Sitting of 4 May 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Captain Hugh James Delargy, Member for Thurrock, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords]

    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL MONEY) BILL
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
    ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE (PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Truancy
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he plans with local education authorities on the subject of truancy and other behavioural problems.
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his up-to-date estimate of the number of days lost through truancy; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): My right hon. Friend is inviting the local authority, teacher and education welfare associations to meet him in June. One of the matters to be considered will be truancy. The only national figures at present available are those already given to the House following the survey of absence on a day in January 1974.
    Mr. McCrindle: While I am grateful to the Minister for telling the House of these proposed meetings, may I ask her to confirm that the problem of truancy shows no sign of abating? In these circumstances, would it not be a good starting point if we were to be a little more aware of the size of the problem? To that end, would she and her right hon. Friend consider asking local education authorities to publish the truancy statistics for their areas, so that we may thereafter go forward to determine whether the penalties on parents, arising from truancy, are adequate today?
    Miss Jackson: I do not entirely accept the Gentleman's initial statement, that this problem is increasing in size. We think that some of the aspects which contributed to truancy, such as the raising of the school leaving age, have been assimilated to some extent. We recognise that there is still a grave problem. The hon. Gentleman asks about the size of the problem and talks of local authorities collecting and publishing more statistics. This is precisely the kind of thing that

    1039
    my right hon. Friend wants to discuss with the local education authorities in June. As the House will accept, this is not only a time-consuming but a costly business, which will involve schools and local authorities in much work. This is the sort of problem we wish to raise with them.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that a considerable contribution could be made towards solving the problem if a more defined rôle was produced for education welfare officers? Does my hon. Friend accept that it is high time that a more definite career structure was introduced for these officers?
    Miss Jackson: We are very much aware of the rôle of the education welfare officers and the valuable contribution that they make to the problem. This is precisely the sort of thing that we are hoping to discuss in June. I have said that the officers are to be included in the discussions.
    Mr. Ward: When she meets them, will my hon. Friend impress upon local authorities the fact that the publication of the type of crude figures to which Conservative Members are referring can be misleading to the public? Will she remember that authorities like the Inner London Education Authority, which has explored these figures in depth, have found that often what is called truancy is something that can be wholly explained by the social circumstances of families?
    Miss Jackson: I accept that point. This is a complex issue, and one that needs to be carefully considered. It is also important for hon. Members to consider whether what they say here will contribute to an understanding of the problem, or will make it worse.
    Dr. Boyson: Does the hon. Lady agree that a spot check done by inspectors or outsiders is more likely to give us the right figures than the figures that are prepared by the schools? Is she aware that for the January 1974 figures, schools were warned two months beforehand and that in certain cases pupils were told that if they were going to be away they should be away on Wednesday and Friday, and not Thursday, because the check was being made then?
    Miss Jackson: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has made that point before. I am sorry to have to reiterate that the way in which the statistics will be collected is precisely the kind of question that the meeting has been arranged to discuss.

    School Meals
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average cost of providing a school meal, at the latest available date; and what is his latest estimate of the amount of subsidy payable in respect of school meals during the current financial year.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: 41½p and £328 million respectively.
    Mr. Gow: Does the Minister recall that the Government's White Paper on Public Expenditure stated that it was intended to reduce by a half the total subsidy for school meals by 1980? Is it not the case that the Minister's estimate of the subsidy this year is only £3 million less than that for last year?
    Miss Jackson: We said that we hoped to reduce the subsidy. This is, however, the first step. One of the reasons why there is so little difference in the estimate is that the remission of charges is bringing many more families into the provision of school meals, which is why the level of subsidy remains high in the present year.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister impress upon the LEA's, who seem hell bent upon economies and synthetic food, that these should not deter them from the fact that school meals should be a pleasure rather than an ordeal?
    Miss Jackson: Those of us who have eaten school meals have our own memories of them, but I take the hon. Member's point entirely.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: In the Minister's efforts to increase the number of free school meals, will she consider that one of the spin-off advantages is that that will reduce truancy? I know of more than one case—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be interesting knowledge, but this is the time for Questions.
    Miss Jackson: I think I understand the point that my hon. Friend was making—that children who have to go home for meals are much less inclined to return to school. That may be a factor to help with the problem.
    Mr. Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members oppose a reduction of the subsidy on school meals? Will she or one of her colleagues tell the Secretary of State for Defence that a Labour Government have no business spending money on tactical nuclear weapons instead of free school meals?
    Miss Jackson: I am happy to say that I have no responsibility for expenditure on nuclear weapons. Like my hon. Friend, I dislike any suggestion that the cost of school meals should be increased and the subsidy reduced. It is an unfortunate fact, however, that the cost has been rising greatly over recent years and that 64 per cent. of it is now subsidised. It was felt that this should be remedied.

    Universities (Finance)
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what priority he gives to the allocation of funds to universities as compared to those allocated to primary education.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Fred Mulley): The Government's policies and priorities for education are set out in Chapter 10 of the White Paper, "Public Expenditure to 1979–80", Cmnd. 6393.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this priority is misguided when a disapproportionate share of scarce resources goes to the universities and what is already a privileged group of society? Does he not agree that we need to shift resources away from universities to primary education to end the plight of the outdated Victorian schools that exist, for example, in my constituency?
    Mr. Mulley: Of course I do not agree with my hon. Friend, or I should have made arrangements along the lines he suggests. It was right to give priority, as we do, to the statutory school age group of five to 16 years and then to the 16 to 19-year-olds. The university sector has suffered a greater loss of expecta-
    1042
    tions than the others, and I do not believe that university and further education is exclusively an area of privileged education. I want to see even more workers' children going to universities.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Minister knows Derbyshire well. Is he aware of the mass of Victorian primary schools there which need urgent renovation? Is he aware that funds have been cut, so that it is almost impossible to make any progress in putting children aged between 5 and 12 in schools that come up to modern standards?
    Mr. Mulley: I am aware of the facts explained by the hon. Member. In Sheffield, however, which is close to Derbyshire, we are this year getting rid of the last outside lavatories, in spite of all the difficulties. It is a little hard that in our present economic circumstances I should be asked to put right this year all the shortcomings of the last 75 years.
    Mr. Grocott: Is it not right that the funding and democratic control of universities should be brought into line with that of other institutes of higher education, the polytechnics, and so on? Is it not time to overcome the distinctions in higher education and to introduce a proper universal system of higher education, as we are doing with the 11-plus examination?
    Mr. Mulley: If we were to introduce the comprehensive principle so that everyone who wanted higher education and who had the ability and aptitude for it was allowed to have it, I should get into even more trouble with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) because it would cost a great deal more money. The universities should remain independent institutions, and it would be difficult if, regardless of the party in power, they were subjected to political pressures.
    Mr. Lane: Is it the Government's policy that there should be equality of treatment between universities and polytechnics?
    Mr. Mulley: It is right that where degree courses are given, either in universities or polytechnics, the standard of provision should be roughly equivalent. As for finance, the University Grants

    1043
    Committee decides this in respect of individual universities. The polytechnics come within the sphere of the local authorities.

    Youth Service (Essay Competition)
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many young people entered the recent essay competition announced by him on the role of the Youth Service.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): All but one of the entries to the competition, which closed almost a year ago, were from groups, including Venture Scout Units and a local Council of Youth. I cannot say how many young people contributed their ideas, but it was clearly a considerable number.
    Mr. Steen: Since there are 5 million people within the Youth Service, does the Minister agree that the numbers that he mentioned as applying for this competition were disappointing? Will he therefore promote to the nationalised industries the civil servants who abound in his Department, where they can do less harm, and fill the places created with spirited young people who can help to rebuild the ailing Youth Service?
    Mr. Fowler: I think that the hon. Member must have misheard my reply. I carefully did not mention any numbers. It would be more to the hon. Member's credit if, instead of criticising the competition he had done more to promote entries from among the young people's organisations in which he is interested.

