the Common Agricultural Policy with regard to the sheep. There is no C.A.P. regulation. I know that the National Farmers' Union and the National Sheep Association (I do not speak for them, but I do discuss matters with them) are most anxious that regulation should be brought into being as soon as possible. It is for the Government to decide, of course, at what level sales of sheep meat, mutton, lamb and so on, may be allowed to other E.E.C. member countries, but there are opportunities here for export, if that is the right word, for sales to other member countries. The N.S.A., I know, is doing what it can to encourage producers in this country to get together on the marketing side, but again it is not easy, after so many years of official indifference and of low returns to the producer, to achieve the turn-round in skills
336
and enthusiasms which have been eroded or lost altogether in recent times. I hope that the Government will not turn aside from helping the sheep industry to contribute towards filling that gap between consumption and production of sheep meat which I am told amounts to 40 per cent.; that is to say, the existing Community of nine produces only 60 per cent. of its requirements in respect of sheep products. I firmly believe that a resurgence in the lowland flock situation in this country would be a real means of helping to fill the gap in the present red meat supply situation with a low-cost product, which is what we must all be hoping for.
I have referred to the uncertainty of the barley enterprise. It is not good business at 30 cwt. an acre, which I have hinted is the sort of level of production which I am getting on a chalkland farm in Wiltshire, and when compared with the 45 cwt. or 50 cwt. an acre of maize which, I am told, we can expect in the sunnier parts of the E.E.C. countries, it does not stand up at all. We may well see a decline in barley growing on the chalkland of the South of England. With the sharp increases in costs which have already been mentioned, the returns on barley must be very suspect on many farms and some reappraisals will be required. What then is to replace the barley crop? I have mentioned sheep as a possibility, but another is wheat. Why cannot the millers use more homegrown wheat in our loaf? The premiums offered to a farmer for hard milling varieties are, frankly, not attractive enough at the present time to lure him away from the higher yielding soft varieties. Could not some incentive be written into the guarantee arrangements? I should have thought that the increased use of home-grown wheat in our daily bread was something which ought to commend itself to any Government.
Time is getting on, and I had better reserve my remarks on the effects of existing restrictive trade practices legislation, in which I have taken some interest during the last year or two, until the arrival in your Lordships' House of the Fair Trading Bill. Suffice it for me now to say that there is concern at the apparent reluctance of the Government to recognise the disparity which exists between the current E.E.C. legislation and

337
the way in which the laws are interpreted relevant to farming, and our own restrictive trade practices laws. There is a feeling, which is fairly strongly held, that this disparity places our own producers—forming the associations, groups and so on—at a disadvantage as compared with our E.E.C. competitors. Again I echo what other noble Lords have said on this question. I am sure that the farming industry in this country has little to fear from our competitors, provided always that our political leaders put the case in Brussels, or wherever it has to be put, so that those of us who are involved in the industry can compete on equal terms.
In general, my feeling is that the immediate prospect for the farming industry over the next two or three years is fair, and all credit to the Government for whatever they may have done to bring this situation about. But I think I ought to report some deep-seated concern, not specifically tied to farming, which I find in the rural areas, concerning the long-term future. We have had so many changes in the last two or three years, some of which are welcome, some of which were unavoidable and some of which are certainly not the result of Government action or inaction. Let me list some of them before I sit down: our entry into the E.E.C., with the consequent change in the support system for farm produce and the movement away from Whitehall and Westminster of the final determination of the price structure; the reorganisation of our local government institutions, with the possibility of a movement away from rural areas of a degree of control over local affairs—in this context one thinks especially of water extraction problems and so on—and, as always, as we have heard, notably from the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, taxation problems, capital gains and estate duty, allied to the sharply increased price of agricultural land.
All these things seem to me to be engendering a fear, which is fairly deeply felt, that control over the rural economy has moved quite a long way, and continues to move away, from those who claim no special divine right in these matters but who feel, simply by virtue of their years of residence in rural areas and their traditional responsibility towards rural affairs, that they know more about these matters than others. Perhaps not
338
without some justification, they feel that they are not being consulted often enough with regard to some of these proposed changes. I am sure that there is room for many separate debates on some of these questions, and I shall leave the matter there.
Finally, I go back to the latter half of last year, to the announcement of the Agricultural Wages Board's determination of a 20 per cent. increase in the basic agricultural rate. I should like to pay tribute to the demeanour and restraint which farm workers known to me—and, I am sure, many thousands of others unknown to me—at a time of what must have been considerable disappointment for them, have exhibited over the past six months. In those six months I have not come across a disagreeable expression either of face or of word, or a raised fist or anything like that, and I should like to express my admiration for the way in which they have met this difficult situation, which is surely an example to all of us. Steadiness in times of trouble is rather a dull virtue, I suppose, but it is an essential one and that is what has been exhibited over these last six months. I close by expressing the hope that if ever these splendid farm managers, foremen, tractor drivers, herdsmen, shepherds, ploughmen, whatever they may be, come into confrontation with that admirable and perspicacious official to whom I alluded in my opening remarks, they, too, will be assigned to that high order of humanity to which the Passport Office assigned myself.
5.57 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, for introducing this debate and in offering him my humble congratulations on what was to me a very remarkable speech. I also wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, on a remarkably well-informed and most interesting maiden speech. I am sure I speak for us all when I say that I hope we shall hear him again very shortly. At this stage of a wide-ranging debate, it is difficult to bring any fresh thought to bear upon the problems which we have been discussing, and it is almost impossible not to be repetitive. I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible and to avoid repetition if I can.
In some ways, the annual Price Review was rather perplexing to those of us who

339
have become accustomed to it in its old form. It would be much more convenient if the changes in the guarantees and other arrangements could be shown in the White Paper without the necessity of referring to Hansard in order to obtain this information which is so vital. This would not affect your Lordships so much, but the public who buy the White Paper are really entitled to expect the information to be in it.
It is also perplexing in that the new support prices in many cases bear very little relation to current market prices. Indeed, the prosperity which we presently enjoy is due more to world shortages than it is to Government intervention. Yet there can be no certainty that the present level of prices on world markets will remain where they are. If they were to fall, those farmers for whom cereals are the raw material for animal production would benefit, but the purely arable farmer would suffer. However, owing to the high price of cereals concentrates and the very high price of calves, those farmers who indulge in intensive calf rearing, despite the high price of fat cattle, are now, according to my calculations, at any rate, getting somewhere back to where they were before. If you are trying to rear calves and find that you are forced to pay £70 a head, which is by no means an unusual price now, your barley, even if you produce it yourself, could be sold at possibly £36 a ton and concentrates are as high as £55 a ton. These figures make a very nasty hole in your profits. I appreciate that at the end of the year the valuations will be much higher, but, unfortunately, paper profits do not pay many bills, and more and more capital will be required in order to keep the production line going.
As as been said so frequently this afternoon, it is clear that our agricultural policy must be one of expansion, especially as regards livestock and general increased investment in the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has already drawn attention to the vastly increased cost of tractors and other agricultural machinery. That has been my own experience, too, and I fear that this will continue. But as the Government are hard put to it to stabilise domestic prices at not too high a level and yet not to appear too generous to an industry which
340
is now superficially prosperous, in my opinion this Review is a fair compromise. Difficult though it may be, farmers must accept the fact that they have to look at their position in the context of the economic problems of the country as a whole.
More money is needed for expansion, as I have just said, but we have come to the end of the road so far as getting more money out of the Treasury is concerned. We must accept the fact that there is not much treasure in the Treasury, and that the best we could hope for is not that they would hand out more but that possibly they would take a little less away. Could not the system by which farmers are taxed be altered? Would it not be more fair to an industry whose profits fluctuate so widely as do farming profits if farmers were allowed to be taxed on average profit based on a period of three years? This industry, however well conducted it may be, is normally dependent upon conditions over which it has no control. Even the White Paper bases some calculations on sums adjusted to take account of weather conditions. High rates of income tax and surtax—I know it is called something else now, but the effect is the same—make it difficult for farmers to plough back profit in a good year; nor do they offer relief in the bad years. A three-year average would go some way towards overcoming some of the shortcomings of the present system. The present fiscal system seems perversely designed to undermine some of the stated objectives of our farming policy. I understand these to be, first, to retain capital in the industry; secondly, to increase investment; and, thirdly, to encourage larger and more economic farms. Our present taxation system, which includes high rates of estate duty, capital gains tax even on so-called technical disposals and high rates of income tax and surtax, works in direct opposition to these objectives.
To pay money to amalgamate farms into larger holdings, and then to expose them to fragmentation with heavy estate duty and capital gains tax, seems to me to be, to put it mildly, rather muddled thinking. I am old-fashioned enough to see virtue and value in family farms; and as to capital taxes, which take capital out of the industry, they often result in the break-up of the larger holdings and make it difficult, and in some cases impossible,

341
for farmers to pass on their business to their successors. I would suggest that it would be possible, and not unreasonable, for capital gains tax to be suspended if a farmer sells or passes on his farm to another member of his family, provided the farm remains in the possession of the same family. Inflated land values are of no help to families who only wish to farm; they are only a detriment: and in most farming families it is usually fortunately true that they wish only to farm; they do not wish to sell. They merely want to live on their own land and to live the same sort of life that they have lived for generations—and a very great deal of good they have done by doing so. In this way inflated land values are a serious handicap to the backbone of the farming industry, which I believe to be the families who have farmed for generations and who have neither the wish nor the inclination to do anything else. My Lords, the Ministry of Agriculture may be the fairy godmother of the farming industry, but I am afraid that in some respects the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumes the role of the wicked uncle.
6.9 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I must apologise to the House, and in particular to the noble Viscount and to my noble friend Lord Walston, for appearing at this late hour, but I think the House knows my circumstances and I hope I shall be forgiven. Your Lordships will know of my interest in agriculture, which prompts me to say at least a few words this evening. I suppose the most significant thing that has happened to our industry is our entry into the Common Market and the resulting changes which are going to occur in our support system, for example, but most certainly in the position in which agriculture is going to find itself in having to suffer much more intensive competition from the Continent. I must say that I have never feared, for agriculture, our entry into the Common Market. There is not time this evening to go into details, but my simple philosophy on the wider front leads me to believe that the industry and the economy generally will benefit by our being parties to the Continental system and that agriculture will rise with the general rise in the economy—not as in the past but to equal status. That is more likely to happen when we are in
342
the Community. Certainly there is going to be more intensive competition, and this means that the efficiency in our industry which we have achieved and which we have a right to be proud of must not be allowed to decline. If we can, we must become even more efficient than we have been in the past.
The situation we find ourselves in at the moment is one which, I understand, is very difficult for the housewife in this country and, I think, difficult, too, for the Government in the sense that world food shortages are driving up prices and making problems for everyone. In this situation it is incumbent upon us as an industry to increase our production as rapidly as we can and, again, as efficiently as we can. In this context the National Farmers' Union has pointed out that despite the big increases in home food output in recent years, the United Kingdom is still one of the world's major food importers. In 1972, imports of food and foodstuffs totalled £2,104 million, which amounts to one-fifth of the country's import bill. The N.F.U. have given us a table which shows the percentage of various commodities which have to be imported. It shows, for example, cereals, 35 per cent.; sugar, 65 per cent.; mutton and lamb, 57 per cent.; bacon and ham, 56 per cent.; butter, 78 per cent.; cheese, 46 per cent.; apples, 49 per cent.; and tomatoes, 66 per cent. It is therefore important (and more so now) that the industry should be allowed to expand, and should be able to expand, its output.
In these days it is clearly understood by everyone that agriculture is a capital-intensive industry. It is fair to point out that, unlike many other industries, the capital is generated within the industry and therefore those concerned, farmers and farmworkers, have a right to be proud of their achievement in that they are largely financing themselves. Certainly the situation in agriculture is quite different from what it was only a few years ago. It is different from the days when I worked on a farm—when we worked with horses and had to be labour-intensive, to the disadvantage of everyone. I would comment in passing that for the reasons I have just mentioned I myself regret the Government decision to reduce the rate of grant under the Farm Capital Grants Scheme from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. and also to reduce the

343
calf subsidy. Both these grants were aimed at increasing agricultural expansion. I find it difficult to understand why at such a time this incentive should be removed.
As I say, things are different now. It is no longer sensible to expect the farmworkers—and I suppose that I still speak largely for them—to learn their jobs the "hard" way by going on to the farm as boys and learning as they go along. That will not do to-day. I am glad therefore that the Government have accepted that agriculture must have training facilities and have recognised that because of its special arrangements agriculture has particular needs of its own. Therefore, I am delighted that after some initial difficulties the idea is now firmly embedded in the minds of agriculturalists, whether they be farmers or farmworkers.
I think that I must declare my own particular interest in this field. I am still the Chairman of the Agricultural Apprenticeships Council, a kind of night-watchman over the remaining apprentices who are finishing their three years. Of course, future work will be done by the Agricultural Training Board. There is a problem which has arisen recently which I want to mention. The importance of training in agriculture is, as I have indicated, supreme and the people we are turning out will be quite an advantage to the industry. The boards are training them to provide a work capacity and a knowledge of the industry which is rapidly acquired and which meets the need for rapid expansion. It is an advantage both to farmers and farmworkers in the sense that after certification the trainee becomes a craftsman and he gets a plus rate of at least 10 per cent. of the agricultural minimum rate. But there are still many agricultural workers who, though craftsmen, are not certificated. The youngsters who will go through the training boards or who went through the agricultural apprenticeship scheme pass proficiency tests in their particular field of work at the end of their period of three years and gain a certificate. This entitles them under the Agricultural Wages Act to the increase, the plus rate, that I have mentioned.
344
I and others who felt with me in this matter on both sides of the industry have worked very hard to achieve for agriculture a wages structure. I believe it was important for the industry to have that dignity attached to it: that it was not just a fiat rate; that agricultural workers were not common labourers. The fact that there is a training board with apprenticeships and certificates, the fact that there is a wages structure, a ladder up which they can climb, gives the industry added dignity, brings it into line with modern ideas and gives it the status it ought to occupy beside the other great industries of this country. So the craftsmen, the people who are trained, automatically get a certificate and automatically get the 10 per cent. plus rate. The tests are given by an independent board and of course they cost money. They cost about £5 per test. The average craftsman has to take from three to five tests. The training board, in these circumstances, find £4·50 of the cost. If there are five tests, the total costs is £25 so there remains only 50p per test to find, sometimes by the farmworker but, I think, perhaps more often, by the employer.
It is understood that this is an advantage to the industry, but what was not so clearly understood (although we foresaw this when we were pressing for the establishment of a training board and a wage structure) is that there would be many workers in industry, the older men, who had acquired these skills and craftsmanship the hard way but who would have no certificate at all, and arrangements had to be made, in simple equity, to see to it that they qualified for the plus rates that were going. So it was agreed that the employers could supply them with certificates, and many farmers have done so. We expected that at least about 60 per cent. of the agricultural workers would qualify as craftsmen. That would include not only the youngsters but also those already in the industry. But, in the event, the number fell far short of our expectations.
I noticed in the issue of March 31 of the British Farmer and Stockbreeder that mention is made of this fact. In a short article headed "Where are you, you craftsmen?" it states:
"Why has the wages structure scheme made such slow progress? Both the N.F.U. and the N.U.A.A.W. would like to know. In the ten