    Schools Council (Chairman)
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next intends to have discussions with the Chairman of the Schools Council.
    Mr. Mulley: I last met the chairman on 24th March and have no immediate plans for a further meeting.
    Mr. Ashley: Millions of people are deprived of their legal rights, especially in respect of housing, employment and legal agreements, because they are unaware of them. Is my right hon Friend prepared to recommend the teaching in schools of an awareness of legal rights and obligations, so that young adults
    1044
    may be better equipped to face the increasing complexity of modern life?
    Mr. Mulley: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in these matters. I understand that the Schools Council is discussing with the Law Society material that it can make available to the schools for these purposes. It is, however, too much to ask that all the complex legal matters that he mentions can be profitably made a part of the school curriculum.
    Mr. Fry: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the Chairman of the Schools Council again will he express to him the fears of many teachers and parents that the new examination proposals for O-levels will be a further threat to academic standards?
    Mr. Mulley: The Schools Council has made certain proposals, not to me but to the bodies concerned, asking for comments. I understand that these comments are before the council, and it will be months before it is likely to make a recommendation to me. I am not in the habit of prejudging submissions. I shall wait to see what they are.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) had in mind not the teaching of detailed legal knowledge, but the teaching of broad general principles? Does he agree that this is not done nearly widely enough in the schools, and that it should be implemented on a far wider basis.
    Mr. Mulley: I am very glad to agree with my hon. Friend on both points. I am sure that he will understand that I am in some difficulty on curricula matters, because the 1944 Act expressly gives responsibility for these matters to local authorities.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Following the —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am most grateful for the welcome that lion. Members on the Government Benches are giving me. Following the excellent supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), is the Secretary of State aware that many employers have already lost confidence in the ability of the examination authorities to maintain proper standards—[Interruption.]—and

    1045
    are likely to have their confidence further reduced if the Schools Council's recommendation for examination changes are carried out? Is he further aware that employers are likely to set their own examinations?—[Interruption.]Will he bear in mind—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Even for a maiden question from the Front Bench, this is getting a little long.
    Mr. Winterton: I conclude by thanking the Government for their welcome and asking the Secretary of State to pay attention to the needs of employers in this country.
    Mr. Mulley: I am sure that I speak for hon. Members in all parts of the House in welcoming the hon. Member's maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box. Of course I shall pay regard to all representations, but I do not prejudge a decision. I have to wait until the proposition is before me, and I understand that the Schools Council has not yet reached a final decision on these matters.

    Post-Graduate Education (Expenditure Committee's Report)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish interim observations on the Expenditure Committee's Report on post-graduate education.
    Mr. Gerry Fowler: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend indicated in his answer to a Question by the hon. Member on 5th February, we hope that a full reply will be published soon.
    Mr. Marten: Does the Minister of State realise that it is two and a half years since this excellent report was published and that the Government have not yet made any observations on it? Can he say, first, whether that is a record, secondly, when the report will be published and, thirdly, which of the recommendations has caused the Government such great difficulty that they have had to delay their reply?
    Mr. Fowler: The Government have established many records, and we are proud of most of them. I share the hon. Member's view about the nature of this excellent report, which raises all the right questions even if it does not provide all the right answers. The difficulty is that,
    1046
    such is the system of control and financing of post-graduate studies, it was necessary to seek the observations of a large number of bodies, including the Vice-Chancellors' Committee and the Science Research Council. We shall be ready to give a detailed reply very soon.
    Dr. Hampson: Is it not a fact that one of the main problems has been the constant change of Ministers in the Department? Is it not a fact that we have never had so many ministerial changes at the Department of Education as we have had under this Government? Since we had the unprecedented situation of a debate without the Government having produced a White Paper on the report, will there be another debate when the White Paper is produced?
    Mr. Fowler: That is essentially a matter for discussion through the usual channels. As for the number of Ministers at the Department, I am normally there—with a number of intermissions.

    Further and Higher Education (Conferences)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Seccretary of State for Education and Science if he plans to visit the current year's conferences of teachers in further and higher education.
    Mr. Gerry Fowler: My right hon. Friend and I are to visit the conference of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education in May.
    Mr. Roberts: Will my hon. Friend, during his visits, pay attention to the resolutions pointing out that further and higher education has been particularly hard hit by education cutbacks? Does he agree that higher and further education is essential in terms of social provision and also to provide an appropriate back-up to any type of economic recovery?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that a well-developed system of further and higher education is essential on both counts. My hon. Friend will have noted that his attitude and that of our hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) are not exactly the same. There are many sectors of education that would claim that their difficulties are special.

    Education Officers (Pay)
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received or made about the recent pay award to senior educational advisers, school inspectors and other education officials.
    Mr. Mulley: I have received nearly 40 letters about different aspects of this award made by the Board of Arbitration. I have not made representations myself.
    Mr. MacGregor: Is the Minister aware that these very high increases, which came after the pay policy had begun, have tended to reinforce the public's impression that those in the public sector have benefited under the pay policy in this way, as with increments, while those in the private sector have not benefited? He will recall that hon. Members accepted a cut in their pay award in similar circumstances. Might he not have suggested that similiar action in this case would ensure equality of treatment?
    Mr. Mulley: Half the representations I received were from school meals organisers, who thought they had not received a large enough award. There has been wide misunderstanding of the situation. I can only put the facts before the public; I cannot accept responsibility if they misread them. This award was the outcome of a long and protracted arbitration affecting an award due on 1st April 1975, when pay settlements of around 20 per cent. were current. It is a back-dated award. There has been a delay in the machinery, for which I have no responsibility and in which my Department is not involved.
    Mr. Noble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the worst aspects of the recent local government reorganisation has been the growth of bureaucracy? Does he further agree that as Socialists we should be looking at our priorities and ensuring that there is a relative growth of teaching staffs rather than non-teaching staffs in the education service?
    Mr. Mulley: I agree that many of the problems of extra expenditure were caused by the local government
    1048
    reorganisation that we inherited. As to the way in which education is conducted within local authorities, this is properly a matter for the elected bodies concerned. However, I share my hon. Friend's concern that the emphasis should be on the employment of teachers rather than on other expenditure.

    National Council for Drama Training
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions his Department has had with the recently founded National Council for Drama Training.
    Mr. Mulley: None, Sir. I understand that the National Council for Drama Training is in process of being established, but that it has not yet met.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Is that not a more than disappointing reply? Is the Secretary of State aware that the importance of this council, which is in full effect, is that it brings together the employers and the trade unions principally concerned in a profession in which the real problem is gross over-production of persons? Does this not fit exactly into Government strategy? Will the Secretary of State encourage his noble Friend to open discussions with the council, as this would be helpful for all concerned?
    Mr. Mulley: Ido not think that the hon. Member can fully have heard my reply. I understand the council has not yet met, and it is very difficult to begin negotiations and discussions with a body that has not begun to operate. My Department has been invited to send an observer to meetings and we shall be happy to do so. We shall have to find out from the council, which is an independent body, how best to conduct discussions with it.

    School Facilities
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had recently with the teaching profession about the more intensive utilisation of school facilities.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: None recently, Sir. The education interests are well aware of my Department's longstanding policy to encourage the fuller use of school facilities. We are always

    1049
    ready to discuss particular aspects where my right hon. Friend's responsibilities make this appropriate.
    Mr. Forman: In view of the high capital costs of school building and the fact that it is widely acknowledged that many school buildings are under-utilised, will the hon. Lady and her fellow Ministers take more urgent steps to consider this matter, to ascertain whether it is possible to have something like common community centres in primary schools—schools that have to close at 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the afternoon?
    Miss Jackson: Apart from a shortage of resources, which affects everything these days, that is the policy of the Department. We have made every effort over the years to encourage the wider use of school facilities. We have sent out two circulars—namely, 11/64 and 2/70—which indicate the Government's view on the use of facilities, especially for sport and physical recreation. We fully accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The local authority associations have recently completed a report on precisely this matter, which we are hoping to publish shortly. It may be possible to return to the subject later.
    Mr. Arnold Shaw: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in her discussions the local education authorities in whose areas there are growing numbers of unused classrooms in primary schools which could well be filled if there were a more generous attitude towards the rising-fives?
    Miss Jackson: If that is widely the case, that is a matter which it may well be profitable to examine. However, it is not my understanding that it is widely the case at present, although it may be expected to become more so as numbers decrease in primary schools. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's point about making increased provision for younger children.

    Public Lending Right
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about his proposals for State finance for authors.
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend the former Minister for the Arts sent copies of the
    1050
    Public Lending Right Bill, which was introduced in another place on 18th March, to bodies interested in the proposals and received comments from a number of them. Some comments were also received from other bodies and from individuals. My noble Friend the Minister of State has had discussions with representatives of the Writers' Action Group and the Society of Authors.
    Mr. Moate: When the right hon. Gentleman is proposing cuts in spending on school meals and on primary school building programmes, how does he justify giving priority to this State handout to authors, especially when the scheme is such a wretchedly bad one, and is based on such dubious principles?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. Gentleman tends to exaggerate his criticism of the scheme. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) for his work for the arts generally, and especially for his having turned what was no more than an idea into a practical possibility and a Bill that is now before another place. When the Bill arrives in this place the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) will understand that we shall not be able to decide the beginning of the scheme in financial terms, because of the considerations that he has in mind.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the Secretary of State aware that the £1 million that the Conservative Government found in February 1974 has since been reduced in value by about one-third by inflation? In view of that, will he give the scheme a reasonably good send-off by excluding administrative costs of £400,000 from the global sum that has been granted for the scheme?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not sure about the £1 million that the hon. Gentleman found. If he found a sum of public money of that sort I think he should hand it over. Certainly it has not come my way. No doubt in its deliberations the House will have a number of discussions on these matters. The Government will consider them. I am bound to say that at present I think it will be difficult to give to the public lending right scheme the amount of money that the hon. Gentleman and I, privately, would like to see provided.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am immensely grateful to him for what he has been kind enough to say? Is he further aware that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is almost alone in his opposition to the public lending right, and that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has always paid lip service to the scheme?
    Mr. Mulley: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Secretary of State admit that an author with very little money will not be pleased to hear of the possibilities contained in the Public Lending Right Bill that is coming to this place? Will the Secretary of State say when an author is likely to receive his first instalment?
    Mr. Mulley: I think it will be some considerable time before it is possible for the scheme to come into operation, but when it operates it will be on the basis that those with large incomes will have a maximum, so that writers with smaller incomes receive a greater proportion. At present these are all speculative matters, because the House has to make up its mind about the Bill when it comes before us, as I expect, shortly.

    Young Persons' Education (Conference)
    Dr. Hampsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about his conference on the education of those aged between 16 years and 19 years.
    Mr. Mulley: The conference, which took place on 23rd and 24th March, was concerned with the vocational preparation of young people in this age group. There was wide support for action in this field, and the Government's proposals will be published shortly.
    Dr. Hampson: Does the Secretary of State recognise the horror of the education world at the sloppiness of the organisation, the embarrassing legacy from Lord Crowther-Hunt, and the feebleness of the proposals that the Government provided at the conference? Does he agree that provision for the 16–19 age group is fragmented and inefficient? Does he further agree that we must have
    1052
    a more adequate response from the Government and from all Departments, not merely his own, so as to get to grips with the 300,000 who leave at 16?
    Mr. Mulley: I accept that it is a matter for others besides education departments, especially the Department of Employment and the Training Services Agency. We are in consultation with them. The hon. Gentleman exaggerates when he says that we are going about it at too slow a pace. One of the problems is that no one in the education world is terribly sure how to motivate and fully utilise the education service for those who do not use it now. It is not a case of having more of the same; there are vacant places that could be used now. It is a case of trying to get some pilot schemes going, and by their very nature such schemes must be small and experimental.
    Mr. Pavitt: When considering this matter will my right hon. Friend consider a narrower issue that comes within it, namely, the problems of the vocational training of the 16–19-year-olds when there is a strong immigrant population which, as in my constituency, has a different coloured skin? There is a special need for placing after the vocational training.
    Mr. Mulley: The placing of people in employment after vocational training is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I should be opposed to any discrimination on the basis of colour, or for any other reason.

    Teachers (Employment)
    Mr. Newtonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many newly qualified teachers who left college in 1975 failed to obtain employment as teachers; and what estimate he has made of the shortfall of teaching opportunities for those qualifying in 1976 and 1977.
    Mr. Mulley: Of some 41,000 teachers who qualified in 1975, 30,000—about three-quarters—had by January 1976 obtained full-time posts in maintained schools in England and Wales. This leaves a balance of about 11,000, compared with between 7.000 and 8,000 in recent years. These balances include those who obtain part-time posts in the maintained sector, and posts as teachers in independent schools or outside England

    1053
    and Wales. Uncertainty about trends in wastage from, and re-entry to, the profession makes it impossible to give reliable estimates for 1976 and 1977.
    Mr. Newton: Will the Secretary of State confirm that that means that about a quarter of those mentioned in the Question have not yet obtained employment? Does he agree that that amply confirms the widespread concern among many young people about this situation? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about it, not least to avoid the waste that will arise if we throw away this generation of young teachers and then find that the birth rate increases?
    Mr. Mulley: I made clear that there were about 11,000 who have not obtained jobs in teaching. At the height of the teacher shortage about 8,000 teachers did not take up jobs in teaching, but they may well have taken up jobs in other sectors. I can assure the House that if we had accepted the Opposition's advice about slashing public expenditure generally, the position would be drastically worse than at present. I am opposed to unemployment, whether it involves teachers or anyone else, but we cannot insulate the teaching profession from the economic problems with which the whole economy is faced.
    Mr. Flannery: Allowing for the hypocrisy of Opposition Members, does my right hon. Friend accept that at the recent conference of the National Union of Teachers educational lecturers revealed that there was a sharp drop in morale in colleges of education because of unemployment among teachers? Does he further accept that, although across-the-board cuts in education expenditure are in his mind, after teachers have been expensively trained they have a right to a job, and that the appointment of more teachers would reduce the size of classes? My son has been unemployed since his teacher training finished last year.
    Mr. Mulley: I accept that everyone has a right to a job. I regard it as equally unfortunate if an architect, a chemist, an engineer, or anyone else, after expensive training is not immediately able to obtain the employment he wants. The number of unemployed teachers is less than 1 per cent. Although the figure may well go beyond that next September, in
    1054
    view of the general pressures on public expenditure I do not see how a special exemption can be made for teachers.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in view of the difficulties in finding jobs likely to be experienced by student teachers completing their education courses in summer 1976, if he will take steps both to maximise the job opportunities for such people and to ensure that all vacancies are matched with applicants.
    Mr. Mulley: The Government's public expenditure plans for 1976–77 are intended to preserve staffing ratios at the levels current in the schools during 1975–76. Within that constraint I have urged local authorities to give priority in their recruitment plans to newly qualified teachers.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a major problem is that, although we have unemployed teachers, there are vacancies for certain specialist teachers? Will he consider taking on to the Government's pay roll some unemployed teachers for retraining in specialist subjects?
    Mr. Mulley: We are anxious to have schemes that cater for shortages in particular categories. One problem that arises from the unemployment of newly-qualified teachers is that, because circumstances are better, many ex-teachers are seeking to come back into education, and when there are vacancies local authorities and schools often prefer to employ them rather than newly-qualified teachers. That adds to the problem.
    Mr. Steen: As the Minister is against unemployment, does he support the enlightened view that young people who cannot find paid work after leaving school should be given the opportunity to create their own work, provided that it is for the benefit of the community and of social value, and earn their unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Mulley: As a general proposition, what the hon. Gentleman say justifies examination, but I am too old a bird to be willing to accept general propositions as worked-out schemes. If the hon.

    1055
    Gentleman cares to write to me, I shall see that his proposals are studied.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he cannot impose zero growth rate on the number of children? In areas like mine there are problems in education, and if the staffing rates are frozen when the number of children increases, great difficulties are caused for a great many people.
    Mr. Mulley: I hope that no one thinks that Ministers propose reductions in public expenditure for the fun of it. We do so only because of the dire need, in the present economic climate, for reductions. The proposed reductions are difficult for the whole community.