345
months since it came into full operation (after a 14 months trial run) just over one-fifth of regular full-time workers have registered as craftsmen—about 34,000 out of 158,000. This is believed"—
and I am sure it is right—
"to be a third only of those who could qualify. Yet both employers and employees gain from craftsmen being seen as such. On the one side, it gets the industry away from the minimum wages image, demonstrates that agriculture is a worthwhile career, and helps to attract recruits of good calibre. On the other side, a registered craftsman can be sure of overtime"—
actually it is plus time—
"at 10 per cent. above the minimum; also he has a saleable qualification and a status."
The article goes on to say:
"Quite clearly what is happening is that neither workers nor their employers are bothering—or at least this is so in some counties. Counties like Wiltshire, Norfolk, Dorset and Lincolnshire have about 40 per cent. registrations, while Cumberland and Westmorland, the West Riding, and Surrey have under 10 per cent. The figure for Lancashire is 5 per cent. (160 men out of about 4,000). No single Welsh county exceeds 10 per cent.; in the whole of the Principality some 350 workers have registered out of 6,000. Why these discrepancies?"
In this issue both sides of the industry are at one, and one wonders why this has happened. I think it possible that the farm worker who is getting the plus rate and maybe more, and the farmer who is paying it, do not see the need to issue a certificate and so the worker does not go on the register. There is a need. Again the dignity of the industry is involved. We should know how many craftsmen we have. From the point of view of the craftsman it is important that he should have a certificate. I know there is a loyalty between farmer and worker which is very great, and sometimes farmworkers have a lifelong employment with one farmer. But some move about the country and it is right that they should do so, if they consider they may get a better job elsewhere. That is good for the industry. But when a worker moves he has no proof that he is of craftsman status unless he can produce a certificate, or unless his old employer writes a letter, or he can convince his new employer that he has the necessary skill. So here there is something wrong, and that is why I am talking about it.
There is another thing which may happen, and we know that it can happen. An employer may be unwilling to give a
346
worker a certificate, it may be because he is keeping the worker on the minimum rate of pay when the worker should be receiving more. The worker says, "I think I am entitled to a certificate and the plus rate; please will you give it to me?" If the employer says, "No", what can the worker do? He has no remedy unless he has passed the proficiency test. I did not know this until yesterday when it came to my notice at a meeting of the Apprenticeship Council; but the queer thing and, I think, the wrong thing about the situation is that if a worker wants to take a test to prove his efficiency he has to pay for it unless his employer pays. An employer who is unwilling to offer a certificate clearly is not willing to pay for a test and the worker may be involved in expense amounting to between £15 and £25 to prove that he is a craftsman. I cannot think that that is right.
There is another spin-off from all this. The proficiency test committee expected a much larger number of applications to take the tests because of the arrangements made to enable older farm workers to qualify and to go on the register, but instead of there being 60 per cent. (many people think the percentage should be higher and farmers have suggested 90 per cent., or 95 per cent.) the average is 20 per cent. And because the throughput is so low, the Proficiency Board is in the red and in trouble. These matters need looking at. I apologise to the Minister who is to reply for unloading these things on him at this late hour. I would certainly have given him notice had I had time to do so, and again I plead my own circumstances. I shall not be upset if I do not get any comment or answer from the Minister this evening, but I should like the matter to be looked at.
My Lords, there is one great danger to the future of agriculture, particularly now that we are in the Common Market. It is caused by the continuing decline in the number of farm workers. I have seen this happening over the years. The reason, of course, is the low wages paid in the industry. Something has to be done about that. I was extremely sorry and distressed that the last award given, which was a relatively high one, had to be frozen. Farm workers feel strongly about this because they have suffered from such bad conditions in the past. The average earnings of farm workers are about 70 per

347
cent. of those of industrial workers, and that cannot be right. I have worked in the industry and I know the skills involved and I am connected with the training scheme. I know the type of tests which have to be taken, and they require a high degree of skill, often more skill than would be necessary in a comparable grade in industry. We have to get away from the old situation where some workers are able to bring industrial pressure to bear to get wage increases and others cannot, or do not want to.
My Lords, do not be cynical about the farm worker or the nurse. People often think you are talking nonsense when you say that a nurse does not want to go on strike because if she does, patients may die. Farm workers do not want to strike because they know that if they do animals would suffer, and so they shrug their shoulders and say that they cannot do it. I have heard farm workers say at conferences that they did not want to strike. But they have been goaded into a situation where they are very near to striking, and equity has to come into the picture when one is determining what workers should get in terms of wages, instead of workers being successful where brute force is available and is used, and unsuccessful and being left behind where it is not used. I feel strongly about this.
My Lords, I cannot leave this subject without making reference to the organisations in agriculture. I can speak without being accused of immodesty about the efficiency of the National Farmers' Union, with whom I have dealt for years in the past. I am impressed by what they do. I may be considered immodest if I say the same about the Agricultural and Allied Workers' Union. Both these unions are highly representative and highly responsible. They need more money, but that is a problem they will have to solve themselves. But, looking at them as representatives of their section of industry, they do a magnificent job. Of course, this has to run on into the future, and even more so in these times. When discussions take place about agricultural policy the National Farmers' Union inevitably is deeply involved. I want to see the workers involved more and more in discussions which go to the root of agricultural matters, and I hope this will take place. I am a great believer
348
in tripartite discussions. I have spent many years on the International Labour Organisation, which is a tripartite body. I believe that consultation is essential in any industry, and I could talk a great deal about that, having spent three and a half years on the Donovan Royal Commission. I hope that we shall see, particularly in agriculture, some machinery whereby the two sides of the industry, the farmers and the workers, and the Government can sit down together on equal terms, discussing the future of their industry and its importance to the country.
6.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Collison, has said on the subject of agricultural wages. Several noble Lords have referred to this, and I do not need to emphasise it any more. I must admit I was slightly surprised when, during the speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I pointed out to him the good news of the fall in beef from between 30 to 20 per cent. he said it should be left to a humble Back-Bencher to make this point. How odd that a Minister of the Crown should not be thrilled by this piece of news! However, my Lords, I am not going to talk about beef or grain. I am going to talk about a smaller and much more specialised subject; that is, about rabbits and pigeons. Unfortunately, both these pests are protected by the most powerful weapon in the English armoury, that of sentimentality. Rabbits have sweet faces and were written about by Beatrix Potter. Pigeons have connotations with Welshmen, and the late Sir Noel Coward sang about the "billing and cooing" in Las Vegas, I believe. As a child,
"Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief",
was what pigeons were supposed to say.
However, my Lords, after those slightly flippant throwaway lines, these two pests are a menace. They are probably the worst pests that we in agriculture have to tolerate. First, I will deal with rabbits. In 1953 myxomatosis killed 99 per cent. of the then rabbit population with a grade 1 myxoma virus. Now the virus, where it has come back, is returning at grade 3 level, which kills only approximately 60 to 65 per cent. of the rabbit population, leaving the remainder

349
immune and to a certain extent passing on their immunity to their young; and this immunity is growing. This grading system, as your Lordships may know, goes from 1 to 5. The grade 5 myxoma virus kills well less than 50 per cent. It is at the moment dealing only with about 0.4 per cent. of the myxomatosis population in this country, and it then takes much longer to show. This grading system was produced to show the kill percentage and the case mortality ratio. I have with me the paper which was produced by Mr. Ross of the Agriculture Ministry Pests Infiltration Control Laboratory at Pirbright. Noble Lords may care to see it—I am sure my noble friend Lord Ferrers has lots of copies of it.
This immunity is increasing, and now that there are no warreners and far fewer agricultural workers on the land than there were in 1953, this increase of rabbits (and let us hope that it does not get from the infestation rate of 47 per cent. to what it was in 1953) will be very difficult to control. Therefore, what I am asking the Minister to do is to consider removing this anomaly that you may not introduce the grade 1 myxomatosis, like they do in Australia, or that you may not introduce myxomatosis on to your land at all. However, it is also an offence to harbour rabbits. I have a feeling that not only is the weapon of English sentimentality powerful, but the weapon of English sentimentality when allied with hypocrisy is almost unbeatable. The noble Earl will almost certainly suggest that I go and shoot my rabbits. I like shooting my rabbits, and the most efficient method of doing it is to shoot them at night. I go up a ladder. However, one's neighbours are inclined to complain and think that the I.R.A. are in the back garden. I have now done with rabbits.
Now to pigeons. There is this strong drug called Alpha Cloralose. The Minister knows about it, and I am sure he will produce a good answer why I cannot do, or he will not do, what I am going to suggest. It is allowed to be used under controlled conditions at the moment on sparrows and ferral pigeons, which are the ones to be seen in Trafalgar Square. It is not allowed to be used on wood pigeons. What it does is to narcoticise them (a horrible word), which means that it makes them go to sleep. Therefore, if
350
any other bird, except corbies or prey-eating birds, were to eat this drug, provided the bait is being watched and picked up these birds may be allowed to recover and fly away. You then have to wring the necks of the sparrows or pigeons. But because there have not been big flocks of pigeons since 1963—and this is probably due to the fact that there have been no cold weather spells, and they have not come down from Lord Hoy's part of the world where they sit happily eating beech nuts—please, may we have from the Ministry, under controlled conditions—and I emphasise that—the introduction of myxomatosis and the use of Alpha Cloralose or similar narcoticisers to reduce these pests? If their numbers again reach high proportions, much of the productivity in agriculture will be slowed down. There is, as we all know, a food shortage, and the food shortage has, as we all know, up to Christmas, pushed prices up much too high. That is all I have to say, and I will leave the rest of the time to other more serious subjects.
6.39 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the two noble Lords who opened the debate on a most interesting afternoon and evening—I hope it is not night as well. I should like also to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, who for his maiden speech chose a subject which is unfamiliar to most of us and spoke with the greatest confidence and the art of an old hand who has had practical experience.
I am going to be only a very short time, but I want to call attention to one aspect of present day agriculture which has not been mentioned up to now, and that is the problems of heavy stocking which are becoming very real and which are going to make the problems of avoiding and eliminating contageous diseases very big indeed. I do not know if any of you listened, as I did on Saturday morning at 6.30, to the agricultural programme. It was a very interesting one. It came round inevitably at this time to brucellosis and what was holding things back—the lack of veterinary surgeons; what was causing the lack of veterinary surgeons—the attractions of private practice rather than Government service; what was causing them to avoid Government service—the lack of an adequate

351
salary. My Lords, we have to learn that we cannot do what we are wanting to do on a shoestring. It is bound to cost money and the longer we postpone the elimination the more money it is going to cost.
One other thing: if you tell even a Highlander, let alone a Lowlander, that he is going to get full compensation and up to £280, whereas if he becomes accredited he is only allowed 75 per cent. of the market value and a maximum of £160, which would he choose? Those up in Caithness have no doubt that they backed the wrong horse when they tried to carry out the wishes of the Government and unfortunately had very heavy expenditure in the process. Now they find that they would have been far better off if they had given up the scheme which the Government were persuading them to undertake and taken the full market value and the maximum of £280 which they were offered if they chose to spurn the Government's offer. It is a tragedy that mistakes like that should cause so much distress to most honourable people, and that they should be done out of the money they would have received if they had followed their natural bent. It is important, my Lords, to take this business seriously. We have to see that those who are working to follow the Government's wishes are given their proper reward. Then we shall find that the scheme moves smoothly along to a great success and we shall be rid of the disease which has caused so much loss to farmers.
6.42 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I would like to support both points of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, especially with regard to the veterinary profession and their being attracted into the State service. There is no doubt that it is difficult to get the young veterinary graduates into the State service because the opportunities and the rewards in private practice are so very much greater. The second point is that we farmers owe a great deal to the noble Lord for his persistence on this matter of brucellosis. We cannot get away from the suspicion that the Government, of whatever party, could have been more vigorous over the elimination of this disease. When you try to eliminate a disease you should go all out at once. That is the lesson which
352
other countries have learned. It has been successful there and it worked very well when, somewhat belatedly, the Ministry of Agriculture did it with swine fever. That was done under the auspices of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, on his remarks. It is with my tongue in my cheek that I say that it is more than seven years since I handed over all my land to my son.
The capital grants altercation between the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is intriguing to me. As I understand it from the annual review, the increased expenditure on capital grants has been fairly considerable and therefore the grant at 30 per cent. has, in a way, been over-subscribed, to the detriment of the taxpayer; and possibly at 20 per cent. it will still be the case that more will be handed out to the farmer than was handed out, shall we say, in 1971. I think the 20 per cent. is still quite a good incentive and I would remind your Lordships who are interested in this that many of the other capital grants have not been changed. I think we should acknowledge this, though I would not expect the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, to draw our attention to it. In the field of arterial drainage the grant remains at 60 per cent.; for remodelling on amalgamations it remains at 50 per cent.; for the facilities for hill land at 50 per cent.; hill drainage is 70 per cent. and horticulture gets 40 per cent. of capital grant.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord but if he looks back to the record he will find that in the days when I was Minister it was I who promoted these very substantial increases. I am never one of those who want to draw other folks' attention to their own achievement!
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has intervened in that way—he has taken the words out of my mouth.
My Lords, my chief interest in this debate is on the price of meat, and especially of beet. I think that any increase can hardly be attributed at all to the fact that we have gone into the Common Market. The higher standard of living in Germany and France has put the price of meat over there considerably