    University Grants Committee (Chairman)
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the University Grants Committee.
    Mr. Mulley: I keep in touch with him regularly.
    Mr. Lane: Does the Secretary of State accept that morale among people working in the universities is very low because of the widespread belief that the Government are prejudiced against universities'? Will he take every opportunity to put right this unfortunate situation?
    Mr. Mulley: I made a small contribution in my answers to earlier Questions.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has my right hon. Friend noted the unanimous report on devolution, produced by Professor Dreyer, the Chairman of the Scottish Vice-Chancellors, and his seven colleagues, the principals of Scottish universities, which stated that the hiving-off of Scottish universities would be detrimental to the United Kingdom research pattern?
    Mr. Mulley: I have noted that report. I have also had discussions with the Chairman of the University Grants Committee on that matter.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: When the Secretary of State next gets in touch with the Chairman of the University Grants Committee, will he confirm that the Government have finally abandoned the foolish and Utopian manpower planning policies of the never-to-be-remembered Lord
    1056
    Crowther-Hunt, which were so effectively demolished by the Minister of State on Friday?
    Mr. Mulley: The Chairman of the University Grants Committee, who is a good Yorkshireman from Sheffield, would not agree with that fancy language.
    Mrs. Bain: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive an invitation from the Chairman of the Scottish University Grants Committee, in view of the submission that his Department has today received from Tayside and the University of Dundee?
    Mr. Mulley: I find it difficult to hear exactly what the hon. Lady says, but if she is asking me whether I will receive representations from Dundee or the Scottish vice-chancellors, I shall be delighted to do so.

    COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
    Ql. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to visit Commonwealth countries in the current year.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I hope to visit Canada later this year in response to an invitation from Mr. Trudeau. Firm dates have not yet been arranged. I have at present no plans for visits to other Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Marten: In addition to his visit to Canada, will the Prime Minister—if he is still in office—take the opportunity of the Queen's Silver Jubilee next year to stress the importance of the Commonwealth, and will he consider designating one of the many Ministers in the Foreign Office to oversee Commonwealth affairs next year?
    The Prime Minister: It was in my predecessor's mind that it would be appropriate to hold the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference here during the year in which the Queen celebrates her Silver Jubilee. There is not a link between the two in respect of all the Commonwealth countries. As to the sentiment of the Commonwealth and the way in which matters are organised in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that is for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, but I believe that

    1057
    he intends to play an important part himself.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend consider becoming the first Labour Prime Minister to visit India since independence? Does he agree that whatever view is taken of recent developments in India, the link between the United Kingdom and India is still great and deserves to be strengthened by the Government?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I would welcome the opportunity of visiting India and many other countries if I could get a pair, but I shall have to ration myself during the next 12 months or so.
    Mr. Tebbit: When the Prime Minister goes to Commonwealth countries, particularly those whose citizens come here as immigrants, will he take the opportunity to clear up the question whether he is racially prejudiced or whether the attack made on him by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was just a piece of spiteful vindictiveness after he had been sacked?
    The Prime Minister: I do not look to the hon. Gentleman for help in any of these matters, and I am not getting it. The Government's attitude and policy on race relations are well known. They have been well established in the Home Office and will not be changed under this Administration.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Will my right hon. Friend consider visiting Singapore? If he does, will he convey to the Prime Minister of Singapore—as his predecessor mentioned in the House about a year ago—that it would enormously raise the status of that country if the detainees whom we put in prison 13 years ago and who are still there were released? Will he also convey to the Prime Minister of Singapore that if he does not do this his party is in danger of being expelled from the Socialist International?
    The Prime Minister: Almost any question is in order arising out of the question whether I have plans to visit Commonwealth countries, but it would not be helpful for me to comment in detail upon the internal policies of those Commonwealth countries with which we are in temporary disagreement. Lee Kuan Yew is well aware of our views on these matters. At the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference he indicated
    1058
    to us his approach to the question how to deal with these prisoners, who have been imprisoned without trial for some years. We must have some tolerance for another Commonwealth Government.

    TRADES UNION CONGRESS
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC.
    The Prime Minister: I did so yesterday. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
    Mr. Morrison: When the Prime Minister does meet the TUC again will he remind its members that it was he who supported them against his own Cabinet colleagues in their fight against "In Place of Strife". How does he reconcile that with his public rebuke, last week, of the Secretary of State for Energy?
    The Prime Minister: That did not arise when I met the TUC and I have nothing to add to it now.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the degree of co-operation that he is receiving from the TUC in the Government's light against inflation? Will he say whether he has any intentions to have further discussions and to cement that co-operation which has been achieved in taking a very rigid control of prices?
    The Prime Minister: The co-operation between the Government and the TUC is good at the present time. There are different approaches to the problems that are being discussed, but that is inevitable because, to some extent, the interests are different. But there is a common objective in mind, which is to ensure that inflation will be reduced substantially during the year beginning next August and finishing in August 1977. From the way in which the discussions have gone so far, I have no doubt that whatever settlement is reached it will have the impact of substantially reducing the level of inflation.
    Regarding the other part of my hon. Friend's question, since we first began on the social contract discussions in 1972, when I happened to be Chairman of the Home Policy Committee, we have always

    1059
    said that the pay element in our negotiations and discussions is only one part, and it is for that reason that there will be very important discussions, at a later date, on the question of prices. This will take place when the present discussions are over. Of course, the CBI and others will be interested in the matter of price controls, but I should say now that there is no doubt that the Government intend to keep a substantial measure of price control during the ensuing 12 months, which will run parallel with any voluntary wage agreement entered into.
    Mrs. Thatcher: May I take the Prime Minister up on what he has just said, in view of the uncertain position of the pound yesterday and today? Can he give any more information about the form of the proposed wages agreement? He has already indicated that it will include some arrangement about prices. Has he made any further promise about the level of public expenditure, or has he fettered the Government's freedom of action to introduce further budgetary measures later in the year, after an agreement?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is right to ask these questions because they are an essential part of the Government's economic strategy. Because details are not yet worked out, we have not indicated to the TUC, except in the most general terms—as I am now indicating in general terms to the House —the nature of the price control that will follow on from the existing price controls when they run out on 31st July this year and will need to be renewed. There can be no doubt that the level of public expenditure is such that it would be very difficult to take on further items at the present time.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC will he take the opportunity of explaining when the Government proposes to move on from its present industrial priority of helping firms in trouble to a policy of taking a public stake in profitable companies and industries that are not serving the public interest, particularly in terms of investment?
    The Prime Minister: The first thing to concentrate on is to ensure that there is sufficient incentive to provide a proper
    1060
    level of investment for those firms, so that productive jobs can be created. That is what I would like to see us focus on. As for taking a stake in firms, the National Enterprise Board is available, with its powers and with such resources as may be given to it, as my hon. Friend knows.

    BUDGET (CHANCELLOR'S BROADCAST)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister if the ministerial broadcast on the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th April represents Government policy.
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's television broadcast on the Budget on 6th April represents Government policy.
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister if the television broadcast made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th April, which concerned economic policy, represents Government policy.
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Prime Minister, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's television broadcast on the Budget on 6th April represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes.
    Mr. Lawson: The Chancellor, in that broadcast, stressed the importance of investment and the Prime Minister has just reiterated it. Will he therefore help encourage investment further by repudiating firmly and categorically the National Executive Committee's industrial proposals and by repeating his own wise words at the Adam Smith festivities in Kirkcaldy three years ago, when he said that the Labour Party's big mistake was to think it knew how to run a company's business better than the company itself.
    The Prime Minister: I had better look at what I said before I take it exactly in that form. Whatever I said on the Adam Smith Memorial occasion, I must confess I do not exactly recall at this moment. On the general question, it is, of course, clear that this country still

    1061
    has a very large private sector, which must be enabled to make adequate returns on the capital invested. That has always been the policy of this Government and it will continue to be the policy of this Government. As for any proposals that may emanate from the National Executive Committee, I have no ministerial responsibility for them.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, currently, he has no instruments to force investors to put their investment into those areas of the economy—mainly the manufacturing base—where it is needed? Does he recall that when we had the argument on the £6 pay policy last year it was suggested that the reduction that would occur would allow more investment to take place? This has not taken place. What discussions have been entered into this time to ensure that wage restraint will lead to a situation that has not occurred for many years past?
    The Prime Minister: There is a difference between my hon. Friend and myself on this point. I do not believe that one can force a large private sector to invest. Therefore, one has a choice between a wholly controlled economy and a mixed economy. As for that part of the sector in the mixed economy which is private, one can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. Therefore, one has to apply the necessary incentives to compel it to drink. As this party has always stood for a mixed economy and not for a totally controlled economy, that must be the basis upon which our economic policy proceeds.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the Prime Minister give a firm assurance that the pay deal with the TUC will not contain hidden concessions, to be revealed at a later date, which will add substantially to public expenditure? Does he agree that industry is currently being discouraged from investing in job creation by the Price Code?
    The Prime Minister: From the analysis that I have been able to make so far, I think the answer to the second part of the question is "No". But there will be discussions with the CBI as well as the TUC on this matter. Indeed, many firms' profits are at the moment well below the reference level to which they
    1062
    are entitled, and that is not a factor that should cheer any one of us. It is a very serious factor in this matter. Regarding hidden commitments, of course I give the assurance that if an agreement is reached this week, or within a few days, it will. perhaps, be for the Chancellor to indicate to the House the full nature of the agreement that is reached, so that the House will know what it is.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Prime Minister aware that people who pronounce Kirkcaldy as "Kirkcauldy" instead of "Kirkcuddy" do far more for the Scottish National Party than many who talk about devolution?
    The Prime Minister: I have simply no answer to that.
    Mr. Tebbit: Does the Prime Minister agree that if any company in the drugs industry looked at the nature of the compensation that is being offered to companies in the aerospace industry under the Government's nationalisation proposals it would have no cause whatsoever to make any further investment until the threat of nationalisation of the drugs industry is lifted? Would the Prime Minister care to do that here and now. before he prejudices more jobs?
    The Prime Minister: At a quick glance I cannot see that in his Budget Broadcast on 6th April the Chancellor referred to that industry at all
    Mrs. Millie Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the corollary of what he has said about the mixed economy is that we should then not be giving massive grants to those companies that proclaim private enterprise freedom, on which they say the future of their industries depends? In other words, if we have a mixed economy, should we not let the State industries receive grants and let the others make their own way by competition?
    The Prime Minister: There is, of course, a substantial case for selective aid in these fields, and it is along the lines of that policy that the Government have been moving. However, basically, of course, any industry, whether privately- or publicly-owned, must be able to make an adequate return on the capital employed if the workers in that industry

    1063
    are to get decent wages and if the investment in it is to be replaced. There is no dodging that fact, under whatever system one lives.
    Mr. MacGregor: In view of uncertainties that have arisen since the Chancellor's broadcast, about the precise pay targets that the Government are aiming at, will the Prime Minister confirm that the recent statement by the Secretary of State for Trade that anything above the 3 per cent. norm will mean that the Government will not achieve their inflation targets represents Government policy? If the limit is above 3 per cent., will the Government compensate by reductions in tax concessions or reductions in public spending?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Member waits and sees.

SOCIAL SECURITY (AMENDMENT)
3.31 p.m.
Mr. Roger Stott (Westhoughton): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 22(5) of the Social Security Act 1975.
This Bill—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please leave quietly so that the hon. Member may pursue his speech?
Mr. Stott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Section 22 is a very small section of the 1975 Social Security Act, and the existence of subsection (5) may seem insignificant. Insignificant it may be until it is applied, but in its application it compounds a situation of appalling personal tragedy. The existence of the subsection militates against any kind of compassion or common sense.
Section 22(5) deals with payment of maternity allowance. My attention was drawn to the provisions of the subsection just before Christmas last year when a constituent of mine, Mr. Stephen Baillie, telephoned me at my home in Westhoughton. The story of his case is, fortunately, exceedingly rare. It is because of the rarity of the case that I seek leave to change the substance of the subsection.
My constituent, Mr. Baillie, was a young married man. His wife, Heather,
1064
was expecting her first child in December last year. She was in full-time employment and she worked up until the time she received the certificate of confinement from her doctor. Because she worked until her confinement, she fulfilled the obligations under Section 22 of the Social Security Act whereby she could claim maternity grant and a maternity allowance.
The maternity allowance is payable to the woman only if she satisfies the conditions in the Act. In other words, she must have worked full-time and paid national insurance contributions up to the time of her confinement. Mrs. Baillie fulfilled these obligations and was issued with a payment book by the Department of Health and Social Security so that she could claim her maternity allowance of £11.10 a week. The normal period of claim is 11 weeks prior to the birth and seven weeks after the birth, a total of 18 weeks.
Mrs. Baillie was admitted to hospital on 7th December last year. At 8 p.m. she delivered a perfectly normal and healthy baby son. Unfortunately, two hours later, my constituent, Mrs. Heather Baillie, died as a consequence and a direct result of childbirth. Naturally, her husband was in a distressed state of mind because of this profound personal tragedy. Fortunately, he was able to take his baby son home and leave him in the care of his parents and friends while he tried to sort out his life.
Early in the new year, after his wife had been buried and after he had taken a considerable time off work and lost a considerable amount of money as a result, Mr. Baillie found in his wife's possessions the maternity allowance book. He found that there were still seven weeks' payments left to claim. He went to the local DHSS office in Bolton and presented the booklet to the official. He was promptly told by the official that because his wife had died in childbirth he was not entitled to claim the remainder of that allowance.
I have looked into this matter carefully. Section 22(5) of the Social Security Act states:
"A woman who has become entitled to a maternity allowance shall cease to be entitled to it if she dies before the beginning of the maternity allowance period; and if she dies after the beginning but before the

1065
end, of that period the allowance shall not be payable for any week subsequent to that in which she dies."
In other words, in layman's language, if a woman dies in childbirth the surviving parent of the child cannot claim the benefits that his wife would have been been able to claim had she lived.
This subsection is devoid of any compassion. On checking the statistics, I find that in 1970 81 women died in childbirth, in 1971 82 women died, in 1972 61 women died and in 1973 57 women died. That is a death rate of roughly 0·08 per cent. for every 100,000 live or still births. Thus, thank God, this is an extremely rare occurrence—so rare, indeed, that it is incredible that the subsection should exist at all.
I maintain that if a women meets the criterion of the Act—that is, if she has worked until the time of her expected confinement—she qualifies legitimately and legally for maternity allowance. In a sense, she has paid for it through her national insurance contributions. But the subsection, in effect, nullifies that payment if she dies in childbirth.
As I have said, my constituent, Mr. Stephen Baillie, had to take considerable time off work and lost a considerable amount of money as a result. The money which would have been due to his wife had she lived was £77·70. That money would have assisted my constituent considerably during the terrible and traumatic days after her death. My Bill
1066
therefore attempts to rectify the matter by amending Section 22(5) so that that payment can be made to the surviving parent of the wife dies in childbirth.
This is a small amendment to a large and complex Act. The vast majority of its contents are sensible and well-meaning, but Section 22(5) is brutally insensitive to a rare but devastating tragedy.
For a man who loses his wife in childbirth there can be no material or monetary substitute, but surely it is not too much to ask that in these tragic circumstances the remaining parent should be allowed to claim the rest of the maternity allowance—which, after all, his wife would have claimed legitimately had she lived. I hope, therefore, that the whole House will give its support to this small but, I hope, compassionate Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Michael English, Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. John Ovenden, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mrs. Helene Hayman, Mr. Cyril Smith and Sir George Young.