353
higher than it is in this country. Admittedly, a rise of our meat prices was anticipated on entry to the Common Market, but it was to be phased gradually over five years. In fact, it has happened all at once, and I submit not for reasons connected with our entry into the Common Market. The reason is of course, as several noble Lords have mentioned already, the age-old reason for an agricultural deficiency in production: a world shortage; and at the present time it is a world shortage which is completely and absolutely beyond our control. The trouble, or, rather, the tragedy, is that the evidence for this world shortage has been there for us to see and take note of and react to. That no action, or very little, was taken by Governments in the 'sixties I attribute in no small measure to the economists who advised those Governments, especially I think during the latter part of the 'sixties.
The urban economist, who is without a background of country and farming things, can make the most egregious mistakes. As a rule, he is unable to face up to the long-term outlook required in dealing with farm production, and on the rare occasions where he shows some comprehension of this he invariably is ignorant of the human and psychological factors in attempting to control production and adjusting it to anticipated demand. It is not only the urban economist of whom we must beware; so far as agriculture is concerned, we must be very wary of the urban administrator. He can make even bigger mistakes, and when the two of them get together they can create disaster, much to the dismay of the urban politician Minister who, by and large, whatever his Party, is usually friendly and considerate to agriculture.
There is a clear example of this urban prejudice which has appeared during the past week in a publication issued by a body called The Open Seas Forum. I welcome the statement by the Ministry of Agriculture that the report of The Open Seas Forum does not tie up with the facts; and that indeed is an understatement. The present world shortage of beef has been evidenced for several years. I myself heard it predicted over ten years ago by an American agricultural economist, who incidentally is now the Secretary of Agriculture in the U.S.D.A. At the time when it became evident that the
354
world market of beef was becoming dominated by the United States in the place of the United Kingdom I learnt that the beef imports to the U.S.A. amounted to 5 per cent, of all the beef and the veal eaten in the U.S.A. To-day the amount of beef imported to the U.S.A. is nearly double that of 10 years ago. The figure for imported beef is now over 9 per cent. of all beef consumed in the U.S.A., and not 5 per cent. as stated in another place yesterday. I believe the demand for beef is still strong in spite of higher prices, and that still more beef is being imported. Indeed, the latest figures which I have heard of, but have not been able to confirm, are of a 20 per cent. increase in beef imports during the past year. This is a quite astonishing change from not so long ago when the United States were not only self-sufficient but also, in some years, exporting a very appreciable amount, to the detriment of our farmers in this country.
By very good fortune, in 1970 there happened to be a major change in our agricultural policy which was linked with the prospect of our entering the Common Market. This policy was based on the fact that an expanded farm production meant that less would have to be imported and therefore the lower would be our cost of entry to the Common Market. Gradually and slowly it dawned on the British farmer that this, combined with access to the European markets for our livestock products, would mean a much more rosy outlook. And so, stimulated by the very substantial grant for farm buildings and improvements, the farmer gained confidence and expansion was in the air. Had it not been for this, the price of meat to-day would have been considerably higher than it is. True, the good harvests of 1971 and 1972 have contributed greatly to this feeling of confidence, and the more so as they have coincided with bad harvests in other parts of the world.
The price of beef is conditioned by the price of other meats. The current shortage of pig meat has a variety of causes: strikes in Denmark, swine vesicular disease in this country. Luckily, the efficiency of our pig farmers has improved out of all recognition, and here again we can say that, but for this efficiency, the price of beef would be yet higher. Likewise, our sheep production has expanded,

355
largely due to the hill sheep subsidies and also to the potentiality of the market on the Continent. Long term it is clear to me that a substantial increase in pig numbers will alleviate the beef prices which will come down a bit, but it will probably be 1976 or 1977 before our national cattle herd is beginning to match our requirements or the opportunities opening for us in Europe.
In the meantime, for short-term increased production I would ask the Minister what the present situation is concerning bull beef and boar pork. I know that a lot of research work has been done on this; the results are very promising indeed but there are some legislative provisions or regulations which make it unattractive to our farmers at a time when our housewives may be buying, and certainly the housewives on the Continent are buying, both bull beef and boar pork, imported largely, I think, from Poland. But I understand that the other countries in the E.E.C. are also moving in that direction. I will say, for those who are not aware of it, that the meat from the entire male, of the modern breeds slaughtered at a reasonably early age—not too early—is entirely without taint but, far more important, it produces far more meat per pound of live weight gain, and that is very considerable
Finally, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, I should like to say a word about the farm worker. On paper he has always been underpaid, and in fact on a properly run farm I rather doubt whether you could ever get (and certainly not in my part of Scotland) reliable farm workers at anything less than 50 per cent. over the minimum wage. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord pointed out, in relation to industry the farm worker is underpaid, and I think the minimum should be increased, if only as an incentive to make the good farmer pay his good men more. Therefore, I should like to know that it will not be long before the freeze introduced on January 22 last on to the wages award of a 20 per cent. increase can be taken off and that the farmworker can receive what he so richly deserves. I should like to thank your Lordships for your patience in listening to these rambling remarks.
7.2 p.m.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like also to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, on his excellent Maiden Speech. I am sure the noble Lord will not be sent the same type of press cutting as I received after my Maiden Speech. It was from the Daily Record, a paper that I do not myself read. It said,
"I think most people would agree that the Duke's Maiden Speech hardly achieved the significance of a Parliamentary landmark. All that can be said in its favour is that it strengthens the case for the abolition of hereditary titles."
While I do not think we should necessarily be very worried about what the Daily Record says, nevertheless I feel I must apologise to all hereditary noble Lords for endangering our position, and I hope that what follows now will do more good than harm.
The farming industry has earned its right to some reasonable prosperity on four points. First, by the vigour it has shown in welcoming the challenge of Europe. Second, by the technological lead which it has over all European farming. Third, by the patience and tolerance shown during the long period of costly inflation, during which time the farmers' prices were held down by Government price reviews. Fourth, by having had the courage—and, I must also add, some incentives—to invest heavily in the industry. During the war and in the post-war period we saw the farming industry producing what the country needed, regardless of cost. Then we had the period from 1955 to 1968, approximately, when the industry produced more efficiently and more competitively. Incidentally, it was during this period that I myself started farming. It took me quite a long time to get my farming reasonably efficient. From 1958 to 1971 we had the difficult period of world surpluses, two difficult harvests and the cost price squeeze. To-day, I am sure all would agree that on the whole the agricultural industry is in a buoyant and healthy state. By the end of 1972 the beef herd was up by nine per cent. compared with 1971, the dairy herd by four per cent., young cattle by six per cent., sheep flock by five per cent., breeding ewes by about twelve per cent. and sow numbers by three per cent. With the massive depletion of the grain reserves

357
of America and Australia and with the ever-increasing requirements of Russia and China, the outlook for cereal producers must be favourable. The credit must go first to the Government for giving the incentives, and second to the industry as a whole, which has seized the opportunities firmly.
I believe that another reason for the success story in British agriculture is the strong family ties and continuity with which our agricultural system has been fortunate enough to be endowed. This has meant that the farming families have staked their money and their future, knowing that they were building up an enterprise that could be carried on by future generations, either in the case of a tenant or as an owner-occupier. Before saying anything else I should like to pay my tribute to the British agricultural worker. Without his labours the productivity that I have mentioned could never have been achieved. The British agricultural worker is an example to all: hardworking, efficient and, above all, loyal. He shows endless goodwill and determination to carry out his job in all sorts of trying conditions; indeed the spirit of the agricultural workers' endeavours shines like a beacon during these dark days of industrial troubles, and like many other noble Lords I entirely agree that they deserve a better reward.
Because of our taxation system and the high capital requirements for farming, the main problem to-day and in the future, as I see it, will not be just the profitability of the industry but the liquidity position. At the moment there is not enough money in the industry for the financing of expansion, or even for financing the current turnover, which must be up approximately 25 per cent. since we joined the European community. To give your Lordships a few figures: the net income of the industry is about £700 million; depreciation, £400 million, giving a total of £1,100 million cash reserves. Going out of the industry is £2,000 a year for 300,000 farmers, making £600 million; working capital requirement is £400 million, giving a total of £1,000 million. This means that there is only £100 million left for reinvesting in the expansion of an industry whose assets can be put at approximately £15,000 million. Or, to express it in percentages, 0·5 per cent. of total assets.
358
Most industries reinvest anything up to 10 per cent. of total assets. To-day in The Times, the Chairman of I.C.I., in presenting that company's figures, said that their capital expenditure for the coming year would be about £150 million against assets of £1,770 million, which is approximately 7 per cent. of their total assets.
With the balance of payments problem facing us, while expansion gets under way it is more important than ever that we expand our home agricultural production so as to lessen the foreign import Bill. As I have already said, this can be done only with more money coming into the industry. Where will it come from? That is what I should like to ask the Government. As far as I can see, it can be done only in two ways. First, by giving farmers the opportunity to reinvest some profits before taxation, as the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, suggested; or, second, by providing subsidised credit of one form or another such as is available in all European countries except the Netherlands. The German farmer, for instance, can get a subsidy of up to 5 per cent. against his loan from a bank, so that if the bank rate is 8 per cent. he would be paying only 3 per cent. on the loan. Again I think the other suggestion put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is a suitable one. At the moment the British farmer is probably the most capitalised per acre in Europe and definitely the most efficient. It is very important that we do not reverse that position. It has been made possible partly because the farming community has had important concessions with a low rate of death duties, but I think that the results have been amply justified. Nevertheless, these agricultural rates have been abused and I believe that legislation should be introduced to prevent death bed purchases because they do a disservice to the farming community.
At the moment we are contributing vast sums of money for the reorganisation of the farming structure in Europe so that they can enlarge their units and compete more favourably with those in the United Kingdom, which are approximately four to five times larger. But at the same time our current taxation system is dedicated, because of the death duties and the high taxation, to breaking down those large units. The effect of high taxation and death duties having to be found

359
from land assets can be to break up an efficient holding and could easily mean that buildings, and hence the capital that was invested, would not be fully utilised or, additionally, that the farm was under-stocked. What is the point of giving capital grants for buildings, et cetera, and then to take those monies back from a forced sale, leaving an uneconomic and under-capitalised unit?
I believe that it is very important to find some fair solution to this problem so that the country can benefit by adopting a taxation or financing system that will help the industry in the years ahead to continue to move forward. Only by doing that shall we maintain our lead over Europe. The farmers have shown their faith in the industry by their productivity, by their relations with labour, and by their sense of purpose. These together provide a solid foundation for a successful investment. Therefore I say to the Government, "Loan them the cash, or give them some taxation incentives so that they can expand and develop their various farming enterprises". British farmers are by no means lame ducks but the past has shown that it is surely better to invest in facts, figures and results rather than fantasies.
7.13 p.m.
THE VISCOUNT OF ARBUTHNOTT: My Lords, I should like to start as others have done by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for introducing this subject which, as we have heard, we have not discussed for so long in this House. I should like also to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, on his maiden speech. He said so many things that needed to be said, he said them so well, and I congratulate him for it.
I do not want to detain your Lordships very long, although having said that I do not want to diminish the importance of the subject on which I am about to address your Lordships, which is simply the immediate and long-term future of our uplands. In my opinion we have not heard enough about that very large sector of our agricultural land. I say "large" because certainly in terms of area something like 75 per cent. or more of our land is upland or hill land. In
360
Scotland alone, four-fifths of our agricultural production is linked in some way to livestock and a very large proportion of that livestock starts off in the hills. Ninety per cent. of the breeding sheep in Scotland are linked with hill or upland subsidies. They come from the hills. In the United Kingdom over 50 per cent. of the beef cows are tract hill or upland subsidies. That alone indicates the importance of this sector of our agricultural industry.
There is no doubt that the income of the farmers in the hills and uplands has improved, and everybody is very glad of that. Some cynics have been heard to say that some hill farmers have been known to smile recently. But that is a cynical remark. One has to remember just how far from off the floor the hill farmers' and upland farmers' prices had to come. They are now beginning to reach sensible figures. But do not let us forget either that these prices are still not end-product prices; they are dependent on somebody else paying for a store lamb or a store beef animal and taking it on to fatten elsewhere. What we have probably forgotten—whatever the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, may think about them—is that a very great deal of the income that has been attracted to the hills has gone there in the form of subsidies.
When we entered into the original Common Market negotiations, everyone who has a concern for the uplands was glad to hear the Government say that they had been able to negotiate terms which would enable them to maintain the income of hill farmers, and I hope that that will be so. Just now Directives are being negotiated in Brussels in which the British negotiating teams have had a real contributory part to play. The one I am particularly concerned with, of course, is the Directive for assistance to mountain areas. I should like to pay tribute to all the representative organisations of all land users and to the Ministry and Department officials for the way the drafts of these Directives appear to be coming out, which is in the way that upland and hill farmers would like to see them end up. But that will not be the end of the story and I hope that, when the political in-fighting comes along, as it will inevitably, we shall have as good a battle fought on our behalf by the political fighters as has been fought

361
already by the negotiators for the representative organisations and the departmental and Ministry officials.
There are of course two points in that Directive which still concern many people in the uplands. One is the ability of our upland farmers to qualify for the development plan and the benefits that accrue to them; and the other is whether those farms that will not receive the development plan benefits will have a grant that is high enough to be a real incentive. The uplands, rs I have already intimated, owe much of their success, if it is to be success, to their interdependence with lowland farms. There must be room for help towards building up that interdependence. A great deal has been said about capital grants, and as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, suggested, those who farm in the uplands are thankful that there has been no cutback in their capital grants. But if a cut-back occurs for a building that might otherwise have been put up in the low ground farms to fatten stock that had been produced in the hills, thereby diminishing the market for that hill stock, that will affect the hill farmer. You cannot separate one part of agriculture from another in this way. A cut in a capital grant to agriculture is a cut in the grant to all farmers, if you look at it realistically.
The more fortunate hill and upland farmers with the larger farms with a degree of improvable land are probably on a much better platform for advance that ever before. But again I think we tend to forget that these more fortunate people represent only a part of our upland and mountain area problems. Something like 25 per cent. of our agricultural production from the hills and uplands comes from the very small farms. We tend to forget, too, that most of these small farms, whether they are in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, in the Welsh Valleys, or in the uplands valleys of Yorkshire or the West Country, have probably never been entirely dependent on agriculture for an income. There has always been some ancillary income available. It might have been knitting or weaving in the Highlands and Islands, or fishing, or mining, or some other form of off-farm industrial activity which helped make the difference in the family budget and which often produced the capital that went into the farm. These
362
small farms are the places where the people live in the hills, where the people who are wedded to the hills are to be found, the people who create the environment that most of us want to see main-tattled in the hill areas.
How are we to help them in agricultural terms? I am quite certain that the general prosperity of hill farming in the upland areas must be maintained, and through that their basic income must always be found. But I think that the agricultural establishment, and the advisory services backed by the agricultural establishment, have been too slow in the past to give what I should like to call the whole-farm approach to their advice and to their economic studies for the benefit of the smaller farmer. I should like to see far more done to help him find ways and means of bringing up to date the ancillary income-producing capability. We talk a lot about tourism and recreation of all types in the hills; we talk a lot about craft industries and so on, but not much is done by the agricultural establishment to help the small farmer to benefit from what should be available. I think a great deal was about to be done by the North Pennines Rural Development Board. Many of the studies they were just getting under way were going to help a great deal towards this problem. I am not alone in thinking that it was a great shame that this Board was obliterated.
I do not take quite such a sour view of forestry in the upland areas as perhaps the noble Baroness does. I think that forestry can provide the type of off-farm industry and income that will help in the upland areas. But I come back to this. What are we aiming for in our hills and uplands? We are aiming, of course, for a basis of sound agriculture, on which the foundation for the prosperity of the people must lie. But the difference to the smaller farmer, to the crofter, to the hill farmer in Wales, will, I think, in future increasingly come from his ability to bolster his income with ancillary activities, and it is to that that I should like to see the Government, any future Government, and the agricultural establishment turn their minds more seriously.
7.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I must start with an apology. I listened to the first seven speakers and then left

363
to be present at a longstanding fixture, and only arrived just in time to hear the latter part of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Arbuthnott. I therefore am unable to follow up what I think would have interested me very _greatly, his remarks on upland farms. I am a farmer and one of my farms is upland. I have had two professions, the profession of arms, followed by the profession of farms, and in both of those professions there is a common factor, namely, that we do not strike. To strike in the Army is mutiny. To go slow is an offence against Section 40 (I think) of the Army Act. And on farms if you go on strike it is virtually suicide. For our farm labourers it would be just possible to strike, but they do not. Therefore, I want to start by making a plea for the farm labour section of the community If I may go back just a little, I have frequently welcomed in this House the change for the better in our fortunes owing to the 1947 Act introduced by the Labour Party. That was the charter of revival in the farming industry in this country, and it may be the fifth or sixth time that I have said so. I am always grateful for that change in our fortunes. It was the aim, I think, of the Agriculture Act of 1947, although it is not actually said, to bring the agricultural community up to a standard of welfare comparable to that in industry.
Now I must turn to Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome, and that, I think, has exactly the same objective—although it does not exactly say so—to bring people up to the level of the rest of the community. That is the charter for everybody in Europe. It includes even Italy, which I think objected to the recent price levels presumably because Italy is dominated by the industrial North and has once again forgotten the rural poverty of its South. We are forgetting poverty on our doorstep if, by denying them a proper price, we do not acknowledge the necessity for agricultural communities to receive in full what is their proper remuneration for the essential, if ever there was, production of this life.
There are ways of achieving this proper price, and I hope it is common ground between both leading Parties in this House and this country that we seek an adequate remuneration for the agricul-
364
tural community. I have read, I think partly from proceedings in another place, of a strong move that the representatives of the present Government should exercise a veto on the rise of prices advocated by the European Community. I have heard from these Cross-Benches an argument from the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, who is not present at this moment, criticising most strongly the Common Agricultural Policy. For myself, I would urge in the strongest possible terms that Her Majesty's Government do not authorise their representatives to veto these rises of prices, because all people want a proper remuneration for the producers and it is only the manner in which it is achieved that they are divided about.
Surely we, as neophytes in the European Community, would be more likely to destroy it and our prospects if we vetoed a rise in prices at this stage. If we favour a different system, surely it is our function and our vocation to work for it inside the Community and seek agreement between our neighbours. We should not enter on a head-on collision course over what, under Article 39, is vital to them and to sections of our community, without attempting to negotiate what we think is a better system. Therefore, I hope that that effort to exercise a veto will be utterly and totally resisted as entirely inopportune. Only after we have exhausted every possible device of negotiation should that be the resort that we come to, because if we do it we may break up the Common Market—in any case, we shall break up our relations with it—as they value it highly.
Moreover, we have a neighbour across the Irish Sea. Surely, we should do something to, one might say, atone for the past or, if your Lordships do not wish to go over history, to establish a liaison with Ireland on the basis of raising their impoverished agricultural community to the level of our industrial community over here. I have often felt a lack of sympathy for trying to unite Northern Ireland with Southern Ireland. I cannot say, however, how often I regret the partition which divided the United Kingdom from Southern Ireland, and I feel that a redevelopment of our negotiations on the basis of better returns for agriculture would be advantageous to Southern Ireland, would be advantageous

365
to us and would tend to produce those conditions of welfare which eliminate the kind of subversion with which we are confronted all through that country.
I return now to what I intended to say at the beginning about the agricultural labourer of this country. The agricultural workmen have had agreed the largest rise that I think they have ever had in any one year. Nevertheless, even that rise leaves them short of the average remuneration of the rest of the community. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Walston, was quite right in saying that they are 50 per cent. below. Even on his figures, starting with 100 and making others 150, I make them one-third below and not one-half.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? What I was suggesting—I hope I said it—was that they need a rise of 50 per cent. in order to get level. If my mathematics are correct, I think that is the same as saying that there is a difference of one-third at the present time. So our figures are the same.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I was never very good at mathematics, but I think that the noble Lord is in agreement with me. I see the difference as one-third, and from one aspect it is one-third. From his point of view, it is one-half, but I am not sure. Before I came into this Chamber to-day, I assumed from such information as was available to me that in the matter of earnings they were about 25 per cent. below the rest of the community. Am I not correct in saying that agricultural productivity is something like double the average of the rest of the community, and, if it is, why should that increase, large though it is—bearing in mind that it still would not bring them up to the rest of the community—not be retrospective to the date on which it was approved in January? I think that this was a rather mean and stingy act, and perhaps Her Majesty's Government would reconsider their decision, and by mid-summer arrange that some bonus be paid to the agricultural workmen, so that they are restored to what is surely in accordance with the norms set forth for controlling inflation, with which I am totally in agreement. We must destroy inflation. On the other hand, there is
366
the question of raising the income of the agricultural community so that it equals that of others. To call that "inflation" is a misnomer; it is a misjudgment and an application of a smear term in the wrong sense.
In conclusion, I suggest that we refrain from anything in the nature of a veto of a price rise which brings to agricultural communities the return which is unquestionably due to them. If we do not like the method adopted let us negotiate on it a little later. With regard to our own agricultural workmen, I would ask the Government whether, for reasons of justice and good argument, it is possible, having regard to the circumstances and bearing in mind that they can hardly strike—and nobody wishes to provoke them to strike—and many of them do not belong to a union to award them their title to this wage increase from January 1, instead of from April I. That is what I should like to suggest.
7.38 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I come at the end of a very long menu as, I hope, a very small cup of coffee and I hope that it will be sweet and short to drink. I must first congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, one of whom was a farmer on a big scale before the war—I have known him for a very long time—and I think he still is, so he knows something about farming. I must declare the fact that for a long time, I myself was a fairly large-scale farmer. I must also declare that I hold a view which all proper farmers hold, that I was always right and the Government were always wrong. You cannot farm in any other way than by holding that view, because in farming you must make decisions and make them quickly. Very often, you find that your decisions are wrong and that it rains, or does something else. Then you have to keep your spirits up by saying, "I shall be right next time. In fact, I am always right." You must have confidence. As I was saying, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, and I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, on what I thought was a very nice maiden speech. I have not read Hansard for some time. I think we have had the Battle of Oudenaarde to-day; we have got as far

367
as that. The campaign is going forward with great success.
To start on my speech proper, I have absolutely no doubt that this is the most important agricultural debate in this century. Towards the end of the last century, there was rather a mess with the big and little loaf, and various things like that, but suddenly in this century the whole picture became crystal clear. There was a considerable inflow of excellent produce at a reasonable price from our Colonies, from places such as New Zealand, as well as from places such as Denmark. The Government had to adjust our own agriculture so that they would not interfere with the material coming in. The way it was done was that when they found that there was a shortage of, say, milk—perhaps because of a war, or for some reason like that—they subsidised dairy farming. Then, when there was a surplus in dairy farming, they would find that there might be a shortage of pigs, and they would then subsidise them. So it went backwards and forwards all through my farming life and all through the major part of this century, trying to subsidise agriculture in such a way that we could produce a good end product which would be cheap. The idea behind it, although nobody would ever admit it, was that we faced up in our hearts to low wages. We faced tip to the fact that low wage-earners must not starve. That was at the back of everybody's mind—not just towards the end, because it got lost in the end; but that was the basic idea all through the century.
My Lords, why this is important is because this has now come to an end. We are in the Common Market, and we cannot have cheap food any more. So we must look to the future and to the fact that our food is going to be very expensive indeed. What is more, with the very large amount of money that we are paying to start up in business as farmers our friends across the pond or the stream, we shall be short of cash to dish out. We shall be, without going into figures. We have to realise that the end of cheap food is here. It is in this House now. It has come to an end; it is finished.
To look back on the past for the last time—we need never worry about it again; it has gone—I must say that it was a very inconvenient policy on the part of
368
the Government to subsidise one thing and then to change over to another. Suppose, as I had, you had been told you had to produce milk. When I came out of the Army I was told to produce milk—and so people concentrated on it. You got your herds coming up and up, you got your herds free from contageous abortion and from brucellosis, you got them up to a high butter fat and you got them up to a high gallonage. You got all that, and then suddenly you found that the Government did not want milk any more because milk had been over-produced, and you had to think, "What next?" In fact, the only policy you could farm by in those days was that you had several other lines to which you could go. You might be on pigs, which was the next thing that paid. Then, when there was a surplus of pigs, you went on to something else. It has been going backwards and forwards all my farming life, and my other life as well. That was one nuisance value of the thing—that you never caught up.
The other nuisance value was this. Apart from the Government altogether, fashions in farming change. For instance, I remember very well the demand that there was to produce a really suitable creature to supply the Argentine with baby beef, which they chilled and then sent over here. After a good many fights between short horns and other types, the Aberdeen Angus came out on top. It was very well bred, and there we had the answer. All right; but then the Argentine trade packed up. It was no good. I will say this—and I think it is important. We have always concentrated on breeding really good beef cattle; that is, good for eating. The reason for this is that British people cannot cook. They must have good meat. The French and other foreigners, on the other hand, can cook, and they do not turn up their noses at eating a horse. They think nothing of it; and when they have got it all fixed up it is jolly good. They have always gone in for very large animals, and they like to get a lot of work out of them first. In Italy, for instance, there is a cow that we shall see a great deal of in the future. It is a descendant of the huge oxen that dragged Caesar's chariots about the place. Some of them are wild even to-day; there is still a herd left behind running about, and they are rather savage. But they