SOCIAL SECURITY (AMENDMENT)
Mr. RogerStott accordingly presented a Bill to amend Section 22(5) of the Social Security Act 1975: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th June and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.40 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  No Labour Minister could fail to feel deep satisfaction in introducing a measure which will affect the lives of large numbers of people who have been subjected to a relationship that is outmoded, unacceptable and unjust. The abilition of the tied cottage has been a major objective of the farm workers of this country for almost a century. As long ago as 1885, Joseph Arch of Barford, the founding father of the National Agricultural Labourers' Union, became a Member of this House. He was the first agricultural labourer to do so and he called then for equal security for farmers in their holdings and farm workers in their cottages. Although the union did not survive into this century, its successor, now the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, has made the abolition of the tied cottage part of its campaign from the foundation of its existence.
  There arc some 70,000 agricultural tied cottages in England and Wales. These cottages are the accommodation of about half the full-time farm workers and their families. To the 70,000 we must add another 20,000 cottages occupied by retired farm workers and their families.
  Every year some 1,200 families face eviction without necessarily having anywhere else to go, when the farmer obtains a court order for possession. Every year there is evidence of evictions in distressing and humiliating circumstances.
  The Bill sets out to change this situation, and to change it radically. It will abolish a longstanding injustice and provide in its place a just balance between farmer and farm worker, landlord and occupier-tenant.
  The Bill should, in my view, have virtually no effect on agricultural efficiency. Indeed, sensible use of the Bill's provisions should in the longer run encourage agricultural efficiency. It will certainly encourage—not discourage—
  1068
  youngsters who would like to make agriculture their career.
  We have turned our minds to this problem on many occasions. In 1963 our Swaffham Pledge was that,
  "We would ensure that no farmworker is evicted from a tied cottage until alternative accommodation is provided."
  Successive attempts were made to fulfil this pledge in the 1964–70 Parliament, but they were not successful, and evictions continued.
  We therefore determined to bring the matter to a proper conclusion and in our 1974 manifestos undertook specifically to abolish the tied cottage system. Such is the purpose of the Bill now before this House. The way for it was prepared by the consultative document which my predecessor issued last August. It said,
  "The Government's overriding aim is to disengage farm workers' conditions of employment from the circumstances in which they are housed."
  We are consciously distinguishing agricultural from other tied housing. They are important, too, but there is no other industry where the fact of accommodation provided by the employer/landlord enters so extensively and so controversially into the relationship between employer and employee.
  Following our consultative document, we held detailed and frank discussions with a wide range of interested bodies such as the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners Association and the associations of local authorities. I will not claim that there were no points of disagreement in these discussions, but I am informed that they were certainly wholly free from rancour. Indeed, they have been extremely useful and constructive. I should like to thank all those who responded to the consultative document, or who took part in the subsequent discussions, for their contributions.
  I have made clear already that I do not agree with the National Farmers' Union that the Bill will impair agricultural efficiency. Nor do I accept the NFU's view that the imposition of a re-housing duty upon the local housing authority—which the NFU has welcomed in general terms—is a duty that has no

  1069
  real substance. I shall say more about that a little later. I can of course appreciate the NFU's anxieties, so let me make plain at the start that the Government have not set out to penalise or frustrate farmers in the course of their business. We are redressing a balance and providing a system which we hope and believe will be of general benefit.
  The governing provisions of the present and unsatisfactory system are those in Sections 32 and 33 of the Rent Act 1965, as amended by the Agriculture Act 1970. Their effect is that no residential occupier may be evicted without a court order and, in the case of agriculture, the court must normally delay the effect of an order for up to six months. This can be less if agriculture is likely to be seriously prejudiced.
  The farmer's right to obtain possession of his cottage in these circumstances is absolute. He does not have to have an incoming worker earmarked for the cottage. He does not have to offer any grounds or reasons for wanting possession. The worker in the cottage may have retired after 40 years' service with his employer. He may be redundant because of a change of farming system. He may have had a row with the farmer. It does not matter. The farmer knows, as does the farm worker, that the farmer can get vacant possession of the cottage. The farmer may intend to sell the cottage, perhaps as a second home. He may intend to let it outside agriculture, or leave it empty on spec. It has no effect on the case.
  I do not suggest that famers set out to oppress their farm workers. What I do say is that the system is unjust and inherently liable to abuse. Even the best-intentioned farmer may face a difficult and distressing dilemma. He may have a genuine need for a cottage for an incoming worker and thus feel that he is driven to the courts to obtain an order to evict his former employee. It is often said that many possession orders now sought against occupants of tied cottages are based on collusion—a collusion between farmer and farm worker. In other words, legalised homelessness is contrived as an ultimatum to the local housing authority. That the present system can work in such a way is no defence of it. Rather, it is its final condemnation. A system that is inherently unjust and relies in the last
  1070
  resort upon subterfuge is intolerable, and it really must go.
  I should like to take the House through the main provisions of the Bill. It is, I regret to say, a formidable document. It is complex because it applies the broad equivalent of a Rent Act code to the special situation of agricultural workers. But to avoid further complicating the Rent Acts themselves, we have gone for a self-contained Bill.
  There are three main parts to the Bill, which I want to mention in some detail. Part I, with Schedule 2, establishes, by a series of definitions, who is to benefit from the provisions of the Bill. Next, Part II, with Schedules 3 and 4, sets out the basic rights conferred by the Bill and deals particularly with security of tenure and rents. Part IV lays a rehousing duty on local housing authorities and creates the agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees. The other parts of the Bill are essentially of a supplementary or ancillary character.
  Let me turn to these main parts in turn. Part I and Schedule 2 deal with the qualifying worker. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is to wind up the debate, will deal later with the definitions of agriculture and forestry in Clause 1 and with the provisions for qualifying workers in Schedule 2. Nevertheless, I should explain who we see as the qualifying worker benefiting from this Bill. He is the agricultural worker who has been employed in agriculture full-time, normally for two years before the circumstances occur that entitle him to benefit from the Bill. We are looking for the genuine farmworker. Some such definition is necessary if we are to keep out those who might otherwise see a very short spell in a job as an easy means of jumping the local authority's housing queue.
  I regard two years as a reasonable qualifying period, although I do not think it should be longer. It is also right that the qualifying period should apply to employment in agriculture and not be restricted to employment with the one farmer. The latter would revive again at least the temptation of abuse and would impose a wholly artificial constraint on job mobility.
  Mr. John Wells: I have anxieties on the horticultural side where a worker may be employed on a fruit holding or in a glasshouse, or may move to a co-operative. Since the question of employment in a co-operative is not spelt out and defined in the Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman give his mind to that point?
  Mr. Shore: I shall certainly look further at that matter. I accept that there are circumstances in which the situation may not be sufficiently spelt out. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will take that matter on board and will deal with it when he replies to the debate. If not, I am sure that we can deal with the matter in Committee.
  Once a worker has qualified in this way, provided that he remains in occupation of the farmer's cottage, or another one taken in exchange, he remains qualified even if he goes on to part-time work or retires. The Bill also brings into protection by means of Schedule 8 former agricultural workers who are already retired now and living in accommodation provided by their ex-employers.
  Farm workers who qualify will be protected occupiers as long as any contractual rights of occupation exist. That is so long as they are occupying their cottages under licences or tenancies granted by the farmer. Subsequently, when they remain in possession after contractual arrangements have ended, they will become statutory tenants. Normally, of course, licences are terminated with the end of employment, but it may not always be so if, for example, a farmer is content to let an ex-worker go on occupying the cottage after his job has ended.
  To become protected occupiers qualifying workers will have to be occupying cottages under licences or tenancies in situations broadly similar to those of protected tenants under the Rent Acts. There is, however, an important difference. To obtain full Rent Act protection a person must be a tenant and must be paying a rent of at least two-thirds of the rateable value. Because many farm workers are not tenants but licensees and are paying no rent or a very low rent, both these requirements are disapplied in so far as protection under the Bill is concerned.
  1072
  Qualifying farm workers benefit as either protected occupiers or statutory tenants in their own right. Their widows or widowers benefit similarly as successors. Where there is no surviving widow or widower, the protection and benefit can pass to another person—that is, to a member of the farm worker's family who had been living with him in the cottage during the six months before his death. We are accordingly providing for one successor to the farm worker and not, as do the Rent Acts, for two successors. The reason is simple. We accept that there are special circumstances where farmers have provided, and continue to provide, accommodation in conjunction with the running of the farm.
  I should like to make two important points before leaving this first Part of the Bill. Both are related to security of tenure.
  The first point concerns the coming into effect of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary intends to deal with the question of a separate appointed day for full-time forestry workers. I want to make clear, however, that because the Bill is fundamentally about security of tenure, we intend to use the appointed day procedure to bring into operation all the other provisions just as soon as possible after enactment. There will have to be a short interval. I would not expect this to be more than about eight weeks. But if there is any sign of attempts to pre-empt the legislation and to disturb occupants of tied cottages on that account during the Bill's passage, it will have to be cut down even more. I must make clear that the Bill protects any qualifying person subject to proceedings under the existing law on the day it comes into operation.
  The second of these two points is that the Bill does not apply where the landlord is, for example, the Crown, a Government Department or a local authority. As I have mentioned, we have applied the relevant provisions of the Rent Act 1968. It would be inconsistent if this part of the Rent Act code alone were to apply to the Crown and Government Departments and to local authorities.
  I entirely agree, nevertheless, that agricultural workers so housed and employed should in practice enjoy the same benefits and protections as those who are covered