369
are huge animals, that is the point. They are enormous things, and there is an awful lot of meat on them. What the meat is like I leave your Lordships to guess, but when the French or the Belgians cook it, and to a certain extent the Italians, it is very good. So, in the future we have to change our policy altogether and change over from our nice cattle and go in for this big rugged beef, which we shall not like in this country.
My Lords, I have nearly reached the end of my speech. So we are facing this future, but we are also facing it in another way, on which I would make two comments. The first is that several people have mentioned that terrible phrase "large-scale farming". I told your Lordships that I was in large-scale farming, but it is all in bits and pieces. I have never tried to alter things around to make the place into a desert. Now that is a very serious thing to say. We have seen what has happened in Russia with collective farming. We have seen what has happened through cutting down forests and making collective farms. We know what has happened (though they are getting over it now) in the case of the dust bowls in America. You cannot farm on an enormous scale unless you have exactly the right circumstances for it, which are very difficult to obtain. Farming is really best on a scale which suits the county. For instance, if you go to somewhere like Devonshire, if you are a farmer you are horrified to see very small fields with huge banks all round. But if you live there you know that they are absolutely necessary. You get terrible gales, and if you shelter your stock you can bring out much earlier stock. Somebody coming into the district will get a bulldozer and dig them all out. Then, when the gales come afterwards they find that they were wrong and that the locals were right.
My Lords, that is the end of my speech. I have said everything I meant to say. I would end on this note: that we must think a little more. How shall I put it? We spray the fields and scatter the poison on the ground. Is that not a hymn, of something? That is what we are doing. We must think about one thing. We have found out definitely, I think, the great damage that our civilisation has done by using patent medicines and pills which have not been fully experimented, and we are doing exactly the same with the soil
370
and the land. We are not thinking of the creatures that live there and help us: the worms, which can make the soil far sweeter, and various types of birds. We take down the hedges. A friend of mine—not a friend of mine, he has gone, but a friend of his; a very nice chap, a farmer—said to me two summers ago, about the farmer next door, "He burns his straw". When he drove me to ride a horse of his in a race, he ran straight through a covey of partridges. I leave it at that.
7.47 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my thanks to the noble Viscount and the noble Lord who initiated this debate. I was interested to hear from my noble friend that in England in recent years you have had bad harvests. England's loss is often Scotland's gain, for, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, we have had good harvests in the North. However, even in the North, though we have been lucky in recent years with the weather, we have had another blight. You just cannot win as a farmer. Now we have the oil boom, and that is having a most serious effect on labour. As several noble Lords have already said, we are still not in a position to pay enough to our labour to compete with industry, let alone with the oil industry. The agricultural workers, as we well know, are without exception the finest of labour, and it is shameful that a tea boy in industry can earn more than a highly-skilled farm worker. If we are to get good men in the future, this image must be changed.
In the North, we are now getting desperate. Indeed, if a herdsman is not forthcoming shortly, I shall have to give up visiting your Lordships in order to milk my cows, or get rid of my Jersey herd. This oil boom is having a very serious effect on agriculture contractors. All their skilled men are leaving for the oil works—digger drivers, tractor drivers and so on. The farmer has been seriously hit by the loss of men from the agricultural support industries. This year, our wool was not properly graded at Invergordon owing to a shortage of graders. Agriculture mechanics are leaving wholesale; in spite of escalating prices for repairs to machinery, the garages just cannot hold their men. We are desperately worried as to what will happen

371
at harvest time if one of our combines breaks down. It could well be that there will be no mechanic for some considerable time to come to repair it.
Now there is at least a partial remedy. The Government must stop the Highlands and Islands Development Board from wasting our money advertising for more industry to come into this area. It is high time that we should have a breather, time for a levelling off to allow things to settle down so that we can try to get this labour situation sorted out. There is a shortage of houses now as a result of the vast influx of labour: once you overcome that, things may sort themselves out. It seems pointless to go on advertising for more industry for the area when already we cannot supply the existing indigenous industries.
Another subject on which the Government can help not only the farmers but the country at large with little or no outlay from the taxpayer, and possibly with a saving to the taxpayer, is this. Your Lordships have heard much about brucellosis. Only this week I attended a few meetings at which this dreadful disease was discussed. The general feeling among all involved with brucellosis, including the vets, is that it is high time that the Government took a firm line and deviated from the entrenched position that has been taken up by them and by the previous Government, a position that they inherited and are continuing with. The fundamental fault lies in taking too easy a line with the farmers who harbour this disease. Such a farmer may have been unlucky or is a blackleg. Regardless of the cause, we must take more ruthless action.
It is nonsense that someone who waits for the compulsory scheme may be better off than the conscientious farmers who have tried to clean up their herds, as the noble Lords, Lord Balerno and Lord RoweIlan, have said. Those who, on a voluntary basis clear out their herds do so at their own expense and with no compensation until such time as they become accredited. This is unreasonable. The situation must be adjusted. Of the 27 breakdowns in the North of Scotland which is shortly to become a complete clearance area, two were brought in by animals which might have come from accredited herds or from herds infected
372
through the fault of the farmer; three were from Irish animals which were supposed to be accredited, and 22 came from "over the fence"—from dirty herds just next door. This is most unreasonable and the Government must change their policy. There is nothing at the moment to stop dirty animals from being moved perhaps to hill pastures during the summer months. There is nothing to stop those animals in the hills wandering over large areas and infecting several other neighbours' herds. It is no use saying that insurance is the answer. Insurance has to be paid for. But not only that, it is only shifting the burden from the farmer to the insurance company. Someone is having to pay. It is costing the country money.
We were assured that the district veterinary officers would be given additional aid in clearing up this disease, but it appears that no additional aid is being given. I see no reason why during the summer months vacation students or people like them should not be taken in to extract blood from cattle. It is not a complicated business and it is not difficult to learn. There should be more blood testings. We really should "hit" this disease; for it is costing the country a lot of money. There is another point. Lorries which are moving about the country can transport infected cattle. There is nothing, no law, no regulation, which insists that they should disinfect their lorries before carrying feedingstuffs. In one serious outbreak which took place in the West of Scotland, a lorry was known to have carried infected cattle and shortly afterwards a load of hay. This hay infected quite a number of cattle. Something must be done of regulate this position.
Finally, the Minister said that we should produce more; that the potential is there. I cannot see why we are wasting cattle through brucellosis. I cannot see why we cut down capital grants. In this I would support the various noble Lords who have mentioned it; but I cannot agree with the noble Lords, Lord Collison and Lord Woolley, about the calf subsidy. Our local branch of the N.F.U. discussed this subject and felt that it was reasonable that the calf subsidy should be cut. As the prices of cattle have gone up, we could carry the small cut in the calf subsidy. But

373
capital grants are quite different. I hope that there will be no further ban on the export of sheep. With the sheep industry, I think that it seems to be quite unnecessary. We must make it more attractive to men to work in the industry and, given the incentives, I am sure that We shall produce more.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? Does he oppose the action by the Highland Development Board to increase and expand the distilleries in the Highlands?
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I was not aware that they were doing that particularly; but I should think that such action is probably reasonable. I know that in Easter Ross, where there is already excessive industry and where good agricultural ground is being taken up at an alarming rate—and this land supports a great deal of hill ground—they are advertising for more industry, in spite of the fact that we have already a rapidly expanding industry brought about by the oil boom.
7.57 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a few remarks towards the end of this debate and to try to answer some of the points that have been brought up. I can assure noble Lords that I shall try to be as brief as possible and hope that they will not complain if I do not answer every question; because if that is done it would not meet with the approbation either of noble Lords present or of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who has an Unstarred Question to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Strange, said that he always took the view that he was right and that the Government were wrong. That is a fairly good British view to take. I am bound to say that I have always taken as my personal view that you can never hope to do the right thing and that you can only hope to do the least wrong. It may be that that philosophy could also apply to the Government. Whatever happens that which will satisfy everyone will never be done.
I think that the two noble Lords whose Motions are before the House to-day must have been pleased with this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, I think said that we in this House are able to
374
consider the future in a way that the other place does not have time to do. That has been done this afternoon with great effect, and we have been able to look at the really broad issues affecting agriculture with all its problems, and not just confine ourselves to the immediate problems. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, on his maiden speech. It is good to hear the opinion of somebody who is a practical person on the ground. His views on the matters which he presented will be welcomed both by your Lordships and elsewhere. I only hope that the interval between this speech and his next will not be as long as the break between when he was first able to come to this House, which I believe was 30 years ago, and now. We look forward to hearing from him a great deal more in the future.
There are a number of points which deserve scrutiny. I thought the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, was fascinating and one which really stimulated the mind. He looked forward about 40 years and produced a great deal of food for thought. I cannot go along with him in his prognostication for the future, but at least it gave us a great deal to think about. I would not agree with the noble Lord in regard to our jogging along as we are. I do not believe that we are jogging along. He said that if we did jog along as we are we should not have any workers left on the land or enough food provided from our own farms. But I take the general point that he made, which was that we have to look to the future in order to see how best our policies may be formulated.
A number of noble Lords referred to farm workers and their wages and concern was expressed that farm workers should be adequately recompensed. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to this matter, as did the noble Lords, Lord Collison and Lord Balerno, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I think this reflects the degree to which people engaged in agriculture are concerned about the people who are employed in the industry. It is not for the Government to decide these things. There are the conventional and proper forums for deciding rates of wages, such as the Agricultural Wages Board, but what was said

375
by those noble Lords was certainly of interest.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, may I say that I think the Government can control this. After all, they control the prices that the farmer gets and therefore the amount that the farmer is able to pay to his workers.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend knows perfectly well that agricultural wages are decided in the Agricultural Wages Board where all the arguments are produced and threshed out. I do not propose to be drawn into a controversial argument about the wages of agricultural workers.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, the noble Earl has omitted to acknowledge that the Government have frozen the wages awarded by the Agricultural Wages Board for three months. The Government, surely, have exercised a power of control and have intervened in those matters where the noble Earl says that they should not intervene.
EARL FERRERS: If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is trying very hard to confuse the issue. As he knows perfectly well, the freeze affected a great many things and a great many people, and it so happened that the agricultural workers were caught. I think that the noble Earl knows the situation with regard to that matter.
One matter which was referred to more than any other was the question of capital grant. The noble Viscounts, Lord Davidson, Lord Thurso and Lord Arbuthnott, and the noble Lords, Lord Hoy, Lord Woolley, Lord Collison, and Lord Burton all referred to it. The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, said that he wanted to be independent of all capital grants, and my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood said she had taken advantage of them when they were at a very high level because she knew very well that one day they would come down. There was concern expressed, which I acknowledge, that the reduction in the grant would result in a reduction in investment. In fact, the figures do not indicate this. There has been considerable investment in capital expenditure on agriculture. In 1970–71 it was £36·5 million. The estimated figure for 1972–73 is £74 million and the estimated figure for 1973–74 is
376
£93 million. At the same time, in 1972 £167 million was invested in buildings, an increase of something like 19 per cent. We believe that this investment should go on, and that it will go on.
Views were expressed over land prices and the value of land. My noble friends Lord Wynford and the Duke of Marlborough were concerned over the capital gains tax and the death duties which resulted from high land values. Of course there are disadvantages when values go up, but there are also advantages. It is not impossible for private market sources to try to find ways to counter these problems. I accept that there is a Government responsibility overall in these matters, but the increase in the value of land and the future financing of agriculture is nothing new. It is something with which we have lived for a long time, and while the Government are anxious to see an increase in investment it is also up to the normal market forces to be able to provide solutions—I indicated some in my opening speech—to some of the problems which arise as a result of price increases.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said he was sorry that there had been a cut in the calf subsidy. I accept that many noble Lords do not like it when subsidies are cut. But they have not been cut by a very great deal. When one thinks that in January, 1970, the average price for a Friesian bull calf under three weeks of age was £22·65, and in 1973 it was £57·59, that is the national average taken over 9,000 animals at 42 representative markets; and when one correlates that with the price of a Charollais cross bull calf under three weeks of age and realises that the average was £72.90, I think one may reasonably say that over the past years the Government subsidy has achieved what it was intended to achieve, namely, to stimulate the demand for and the production of these animals.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, referred to the stand taken at Brussels by my right honourable friend over prices. I do not want to get involved in that matter at this time in the evening, other than to say that my right honourable friend did make a fairly full Statement yesterday in another place which covered almost all the points which could be covered. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy-1 am not trying to by-pass the point he

377
made—should read that Statement and consider it. My right honourable friend went as far as anyone could go when entering a set of negotiations.
LORD HOY: My Lords, obviously I have already read what was said yesterday in another place. I was pointing out that, whatever was said, at the end of the day the decision had to be made by the Minister. I was not even seeking to drive him into saying that he would use the veto. But the veto is available to him. All I was suggesting was that the Minister will have to make up his mind pretty quickly as to what his final decision is going to be.
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, but the operative words, of course, are, "at the end of the day". We are not yet at the end of the day. The negotiations will be continued over the next two or three weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood were concerned about marketing boards. The Government have no reason to think that the Milk Marketing Board, in connection with which my noble friend's husband played such a prominent part, will be unable to continue its essential function. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked about the Potato Marketing Board. The future marketing arrangements for potatoes are under consideration and it is hoped that a consultative document on this question will be produced in the near future. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said that he thought intensive units ought to be de-rated. Of course they have been de-rated. I was not certain to what he was referring, but buildings used for intensive agricultural production were de-rated under the Rating Act 1971.
My Lords, I did not think we should get through a debate which included the noble Lords, Lord Rowallan and Lord Balerno, without a reference to brucellosis. I know that both noble Lords have pretty strong views on this. They have always said that the Government have not done enough; that they must do more to eradicate this disease as quickly as possible. We agree. We want it to be eradicated as soon as possible. But there must be a systematic approach to that end. The programme is going along well. Over half the national herd has been voluntarily brought within the eradication net, and one-third of it has
378
already reached accredited status. It is true that we are hampered to a certain extent by the need to divert resources from this end to swine vasicular disease.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, has the noble Earl not seen the very revealing programme on B.B.C. at 6.30 a.m. on Sunday?
EARL FERRERS: Well, my Lords, on Sunday morning I like to try and get a long lie in. If they put it on at a more acceptable hour, I might be able to get a look at it.
My noble friend Lord Onslow was concerned about rabbits and pigeons. He said that there had been a vast increase in rabbits. It is true that we have had three successive mild winters and there are more rabbits about. But reports which have reached the Ministry's regional pest officers do not point to any serious upsurge in the rabbit population, although this may occur in odd local pockets. But when my noble friend said, "Let us alter the law so that we can spread myxomatosis", all I can say is that I doubt whether, if he produced a Bill to do that, it would get very far in this House. Anyone who has tried to get through this House even a modest set of codes of practice to protect our animals has had a pretty rough ride, and if my noble friend were to introduce a Bill permitting people to spread a filthy disease I do not think he would get very far with it.
My noble friend referred to Alpha Cloralose. This has been cleared under the Government's pesticide safety precaution scheme for two purposes—as a stupefying bait for the control of bird pests, and as a rodenticide. Alpha Cloralose can be used as a stupefying bait for wild birds by licence obtainable from the Ministry of Agriculture. Licences for the control of ferral pigeons and house ferrals can only be granted to professional operators. Notice is required of the intention to lay the bait, and a report after the operation has to be sent to a pest officer of the Ministry of Agriculture. Licences are occasionally granted to farmers for the control of wood pigeons, but in this case operators are strictly supervised by Ministry officers. The rodenticide formulation is only available from specified sellers of poisons under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, which also requires that the preparation should contain certain

379
quantities of Alpha Cloralose. Full safety precautions are printed upon the containers for this rodenticide, and there will be no risk to wild life if these precautions are taken. Your Lordships will be aware of the great difficulty of ensuring that no one ever uses a poison improperly, and the Government have no sympathy with those who do.
The noble Lord, Lord Collison, raised an important and detailed aspect of certification under the training arrangements. I hope he will forgive me if I do not answer that point to-night. I will inquire into it and write to him. He also stressed the need for arrangements for farm workers and farmers and the Government to sit down together to discuss the future of the industry. This is important, and a forum does exist, as he well knows, in the Economic Development Committee for Agriculture, which is currently studying, among other things, the prospects for United Kingdom farming in the Common Market. The Committee has already published a number of such statistics and the prospects for individual commodities.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, the point I had in mind was that understanding as I do—I was on the small "Neddy" and we discussed particular problems—the farmers' union by the very nature of the Annual Review do go into British agriculture with a tooth comb. In the past the workers' union has been consulted, but in a minor way. My hope is that the workers' union will be taken into much deeper consultation on the rather smaller aspects of agriculture than has happened in the past.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making his point so clear. My noble friend Lord Balerno asked me about bull beef. The Ministry of Agriculture have asked the Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture of England and Wales to consider this question. The Council have been asked to investigate and report on the technical and economic issues involved in the production of bull beef. Equally, with boar pork the question is also the subject of a good deal of consideration. There are practical difficulties in using pork obtained from boars. Research is continuing and the efficiency of feed con-
380
version by what is known as the entire male is widely acknowledged.
My Lords, I think that what has emerged from this debate is that everyone who has spoken is concerned that agriculture should prosper: that there should be a good return for the farmer and a good return for the farm worker. I think all noble Lords who have spoken, even if they did not specifically say so, implied that agriculture can, and must, help the nation by producing food and by saving imports. Concern was of course expressed over various aspects. One cannot look into the future without expressing concern. But we are in a changing environment and in changing circumstances. I always feel that agriculture is rather like a steam roller: it chugs on, and however hard the fellow in the cockpit turns the wheel, it just moves slowly to the left or to the right. In agriculture you do not change things quickly. My noble friend Lord Davidson said that the best clock the farmer can produce is the man. There is a great deal in that. When the noble Vicount, Lord Thurso, said—and I would end on this point—that agriculture should be a source of never-ending pride, I thought he was absolutely right. I hope that it will be.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether it is the Government's intention to provide subsidised credits in one form or another, as are available to practically all European farming countries?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if and when the Government have such an intention, they will announce it. But as they have not announced it so far, I can assure my noble friend that that is not the case at present. What happens in the future may be anyone's guess, but it is not so at the moment. My noble friend the Duke of Marlborough said that his wish was not only that there should be subsidised credits, but also that there should be tax incentives to reinvest in agriculture. The tax incentive at the moment is one of up to 100 per cent. depreciation on plant and equipment in the very first year. That is quite an incentive.
8.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: My Lords, it merely remains for me to try to wind up this debate, which I consider to be a quite impossible task. It is impossible

381
for me to mention individual speeches in such a long list, but I should like with the utmost sincerity to thank all those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I would repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for sharing this debate and thereby widening its scope, and add my congratulations to those already expressed to my noble friend Lord Wynford on his maiden speech. I had hoped that this debate would be wide ranging and it has far exceeded my expectations. Almost every facet of agriculture, every farming problem, has been touched upon and discussed, from the problems of the uplands to the sheep of the lowlands, from farm subsidies to capital gains tax, from food prices to the price of land, from increased productivity to the decrease of the pigeon population—the total spectrum has been covered.
My Lords, what are the main lessons that can be drawn from this debate? First, I would suggest, a general acceptance of the fact that the sun is shining more brightly and warmly on the farming fields than it has done for some time. Secondly, a general awareness of the problems of capital taxation, its assessment on the future of the system of land tenure, and the problems which stem from land prices. Thirdly, a general concern about the availability of both capital and labour in the future. Fourthly, a general criticism of the reduction in the rate of capital grant schemes from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. Fifthly, confirmation of that well known fact that when any particular subject is due to be debated in your Lordships' House experts pour in from all parts of the Kingdom to make their contribution.
Finally, my Lords, I would finish where I started and once again remind you that the last debate on agriculture in this House took place four years ago. That one lasted for six hours and there were about the same number of speakers as there have been to-day. At the time of my starting to speak, this debate had lasted for about 54 hours. I do not know how one measures increased productivity in your Lordships' House, or indeed whether one should even dare to mention the subject at all, but if one compares to-day's debate with that of four years ago I estimate that the sooner I sit down the greater will have been our
382
combined increase in productivity. And that, my Lords, I feel will not only conform but be entirely in line with the dramatic achievements of the great industry which has been the subject of this debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

JUDGES' LODGINGS
8.23 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy regarding the provision of judges' lodgings and whether they will reconsider their decision to use Bilsborrow Hall for this purpose. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid I shall not be able to emulate the admirable brevity of the noble Lord who has just concluded the previous debate. There is a great deal to say on the subject which I am about to embark on: the purchase of Bilsborrow Hall for the purpose of judges' lodgings at a cost to the Department of the Environment of £100,000 as compared with the assessment that was made by the district valuer of the appropriate figure for this property of £40,000 made in November, 1972, and as compared also with the figure which was revealed by Miss Mary Holt, M.P., in another place of £45,000 which was said to have been the price at which the owner offered the property to the Department about the beginning of 1972. One further figure which noble Lords may wish to bear in mind is that the owner, Mr. John Hencher, bought this property, Bilsborrow Hall, with 10 acres of land for £25,000, as recently as December, 1966.
The first point, my Lords, is how many of these transactions there are in which properties are purchased by Government Departments at prices greatly in excess of the figure which has been assessed by the district valuer. An answer given to me yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, showed that this is only one of three cases since the beginning of 1972 where the Department of the Environment have bought property at figures in excess of that assessment, but the figures in the other two cases are quite trivial in comparison, the excesses being £475 in one case and £300 in the other as compared with £60,000 in the case of Bilsborrow Hall. In both instances the noble

383
Lord, Lord Sandford, said that the additional cost was insufficient to justify proceedings other than by agreement with the vendor, an argument which I suggest can hardly be adduced in this case where the excess is so very much greater.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, also said in another answer he gave me that Government Departments should not lay clown as a general rule that Ministerial approval should be sought in all cases where the district valuer's assessment is exceeded, and yet he admits at the same time that these cases arise very infrequently and in exceptional circumstances, so that reference to Ministers would not be a very great additional burden on them and, I suggest, would be appropriate in view of the circumstances which have arisen in this case. If Ministers do, as he suggests, reserve the right to delegate to officials the authority to decide cases in which the amount of public money involved is relatively small, or which do not raise any new points of principle, those limits must, for the protection of the public purse, be very carefully defined.
Another point is that the figures given me by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, relate only to purchases by the Department of the Environment, and he is not able to give me details of parallel cases in other Departments. I think it is very important that we should know ultimately whether the procedures followed by the Department of the Environment are followed in the case of purchases made by the other Departments. Passing the purchase price of £100,000 which has been agreed for Bilsborrow Hall the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has informed Mrs. Elaine Kellet-Bowman, M.P., in a letter he wrote, that an additional £50,000 would be expended to make it properly suitable for occupation by two judges, and that possibly another £60,000 would be needed later on in order to accommodate a third judge.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can itemise this expenditure. It seems an awful lot of money. Is it to be spent on structural conversion of the property? If it is, one might say that perhaps another house which did not need such enormous structural work should have been purchased instead. Is it to be spent on furniture?
I believe that that is excluded from the figures he gave to the honourable lady in another place. Is it on the segregation of the clerks and the marshals who will be occuping this property in conjunction with the judges? Is it to enable them to be in self-contained accommodation where they will not interfere with the privacy of the judges?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given as the reason for purchasing Bilsborrow Hall that it is far more convenient than Lancaster for all concerned, because it is significantly closer to Preston where the Crown Court is located than the existing Lancaster lodgings and can be reached in a quarter of an hour from the Court compared with a journey of 24 miles if the judges have to be accommodated in the existing lodgings in Lancaster. The noble and learned Lord added that this was extremely important if an extended lunch adjournment is to be avoided. In other words, it is taken as obvious that the judges must be able to return to their lodgings for their lunch—and I shall return to that point in a minute.
On the other hand, he said that it would be extremely expensive to bring the Lancaster building up to a satisfactory standard. I should like to ask whether any assessment has been made of the amount which would need to be spent in bringing that building up to a satisfactory standard and what criteria are laid down by the noble and learned Lord for these standards of accommodation for judges. Then he said that the lease of the premises expires in December, 1974. No formal approach has been made either to the Lancaster County Council or the Preston Corporation about either retaining the existing premises or finding some alternative in the Preston area, although both authorities were obviously well aware that lodgings were being sought. County council officials were approached informally and said that they could not give any firm undertaking that the lease could be extended if desired because this would be a matter for consideration by the new county council when it came to power. Presumably, however—and this I should like the noble and learned Lord to confirm—the Lord Chancellor's Department would have had a right to renew the lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and does he not agree that it would have been unthinkable that the

385
new county council would seek to evict the Department of the Environment, acting as his agent, if no alternative accommodation had been made available by the end of next year?
As regards the difference in travelling time to which the noble and learned Lord attaches such great importance, between Preston Crown Court and Bits-borrow Hall, on the one hand, and the existing lodgings in Lancaster, on the other, this difference has been timed by the Lancashire Evening Post—to whom I am indebted for a great deal of the information I am giving to your Lordships; they have been, as the noble and learned Lord knows, conducting a campaign on this subject with some effect—as 17 minutes in the morning and 15½ minutes in the evening. The Lancashire Evening Post inquires whether it is really justifiable to spend up to £210,000 on saving the judges perhaps half an hour's travelling time in the course of a working day.
The Lord Chancellor's Office—and this was not the noble and learned Lord himself but one of his spokesmen—say that it is axiomatic that lodgings should be as near the court as possible, and therefore it is usual for the judges to lunch at their lodgings, especially when no suitable arrangements are available at the courts. I take it that it is impossible architecturally practically to modify the courts so as to include accommodation for the judges' lunch at this stage. The Lancashire Evening Post asks whether the alternatives to providing lunch facilities for the judges in Preston, not necessarily in the courts but in some other accommodation, has been seriously considered. There must be cases in other parts of the country where, for one reason or another, it is impracticable for the judges to return to their lodgings over the lunch hour, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord what arrangements are made in those cases and whether they could not be followed in this particular instance.
The noble and learned Lord has said that purpose-built accommodation in the neighbourhood of Preston for three judges and their staff would have cost about £250,000 excluding the furniture. He will probably he aware that this claim has been contested by a leading Lancashire estate agent, Mr. Owen Oyston, who has estimated that a building of
386
8,000 square feet floor space, roughly the size of Bilsborrow Hall, can be put up to a high standard at a cost of something like £8 a square foot. If one allows an additional 50 per cent. to accommodate the third judge, then the total could be £90,000, excluding the cost of land and furnishings. Even this of course would be a very high figure in comparison with prices that have been paid for other premises acquired for the purpose of judges' lodgings over the last year. These figures have been given in a reply in another place by Mr. Reginald Eyre on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment. I will just mention Lancaster House in Salford which was acquired in December, 1972, very close to the date on which this property was bought, for £28,000, which was the figure agreed by the district valuer, from the Manchester Corporation. I am informed by the Manchester Corporation that the accommodation in these premises consists of four reception rooms, kitchen, usual domestic offices, on the ground floor; five bedrooms, four bathrooms and a caretaker's flat, on the first floor; ten smaller bedrooms and two bathrooms on the second floor, which sounds to me about equivalent in size to the 30 rooms which there are in Bilsborrow Hall but, my Lords, acquired at a price of £28.000 in comparison with the £100,000 paid for Bilsborrow Hall.
The reaction of the responsible people who studied these facts is uniformly critical. I have mentioned the local Members of Parliament, Miss Mary Holt of Preston North, and Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman of Lancaster. Also joining this campaign have been Mr. Alan Green of Preston South, Mr. Edward Gardner of South Fylde, and Mr. David Walder of Clitheroe: they have all favoured this campaign. The Member in whose constituency Bilsborrow Hall is located, Mr. Walter Clegg, I think would certainly have joined if he had not been prevented from taking part in his capacity as a Whip.
The local authorities in the area have been virtually unanimous in condemning the waste of public money and have suggested several alternative uses for the property. They say it is important to avoid this extravagance at a time when the Government are repeatedly exhorting us all that we should join in the