  1073
  by the Bill. Detailed discussions with the exempted bodies and the local authority associations are in train. But I can now say that the Crown, along with other exempted bodies, has every intention of observing the spirit of the Bill's provisions under appropriate administrative arrangements.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: What will happen in the case where the owner of land containing a tied cottage dies and where the farm and cottages are transferred to the Crown? Will the transfer to the Crown in such circumstances make any difference to the rights, or non-rights, of the tenant of the cottage?
  Mr. Shore: I had not envisaged the circumstances involving a change of ownership in which a farm becomes part of the Crown property.
  Mr. Goodhew: It happens quite frequently.
  Mr. Shore: I had not specifically envisaged that situation. I am not clear that there should be any difference in the situation in regard to any tenure already achieved under a previous ownership of the property. I do not think that we need to make special arrangements to cover that contingency.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Secretary of State say why it is necessary to enable agricultural workers in EEC countries to qualify for this period? Perhaps it is unlikely to happen, but the situation could arise where a person coming in at the beginning of the ninety-first week and qualifying in that way would jump the local authority housing queue.
  Mr. Shore: I believe I should leave that matter to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with at the end of the debate. The situation in regard to the European Community regulations is complicated and it is difficult to establish whether there is a reciprocal obligation.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what will happen to land which is surplus to Crown requirements and which then passes into private hands—in other words, what will happen to the security of tenure of people in those cottages?
  Mr. Shore: They would come under the normal provisions which I have already described. I see no difficulty in anticipating what would happen in those circumstances.
  Part II of the Bill is headed "Security of Tenure". This part, together with Schedules 3 and 4, spells out the basic rights which the Bill provides for qualifying farm workers. It also, naturally, deals with rent.
  Workers and their widows who are protected occupiers or statutory tenants will enjoy security of tenure because Clauses 7 and 8 provide that an order for possession can be sought again them only on certain specified grounds, such as nonpayment of rent due. The scheme of discretionary and non-discretionary grounds is identical to that found in Section 10 of and Schedule 3 of the Rent Act 1968. Many of the grounds are also identical but, most important, we have omitted Case 7 which allows an employer to gain repossession within the 1968 Act from a former employee when he wishes to house a new one.
  The farm worker's contractual right to occupy his cottage normally derives from a licence and not from a tenancy. Many matters which would be spelled out in a proper tenancy agreement will be left vague. This may be satisfactory while employment continues. However, there can be real difficulties when an ex-worker remains in possession as a statutory tenant under the terms of the Bill and various features of the occupation may be open to challenge.
  The Bill seeks to deal with this intrinsically difficult problem by laying down through Clause 11 and Schedule 4 the terms of the statutory tenancy. Where not previously specified the Bill spells out what is to happen about such questions as when rent is to be paid and services such as electricity or water supply provided by the landlord, repairing obligations, access and so on. The schedule also allows for the terms and conditions of the statutory tenancy to be varied within certain limits by agreement between the landlord and tenant.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: Could my right hon. Friend enlighten me on one point? On the assumption that a farm worker has been

  1075
  working for an estate, what is the position? I will illustrate with two cases in particular. The right hon. Member who used to be the Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas Home, and the Duke of Devonshire are designated as farm workers today and very soon after this Bill comes into operation they will be redesignated gamekeepers possibly, at the age of about 55. Will they still get protection of tenancy under their redesignation?
  Mr. Shore: I would certainly not accept that an obligation and a right given to a tenant farm worker under this Bill could be evaded simply by a change of designation and job. Therefore the answer to my hon. Friend's question is that it will depend upon that answer of which I spoke at the beginning—the definition of the categories of farm worker and other agricultural workers laid down in the relevant clauses of the Bill.
  I should like to turn to the question of rent payable. The Bill does not interfere with the arrangements about rent between farmer and farm worker during employment. This will be as at present a matter for agreement between them, subject only to the provisions of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948.
  According to the Tavistock Survey of 1974, over 80 per cent. of farm workers in tied cottages paid no rent at all. For those who did, the average was well under £1 a week. That was in 1974. There is nothing in existing legislation to prevent a farmer and farm worker agreeing to the registration of a fair rent and to its being charged, but that seldom happens.
  As I have said, it is different when the farm worker leaves the farmer's employment, and so the Bill brings in formal rent provisions when the statutory tenancy begins. Clause 12 provides that a rent can be agreed between landlord and tenant within certain limits. I expect to see this provision used in the case of retired workers when a landlord feels that he must recover something by way of rent but is not necessarily seeking the maximum statutorily permitted.
  When, however, an active worker is dismissed or leaves for another job, while staying in occupation of the cottage, the farmer will naturally expect to be able
  1076
  to charge a fair rent. In practice it can take some while for a fair rent to be registered. Therefore the Bill allows for a provisional rent of 1·5 times the rateable value to be charged until a fair rent is decided and registered. The fair rent machinery of the Rent Acts, including the right of objection to the rent assessment committee, is brought in by the relevant Clauses but with certain irrelevant matters excluded.
  While on the subject of rents, I should remind the House that the provisions of the Bill extend the rent allowance scheme now available to help tenants of private landlords with their rent to all statutory tenants under the Bill whose rent is at least two-thirds of the rateable value of the cottage.
  I come to the other major group of issues, in Part IV of the Bill, which is concerned with rehousing.
  The Bill provides that a farmer will be able to apply to the local housing authority to secure the provision of suitable alternative accommodation for a worker he is housing and who has left or is due to leave his employment. There are three grounds for an application and all must be present together if it is to succeed. First, there must be an incoming worker in prospect. Secondly, the farmer must be unable to rehouse the ex-worker from his own housing resources. Thirdly, the rehousing must be in the interests of efficient agriculture.
  With my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture I shall be issuing guidance on criteria to be used in assessing agricultural need. I am leaving it to my hon. Friend to comment later in this debate about the working of the proposed statutory advisory committees of agricultural experts and, also with other more directly agricultural points. I simply point out that in assessing the applicant's case the local authority is required to take full account of any advice tendered by a statutory committee established under Clause 30 of the Bill.
  If the farmer's case is substantiated, the local authority will be under a duty to use its best endeavours to provide the suitable alternative accommodation, either directly or through some oher agency, such as a neighbouring authority or a housing association. Meanwhile, of course, the ex-farm worker remains with full security of tenure.

  1077
  The Government have set out to be fair. It has been put to me, nevertheless, that to require a housing authority to use its best endeavours in these circumstances is to impose only a weak duty. That is a point of view which I do not share. Nor do I think it is one which is likely to be shared by anyone who thinks seriously about the matter.
  The decision will be taken by the housing authority, which will also be considering other applications for rehousing from persons on its housing list. If the Bill said that in every case of agricultural need, whether the need was very urgent or less urgent, the ex-farm worker must be given top priority for rehousing over all other claimants, the result would be unacceptable. It would mean a family with young children in overcrowded and unfit accommodation being passed over in favour of an ex-farm worker who was perfectly adequately housed in the farm cottage and whose replacement by a new worker, though desirable, was by no stretch of the imagination urgent and essential. I could not expect housing authorities made up of responsible elected members to abandon their responsibility for assessing priorities for rehousing and effectively put decisions on priority into the hands of the agricultural industry.
  Mr. Goodhew: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman again, but when he says that the local authority is to use its best endeavours to house these people and then goes on to say that someone has to decide how urgent it is that the cottage be occupied by another farm worker, how on earth is he or anyone else to decide what is to happen? Is he handing over to his right hon. Friend the responsibility for deciding whether there should be a herdsman in charge of a herd of cattle, or whatever it is? This is an essential part of the agriculture of this country. He cannot put that on to the local authority.
  Mr. Shore: Nor would I seek to do so in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has put it. Perhaps the point will come out more clearly when my hon. Friend speaks more fully on Clause 30 but, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, we have proposed that a statutory advisory committee be set up and it will in fact give that very advice, which I should certainly not feel at all capable
  1078
  of giving. But the committee will be able to give that advice and will be composed of people drawn from the industry who will know the circumstances of the farm. It is with that advice that the local authority will consider its duty to use its best endeavours to re-house.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: Is it not likely to be the case that there will be varying standards of best endeavours in different parts of the country, and is it not the case that there is nothing in the Bill which insists that the local authority should take the advice of the advisory committee?
  Mr. Shore: I agree that there could be a variety of interpretations. There could also be a variety of circumstances which make the variety of interpretations both necessary and right. The point ultimately is the confidence which we have in the combined effect of expert judgment being given by people drawn from the industry on the question of need and the confidence that we have in the responsibility and responsiveness of both housing and local authorities in seeking to meet local problems and, above all, in interpreting what is placed upon them as a duty in statutory form to use their best endeavours.
  Mr. John MacGregor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shore: No. I should like to make some progress. I have not been unwilling to respond to interventions.
  Another way in which the duty could, in theory, be tightened would be to make it absolute. It could simply state that, if satisfied that the application is made out, the authority shall rehouse. But that would be to impose a duty which, in some circumstances, could not be complied with, because, from the very moment that it arose, the authority would be failing to fulfil it as long as the ex-worker was not rehoused. Even with the best will in the world, suitable alternative accommodation cannot always be provided overnight.
  I am convinced that there is no viable alternative to casting the duty in fairly general, although I believe cogent terms. Under the provisions of the Bill, housing authorities will be able to respond to the essential requirements of farming