387
battle against inflation; when, for example, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Chief Secretary of the Treasury, has said in the House of Commons at the beginning of February that we must—and I quote:
"exercise some measure of self-discipline in the extra demands"—
that we—
"make for spending";
and he called a Labour programme that was under discussion at the time
"a monstrous spasm of profligacy".
We may think that the matter we are considering is "a monstrous spasm of profligacy", particularly when we make some ordinary comparisons with other items of spending. If we take the cost of a council house built by the Lancaster City Council, which is currently averaging between £5,500 and £6,000 (and the same figure applies to the current building programme of the Preston Corporation); and if we make allowances for the special needs of the judges which have been itemised by the noble and learned Lord, such as privacy, security and seclusion from unwelcome public attention, may we not think it is utterly unreasonable that a judge should be provided with accommodation twelve times as expensive as that allowed for an ordinary mortal family? This figure as I have said, is also completely out of line with the purchase of Lancaster House in Salford, bought for £28,000 in December, 1972, from the Manchester Corporation—accommodation that is intended to satisfy the needs of five judges and their retinue, as compared with the three judges who will be accommodated in Bilsborrow Hall.
On the question of security, which I admit is of importance, the town clerk of Lancaster, Mr. Donald Waddell, has pointed out that the police can cover the existing judges' lodgings as part of a normal duty roster, whereas there would need to be a special detail at Bilsborrow Hall with a "policeman permanently lost out in the country", as he puts it. Since presumably the police would have to be there at all hours of the day, I doubt whether the duty could be covered by one man. Mr. Waddell says he has talked to a number of senior judges, and without exception they told him that they like the lodgings at Lancaster and that they see
388
no need for a move to new accommodation.
Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government, may I ask the noble and learned Lord, that clerks and marshals should invariably be accommodated in a selfcontained unit which is part of the premises used as lodgings for the judges. "Marshals" are law students who accompany the judges on circuit—a tradition which some lawyers think has outlived its usefulness. The justification for having clerks on the same premises is also not clear, because the judges are not going to reed the services of their clerks outside working hours. All these people, and apparently the judges' wives as well, are to be housed, lunched, wined and dined at the expense of the taxpayer, no deduction being made from their salaries to take account of the expenditure which they would have incurred had they been living at home. There must be some estimate, I think, of the total cost of running Bils-borrow Hall, including the food and wine, the domestic staff, the gardeners who have to look after the ten acres of ground, the rates, the heating and lighting, the repairs and maintenance, and the salaries of the police officers required for security duties. Only if we have these figures, which I hope will be given this evening by the noble and learned Lord, can we make a proper assessment of the whole affair and identify the economies which we think should be made. If they are not available then it may well be that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee will see fit to inquire how the Government can incur these very large bills for acquiring property, without having previously drawn up careful budgets for the operating costs.
What is the impression that all this creates in the minds of taxpayers and electors? First, I suggest, they see that the function of another place as the controller of extravagant and wasteful public expenditure is being eroded when decisions of this kind are made without any check and in some cases without reference to Ministers. Secondly, they cannot help contrasting the lavish provision made for judges with the limits placed on spending for other equally essential purposes. In this connection I should like to draw attention to the remarks of Councillor W. S. Edwards, J.P., one of twenty-eight magistrates who

389
hear cases in temporary court rooms at Champners Hall, Rochdale, reported in to-day's Lancashire Evening Post. This building is a 100-year old former Methodist Church, brought into use as a stopgap when the previous courts were demolished four years ago. Councillor Edwards heard about the cost of Bilsborrow Hall after a long and tiring session in court, at the end of which he could not even refresh himself with a cup of tea. When twenty-eight magistrates have to put up with these conditions, and they hear about the profligate spending on judges' lodgings then, Councillor Edwards said, "It can make you angry".
Thirdly, local authorities have pointed out that if they exceed the district valuer's assessment in the price they pay for any property, the councillors are liable to be surcharged by the district auditor. They fail to understand why Government Departments should be able to work to different rules from those which they have formulated for applying to local authorities. Fourthly, individual councillors have pointed to the needs that could have been met if this money had been devoted to some other purpose. Councillor David Coulston, for example, chairman of the Longridge U.D.C., said that it could have provided an old people's home for 40 people or a primary school for between 200 and 300 children. The man or woman in the street who is faced with increased bills for rent, rates, food and other everyday items not covered by the freeze, but who is strictly limited to the £1 a week plus 4 per cent. wage rise permitted in Phase Two, bitterly resents this example of conspicuous spending on a huge mansion to accommodate in luxury, without charge, people who are earning gigantic salaries and who enjoyed sizeable rises not long before the freeze started.
I think you can imagine, my Lords, how this looks, for example, to the hospital auxiliary worker, whose claim for an increase was "pipped" by the freeze. If we take the woman domestic worker who is employed at the Preston Royal Infirmary or at the Sharoe Green Hospital, Fulwood, in the neighbourhood; this woman receives £14·56 basic salary for a 40-hour week compared with the judge's £187·50, but whereas the judge is getting free board and lodging
390
of a fairly lavish nature the hospital worker has to pay over £4 out of her miserable wage, leaving £10.53 before tax and National Insurance is deducted. It is this kind of contrast between the treatment of workers at the bottom end of the income scale and those in the rarified heights at the top which makes it so much more difficult to obtain the co-operation of the trade unions in moderating the pace of inflation.
It is because of the wider implications, and those I have already mentioned concerning the control of public spending, that the affair of Bilsborrow Hall is one of national importance. I would claim that the Government have been guilty of a serious error of judgment and should now put the matter right by putting the hall on the market and exploring more economical alternatives thoroughly, in co-operation with the local authorities in the area. If it turns out that no purchaser can be found at the inflated price given for it by the Department, then it should be put to some alternative use of greater value to the Lancashire community—and there is no shortage of suggestions available from individuals and local authorities. Thirdly, as I have said, the Government should undertake not to pay more than the district valuer's figure in any future purchases without the approval of the Secretary of State concerned, and without at the same time reporting full details of the transaction to Parliament.
If these things are done, the sorry tale of extravagance unfolded by the Lancashire Evening Post and by the Members of Parliament in the immediate area concerned, will lead to a happy ending, with beneficial consequences for the taxpayer, encouragement for people to co-operate in the Government's policy of restraint, and a lasting improvement in the management of public assets.
8.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has put down a Question on the Order Paper which I will endeavour to answer. The Question is to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy regarding the provision of judges' lodgings and if they will reconsider their decision to use Bilsborrow Hall for this purpose. I will

391
try to comment on as many as possible of the statements in his speech, to which we have all listened with interest, in the course of my answer to the Question, though in the nature of things what I have been prepared to answer is the Question and not the speech.
The answer to the first part of the Question, which is what is the Government's policy with regard to the provision of judges' lodgings, is simple to state although it will take a little longer time to spell it out. The Government's policy towards judges' lodgings is that recommended in paragraphs 345 to 348 inclusive of the Beeching Report. We accepted that Report. Their recommendations on this subject are really nothing more than a necessary corollary on the general proposals which they made and which are now embodied in the Courts Act of 1971. Incidentally, so far as I know, although both the particular recommendations as regards judges' lodgings and the general policy of the Courts Act were extensively debated in both Houses of Parliament, they were, I think, almost universally welcomed at the time.
It will be remembered that the essential part of the Beeching recommendations was the amalgamation of the old courts of quarter sessions and Assizes into a single Crown Court. This was the biggest change in our system of hearing criminal cases in our recent history, and that part of it has now virtually been completed. A very great number of points at which the High Court judges held separate Assizes with their judges' lodgings attached have now been closed and eliminated, and this has led in turn to a greater degree of efficiency and flexibility than has ever been achieved before; and although, of course, the vast increase, particularly in criminal work but also in other work, masks the fact, the present system is also far more economical than any that we have operated before. Fewer court centres make for much greater economy, and apart from this there are immense savings in judicial time. I cannot agree that the judges are in the highest income bracket in this country; that is the most unrealistic statement I have heard for some time. But it is of importance to the public that there is a vast saving of judicial time and, in addition, there are vast savings in the time of indi-
392
vidual members of the public whose business brings them to the court, whether they be witnesses, jurors, advocates or members of the court staff. With the increase in crime, I must say that I do not think that I could have administered the criminal courts in England and Wales without the advantages of the Beeching system.
I must explain that for the purpose of administering the Courts Act, court centres are classified in three tiers. If need be, of course the Crown Court can sit anywhere. But that was not the object of the exercise and so in practice the ordinary sittings of the court are confined to established court centres except in the most exceptional circumstances. The top, or first, tier of court centres is still visited by High Court judges for both criminal and civil work. The second tier is visited by High Court judges for criminal, but not for civil, cases. The third tier is visited only by circuit judges and recorders or deputy judges and takes the lower bands of crime. The lower bands of civil work are not taken in the Crown Court centres; they are taken in the county courts which form a separate network of courts. Obviously circuit judges also visit centres in the first two tiers of the Crown Court for criminal business either at the same time as the High Court judges or at other times to try the lower bands of crime which are not normally taken by High Court judges.
Judges' lodgings are properly only currently required for the top two tiers of Crown Court centres—now in 42 centres—which represents a reduction by about a third of the number previously operated under the existing system, which in itself is a very considerable saving. These lodgings are provided in accordance with and on the standards recommended by the Beeching recommendations. I could expatiate on them in greater detail but at this stage it is necessary only to quote their firm recommendations beginning at paragraph 345, where they said:
"The most economical and efficient solution will be for the Central Government to provide and maintain fully staffed judges' lodgings at the few places at which they will be needed. It will be important for all the lodgings"—
I am extracting slightly, but I think not unfairly—
"to have fairly generous capacity both to avoid any risk of temporary accommodation

393
having to be rented at times of pressure and because we recommend (at paragraph 396) that circuit judges should live there when sitting at the court centres served by the lodgings if they are out of reach of their own homes."
They further recommended that:
" it should be the responsibility of the circuit administrator to arrange for the lodgings to be manned by suitable staff who, as questions of security are involved should, we think, normally be employed on a permanent basis and form part of the court service under the control of the Lord Chancellor."
In a later paragraph, paragraph 348, they firmly ruled out the use of hotels or lodging houses except, as they put it: "in exceptional circumstances".
Those are the recommendations which I have sought to carry out throughout England and Wales. As I have said, they were almost universally welcomed at the time and I do not think that the noble Lord has given—and perhaps it is fair to him to say that I do not think he has attempted to give—any satisfactory reasons, and perhaps no reason at all, for challenging them now. We have, by means of them, achieved a reduction of somewhere about a third in the number of judges' lodgings previously required. But, of course, a necessary effect of that is that judges now stay much longer in the centres where they are required and which are retained—as I say, about 42 in England and Wales. Basically, therefore, this has been an economical reform, though it was not entirely done for economic reasons.
Judges' lodgings are divided into two classes: full-time judges' lodgings and part-time judges' lodgings. Full-time judges' lodgings need to be manned at least on a housekeeping or caretaking basis all the year round. They are provided either where the requirement is likely to be for 42 weeks in the year, or where the consecutive requirement for a single judge is estimated at 21 weeks consecutively. The typical judges' lodgings, full-time, provides accommodation for two High Court judges simultaneously, although there are some which provide regular accommodation for three and even four judges, and some which provide for only one.
My Lords, the judge is, as the noble Lord indicated, encouraged to take his wife with him. Not all of course do so, but I am strongly behind this practice and indeed so are the wives. He is entitled to the service of a marshal, not always a
394
law student as the noble Lord suggested, although I would say myself that a young man contemplating a legal career provides the best service probably both to the judge and to the young man because there is a definite educational value behind service as a judge's marshal, and I am far from thinking, as the noble Lord suggested, that the institution has outlived its usefulness. On the other hand, I have known elderly marshals of 65 and upwards who are by no means law students. They are in fact a sort of A.D.C.-cum-secretary. They are also entitled to a clerk and although the clerk is not always accommodated in the judges' lodgings he is required outside court hours constantly and in the typical judges' lodgings under the new régime that I am discussing it is probably far more economical that he should be accommodated in the judges' lodgings than that he should be found lodgings elsewhere. The judge also (although in some very intensively used lodgings not always) usually employs at his own expense an itinerant cook and butler. He has to pay—contrary to what the noble Lord said—for all the food and all the drink consumed in his lodgings while he is there. The picture which the noble Lord sought to draw of dining and wining, or lunching and wining, at the public expense has no real truth in it. On the other hand, he is given a flat rate allowance while he is on circuit which does not as a rule cover his expenses.
It is worth pointing out—and I think I must point out at this stage that it is an essential feature of our system of justice, and one of the factors making for its incorruptibility and for its relative dispatch compared with other countries—that we have always made a point of bringing the judge to the people rather than the people to a wholly centralised Palais de Justice. Our judges are in fact a scarce form of manpower. Every alternative, including, I think those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was carefully considered by the Beeching Commission, and in rejecting them they said these words which I commend to the House:
"This is not a question of prestige. It is a practical matter. We demand a great deal of our judges, in ability, integrity, and restrictions imposed on the kind of lives they may live. Having regularly to spend substantial periods away from home is not attractive to anyone, and the conditions under which this time is spent is a matter of importance."

395
May I say this to the noble Lord in passing, although it has little enough to do with judges' lodgings? I was a little disturbed at the way in which he spoke about judges. In order to induce people to take high judicial office you have to compete with salaries in the City and we have had more than one example of highly placed barristers preferring the City to a judicial career which they could otherwise undoubtedly have enjoyed. You have to compare them with earnings in the top ranks of the Bar, and so far from enjoying those enormous salaries on which the noble Lord has been expatiating, with an eye no doubt to the Lancashire Evening Post of which he is, so to speak, an outpost here, in fact of course judicial office, although fortunately eagerly sought after by high-ranking members of the Bar—and I hope it always will be—in fact almost always involves a degree of financial sacrifice.
The reason why lodgings, as distinct from hotels, are considered essential is that the judge must be provided, if necessary, with a high degree of personal security and privacy. He must be protected from physical attack. He must be secure from contact, whether intentional or purely fortuitous, with jurors, witnesses, litigants, pressure groups or even harmless cranks. It is absolutely vital for the administration of justice in its substance that the judge must have nothing enter his mind relating to the case in hand which is not given to him in open court by witnesses and documents, in the presence of counsel and in the presence of the parties. He must have sufficient accommodation to work to write, and to discuss matters during what I shall continue to call the assize, although it is quite wrong nowadays. He must give, as well as receive, some modest entertainment as the Queen's representative during the course of his visits.
It is usually convenient particularly in prolonged visits, that his lodgings should be within 15 minutes of the court. Though the practice is not universal—and I will, if I may, return to it—he should normally be able to take his midday meal in the lodging without prolonging the mid-day adjournment. The alternative of providing separate canteen facilities for the judges in the court is neither satisfactory nor necessarily always as cheap. I will return to this point
396
later, because it is not the universal practice, but it is ordinarily desirable that the judge should be able to go back to the lodging for the mid-day adjournment.
He is expected to sit from 10.30 to 4.30 p.m. We have found from experience that longer sittings, which were frequent in the 19th century, give rise to abundant complaints from witnesses, jurors and advocates who sometimes have long journeys to make, and particularly in the case of jurors who find it intolerable to give the concentration necessary to a case for much longer than that period I have mentioned, although of course exceptionally they have to do so. I must insist that the judge's work is not over at hours when the court is not sitting. That is a very common misconception. Apart from ceremonial duties, which are not few, he has to study the case for the next day, he has to read papers, he has to prepare, and usually write out with a pen, considered judgments, he has to cleat with correspondence, and nowadays, as I have seen for myself since I have been Lord Chancellor, he is pursued with masses of applications emanating from the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, applications to the single judge for leave to appeal against conviction or sentence, which he has to study in minute detail. All this has considerable implications for those who have to provide him with accommodation.
May I say in passing—and I say this without having checked it, but if I am wrong I will write to the noble Lord—there is no suggestion, I think, that, except for the bedroom which is combined with the study, the marshal has separate accommodation from the judge. I am not quite sure about the position with regard to the clerk, because, as I say, during most of my professional life the clerk usually found lodgings in the town separate from the judges' lodging, and so I am not so familiar with that situation.
Perhaps I had better refer just briefly to the old system. Under the old system the sheriff was responsible for the availability of accommodation. I must tell the House that the pattern was not at all uniform throughout the country, and it is therefore rather difficult to give an exact pattern of it. When I went marshal on the Oxford Circuit many years ago with Mr. Justice Roche, I think in 1931, the typical judges' lodgings varied from

397
the palatial (for instance, at Oxford in St. Giles' Street) to the extremely squalid (for instance, at Monmouth, where great difficulty was endured in getting out of the "loo") to the purely institutional, at Stafford, which was comfortable but very formal.
The typical judges' lodgings at that time was a private house whose tenant occupied the premises at a reduced rent on condition that he vacated them without notice whenever they were required to house the judge. There were exceptional places, of course; the Cambridge lodgings consisted of part of the Master of Trinity's Lodge. At some places, the local authorities provided purpose-built judges' lodgings, and one on the Oxford Circuit was at Stafford; and this as the years have gone on has become an increasing proportion. For reasons that I am in the course of giving, they are no longer provided by the local authorities, but I think this is the pattern for the future. In a large number of cases in the past the local authorities paid for the maintenance. In others, the Treasury met part or all of the cost.
Under the Courts Act, we are moving towards a uniform system, although until December 31, 1974, we shall still be in a transitional period. Under the Beeching proposals, in the fewer centres that we are providing, the central Government are to provide and maintain fully staffed judges' lodgings. In the main, when the transitional arrangements are concluded, the Government lease or purchase outright the existing lodgings and, where necessary, bring them up to standard. The actual price of purchase is not necessarily a good figure. The noble Lord quoted, for instance, the Manchester lodgings at Salford, which were bought, I think, for about £29,000. The noble Lord says £28,000; I was told £29,000, but we need not quarrel about that. I am told it would now cost about £150,000 to bring them up to standard. So the original purchase price is not necessarily a good criterion.
But where existing lodgings are unsuitable, or not available to us, or, as in some cases, the old court centres have to be closed in favour of new centres closer to the centre of population, new lodgings have to be provided. These our policy is to lease or buy if we can. It is, of
398
course, possible in exceptional cases that new ones may have to be built. We hope to avoid that. Similarly, one hopes to buy by negotiation. As regards Departmental responsibility, it is for me to decide where the court centre shall be. That limits within a certain radius the location of the judges' lodgings. The Department of the Environment looks for possible sites within the radius, conducts any surveys, provides architectural and surveyors' services, and is responsible for any constructional work. The cost obviously has to be approved by the Treasury. I am bound to tell the noble Lord, although I will report what he has said to colleagues, that in the ordinary course I do not think the matter is referred to Ministers for their personal approval
The old and first tier centre, which is relevant to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, was of course Lancaster. That is where the existing judges' lodgings are situated, and that is where the courts are now being held. High Court judges will continue to sit at Lancaster and use the lodgings until the Preston courts are ready, which I think will be in May, 1974; so the Lancaster lodgings remain the most convenient for that purpose. If, however, they were to have been used for permanent judges' lodgings I am advised that they would require considerable work to be done on them. No particular estimate has been made, for reasons which I shall give; but I understand that the work would have been quite considerable, although I cannot give a figure.
However, in 1971 I decided that the first tier centre must be moved to Preston. At the time, the decision was a controversial one and for me, as a traditionalist, it was a difficult decision. I was reluctant to take it owing to the historical associations of Lancaster. However, I am quite sure now that it was right and it has now come to be generally accepted as right even by the critics of Bilsborrow Hall themselves. It was one of a series of decisions that had to take; for instance, together with a number of other historic cities, I had to downgrade York on the other side of the country from first to second tier, the policy of Beeching being to transfer the courts to the centres of population front which, in the main, work emanated.

399
This was unpalatable to me, but I am quite sure it was right
The decision to move from Lancaster to Preston made it impossible for me to contemplate the permanent retention of the Lancaster lodgings when the change came to be made. I was of course aware that, particularly, the Lancaster City authorities minded this a great deal, but I do not think it was sensible to keep the lodgings in Lancaster when the court centre was in Preston. The Lancaster lodgings are about 25 miles from Preston depending on exactly which route you take. I am told that one route is 21 miles and another is 26 miles. But as a permanent arrangement it is really too far for a daily journey for two judges twice a day. It would, of course, be four times a day unless the midday meal was taken in court. What, if one did that, one would do about the midday meal is less obvious. It might be so inconvenient to do the journey four times a day that one would then provide, at extra expense, canteen facilities for the judges in a private room in the courts; and, indeed, if the judges' lodgings were not in use it might very well be the better of the two alternatives. But I myself am not prepared to make High Court judges—men who have to live the kind of life that I have been trying to describe, who are not in the first flush of youth, although they vary—travel 50 miles a day to and from their work as an ordinary or permanent arrangement.
Therefore, it became really inevitable that the Department of the Environment should be asked to look for an alternative site. Of course, the ideal site would have been on the immediate outskirts of Preston: that would have suited me ideally. My Department is not responsible for finding sites, but the Department of the Environment seached in vain for 18 months, and they came up with only one possible site which was in some ways ideally suited, but in others not. That was, of course, Bilsborrow Hall. To some extent, on such matters as the availability of individual sites, one must take the advice of one's advisers, and since the matter was brought to my attention after the particular decision was made I twice, I think—but certainly on more than one occasion—put it back to verify that there was no other suitable property in the
400
neighbourhood, and on each occasion I was assured that that was so. Not only was I told that that was so, but, apart from the Lancaster lodgings—which, for the reason I have given, I personally am not prepared to accept as a permanent arrangement—none of the critics and nobody else, so far as I know, has come up with an acceptable alternative at all. The other alternative would be to buy a grass field, obtain planning permission and build, and this I am told would cost about £250,000, or perhaps as little as £235,000, at present prices.
There was one defect about Bilsborrow Hall and that was that it was not on the market. It was occupied by its owner. The owner was willing to leave, but he was not prepared to go unless he was put in funds to move to a comparable property elsewhere. Since the noble Lord has mentioned the fact that he originally named a much lower price—I am not sure whether the figure given was exactly right, but he originally mentioned, tentatively, a much lower price—I think I ought to say that I am sure that there was no element of a gazumping motive. The owner mentioned the price before he took professional advice. He took professional advice and said that he was not prepared to go unless he was put in sufficient funds to enable him to move to a comparable property elsewhere. I am bound to say that I understand his viewpont. Of course, it might have been possible to apply some sort of compulsion to him, but I wonder what the noble Lord and the local people would have said about that. I think we would have heard a lot of speeches about Naboth's vineyard, and not so much about Bilsborrow Hall, as about Critchel Down. So I do not think they were wrong in trying to meet the owner on the question of price.
Now it would have been much more expensive to build, and so we decided (or the Government decided, since the matter did not really rest with me) to buy at the vendor's figure. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and I think it is very praiseworthy that he and other Members of both Houses of Parliament should be very jealous of the public purse even in the case of such relatively small sums of money as this; but I think I can assure him that, at least in my opinion, the officials of the Treasury are very

401
jealous watchdogs, too. After an intensive search by the Department of the Environment, and after consultation with the Treasury, they reached a voluntary agreement with the owner for a figure of £100,000.
My Lords, so far as my Department is concerned, the requirement is for a two-judge lodging immediately. When I say "immediately" I mean when the Preston courts come into use. With the necessary alterations, it is considered that at present prices it may cost another £50,000 to effect the necessary structural alterations and repairs. I am not able to break that down as the noble Lord asked, but if I can give him any more details I shall. The total cost of the house and 6} acres of ground—not 10 acres—in a condition ready for use would on this estimate, therefore, be £150,000. But, of course, although it is a matter to some extent of speculation, it is quite possible, as the noble Lord indicated, that before ten years have passed the volume of work will be such that a three-judge lodging will be required at Preston. This, of course, has necessarily entered into our plans, and we looked at the question whether Bilsborrow Hall was capable of extension to accommodate a third judge. It would obviously be uneconomic and probably unacceptable from the point of view of security to house the third judge separately from the other two, or to dispose of the two-judge lodging and buy or build another elsewhere.
This is where the alleged additional figure of £60,000, which makes up the noble Lord's £210,000, came from. But I must point out that it is a purely mythical figure because it is not going to be spent for ten years at any rate, I suppose, and we do not know at all what it will cost then. The House may be reasonably sure, I think, that I would not get Treasury sanction to spend that or any other sum on accommodation for a third judge were I to be Lord Chancellor in ten years' time; nor, I suppose, would my successor at that time. Of course, I must also add that it does not follow that the judges' lodgings will not be used when High Court judges are not there. Experience does not bear this out at all. Birmingham, for instance, which I think as far as I remember is a four-judge lodging and which I have spent a night in, establishes that where
402
lodging accommodation exists it is used, in the absence of High Court judges, by circuit judges and others when they use the courts and when their home is not sufficiently close to justify commuting.
I must just say this about the standard of accommodation, to which the noble Lord referred as "luxurious". I should have said that Birmingham was probably the best judges' lodgings I have ever seen. It was put up as a purpose-built lodging by the local authority. I certainly was not aware that it was what could reasonably he called "luxury". The service is excellent. It is run by a charming couple. I should think that in standard it is what one would say was the equivalent of a comfortable pension, or perhaps a good middle-class club. But why it should cost so much more to house a person in a semi-detached house than to put him up in a judges' lodging I am not really quite sure. Of course, you have got to house the staff, there has got to be a study and various other accommodations for judges to work in but it is one of the facts of life. I am not qualified to argue it at great length, and I doubt whether the noble Lord is very much better qualified than I am, but at any rate I am doing my best. This is all in accordance with the recommendations of the Beeching Commission, and I have given their recommendations. It shows why I was not able to accept the possibility of the Lancaster lodgings; nor am I prepared to accept hotel accommodation for a permanent arrangement.
It seems to me that the only point which is even open to argument in this case is the price. This is a question of judgment, and, obviously, being a question of judgment, it must be open to question and argument. But when you are taking over 42 separate sets of premises from different types of owner, some of which can be used only as judges' lodgings, some of which are in the market and some of which are not, you are bound to get some bargains more favourable than others. If there were any real evidence, and had I been aware of the fact, that the Government had been improperly held up to ransom by the owner I should have been against the purchase. I would say that I would rather have spent twice as much money on building new purpose-built lodgings than yield to blackmail of any

403
sort or kind from anybody. Nobody has suggested this. It would not be true according to the information I have. Equally, if there were real evidence of a viable alternative at a significantly lower figure, the Department of the Environment must have been at fault in buying Bilsborrow Hall, since the only justification they have is that this accommodation is the only suitable accommodation available. I would agree with that; but no suitable alternative other than the Lancaster lodging has been suggested up to this date. I am not prepared to accept hotel accommodation, nor am I satisfied that over a long period of time it would be cheaper. Lancaster was never a lodging—it is too far away—for a permanent location. As the noble Lord has said, our security of tenure is impermanent. I cannot give him advice about the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Whether we should have been able to invoke this Act against the Lancashire County Council who owned the building I do not know, because I was not prepared to accept it as a lodging. If it had been a runner, I am told a good deal more money needs spending on it.
I hope that the noble Lord will see that I have attempted to answer his Question, I am afraid at very great length. The last part of his Question was whether we should reconsider our decision on Bils-borrow Hall. He suggested that we should put it on the market. With great respect to him, I cannot imagine a better recipe for getting the worst of all possible worlds. Had we done so at any time after the exchange of contracts we should have had to pay damages amounting to the difference between the open market value and the contract price, and the more the noble Lord would be right about that contract price being higher than the open market, the higher the damages we would have had to pay. Alternatively, if we had given specific performance, as by now we have, we should be in the position of having ourselves to make a forced sale. After the Lancashire Evening Post and the noble Lord have done their best to depreciate the value of the property we are seeking to sell, and after every speculator in the district had been given notice by the Lancashire Evening Post and by the noble Lord and by me that we have on other judges' lodgings easily avail-
404
able by May, 1974, I am not prepared to accept that as an alternative policy to the one that I have decided to follow, which is to stick to my guns. I hope that the House will support me in the attitude I have taken.

KING'S LYNN CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
  DEFENDANTS RELEASED ON BAIL
  DEFENDANTS RELEASED ON BAIL
  DEFENDANTS REFUSED BAIL
  DEFENDANTS REFUSED BAIL