  1079
  efficiency through flexible and appropriate administrative arrangements instead of, as now, having to try to cope on an emergency basis with the results of deadlines imposed by the courts. I have no doubt that with good will and common sense on all sides—I am sure that there is a good deal of both—this new system can and will work and that in every way it will be an improvement on the present scheme of things.
  Tied cottages, although widely spread, are concentrated in certain areas—notably the South-West and the SouthEast—so that the burden on local authorities will be uneven. But a Bill which sets out to give security of tenure to farm workers and their families should not impose a sharp and heavy burden upon any individual authority. Rather, there will be an incentive upon farm workers, farmers and local authorities to co-operate.
  Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that many country areas—for example, Norfolk—have below average incomes in employment other than agriculture and that they have had higher than average rate increases in the past two years partly because of the switch of central Government grants to metropolitan areas. Will additional central Government funds be made available to local authorities which have specially heavy obligations imposed upon them by the provisions in the Bill?
  Mr. Shore: The ordinary arrangements for housing—they are not restricted—are available to local authorities. I have no doubt that those facilities will be taken up rather more by authorities which are likely to find obligations imposed upon them under the provisions of the Bill.
  We believe that the Bill will remedy an injustice. It will provide a fresh start —a new, coherent and comprehensive system for the three principal parties, the farmer, the farm worker and the local housing authority.
  In short, the Bill provides to farm workers and their families living in tied cottages security in their homes; to farmers with a genuine agricultural need for the cottage, first, open access to the housing authority and, secondly, a chance to establish that need with the advisory
  1080
  committee; and, to the housing authority, the opportunity to plan ahead for the conscientious discharge of its duty and to be ready to provide accommodation in the ongoing exercise of its housing responsibilities.
  I confidently commend this measure to the House.
  4.14 p.m.
  Mr. Francis Pym: I declare an interest in that some of the men who work on my farm are housed in cottages which go with the farm.
  The Secretary of State, opening the debate, referred to the discussions which had taken place between the various interests in the industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that they had taken place without rancour. I am sure that is true, for it is very much in the character and tradition of the industry. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was made without rancour, and I shall seek to do the same.
  Despite the speech made by the Secretary of State, this is a bad Bill. It is obviously complicated, as he admitted, and I thought that he left a good deal of work to be done by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, including certain points about which I was not sure that the right hon. Gentleman was altogether clear.
  At any rate, the Bill is difficult to understand and is bound to be uncertain in its operation. It is a good example of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and his colleagues were trying to rectify in their report on the preparation of legislation. I do not mean any disrespect to the draftsmen, who draft upon instructions.
  In the speech which we have just heard, some desirable and theoretical objectives emerged, but the case for the Bill as it stands was not made out. If, as the Minister said, it is so good, why does it not apply to Scotland? The answer is that the agricultural section of the Transport and General Workers Union is against it. On the other hand, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers has been campaigning for the abolition of tied houses for many years, and this is the Government's attempt to satisfy that aspiration.

  1081
  The Bill is unnecessary. Few people want it. According to the Arthur Rank Centre report, only 5·3 per cent. of farm workers questioned about it thought it desirable to abolish the tied cottage system. Other surveys have produced other assessments, but nothing which could remotely be described as a widespread desire for a change of this kind has been shown to exist.
  Apart from a number of particular problems, to which I shall come later, these proposals will not help the expansion of home grown food supplies, which is a vital national necessity now in view of the huge increase in the cost of our food imports as a result of the fall in the value of the pound. Nor do I think that these proposals are of any real benefit to farm workers, though I recognise that some of them will welcome the Bill.
  At no stage in the discussions on this subject has anyone denied that there are a very few cases of distressing hardship as a result of evictions. The consultative document is fair. In paragraph 8 it refers to "a handful of cases". The National Farmers' Union talks about 20 to 30 cases a year. But compare that with a case which occurred last September in which 10 families were being evicted by the National Coal Board in one town at the same time. That does not seem to disturb the. Government in any way, but the far fewer number of cases, although only a handful, in agriculture causes them to bring forward this substantial piece of legislation.
  Altogether there are, as we know, about 1,000 or so court orders each year, many of which are obtained by collusion between the parties—I agree that that is not a happy aspect of the present system—but only a handful of cases end in most unhappy circumstances. I think that the House would be in favour of finding ways of eradicating all such instances if that were possible. But the Bill will not end hard cases—indeed, it may increase them—and it will certainly change the precise circumstances in which they occur.
  The Bill will bring about new problems, and that worries me because we are dealing with families and with people. In some ways the Bill does not go as far as the Government's earlier statements indicated. In so far as the Bill represents
  1082
  a genuine attempt at a compromise between the dogma of the Labour Party and common sense, it is to be welcomed.
  The Bill does not actually abolish tied houses. It does not remove the right of a farmer to house his staff in his own dwellings. Nor does it give full security of tenure to farm workers. It attempts to give security of housing, but in a way which will affect many other families.
  Local authorities and others will have to take decisions which will lead to hardship somewhere. From that point of view, we are being taken from the existing system with its advantages and defects—nothing is perfect—to something which will not work. If the supply of houses available were better, it would be easier. The agricultural industry has invested heavily in housing to the benefit of everyone on the land. Until a year or so ago new houses were being added to the stock, which is regarded as being of a pretty good standard in agriculture. But, because of the high taxation which we all suffer under this Government and the lack of long-term confidence in which they have enshrouded our economy, the majority of planned building of new agricultural houses has been shelved. The Country Landowners Association pointed that out in evidence to the Wealth Tax Committee. The Association said that about two-thirds of planned housebuilding on farms had been postponed or abandoned.
  The report from the Department of Land Economy at Cambridge, published last March, in paragraph 27 states:
  "On the 40 farms in the sample,"
  —admittedly, they were fairly large farms of about 1,000 acres—
  "plans to build 29 new houses have been deferred or given up altogether and plans to make substantial improvements to other houses similarly deferred."
  When the House considers the extent to which agriculture has contributed to the provision and improvement of housing in the countryside, almost all the finance coming from its own resources, it must conclude that any damage to the continuation of investment in housing in the industry is a bad act of government.
  There are already too many disincentives to the industry and the Bill adds another formidable one. Worse than that I fear that the existing stock of houses available to agriculture will be

  1083
  reduced by changes in occupation, sales or other reasons.
  The Bill proposes a highly complicated procedure for rehousing and gaining repossession. One must ask whether that will work better than the existing system, because if it does not it will be harmful to make the change. The main difficulty lies in the proposed arrangements for finding alternative accommodation. If the farmer has not another house to offer—and most have not—the plan is to try to use the resources of the local authorities. At least to a small extent, that happens already by mutual agreement or as a result of a court order. But in the Bill the obligation on the housing authorities is limited and circumscribed. There is no certainty about it. Clause 29 (6) states that authorities must
  "use their best endeavours to provide the suitable alternative accommodation."
  Naturally, the farming world is dismayed and alarmed by such phraseology because it is not solid or definite. Nor does it match up to the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary when speaking about the need to ensure a root over the head of the farm worker and to provide on-farm accommodation. He said:
  "This is likely to be best met by putting a formal responsibility on the local authority to provide suitable alternative accommodation."
  It sounded then as if there would be an absolute obligation on local authorities but we know that that is not so.
  Mr. Shore: There will be an obligation.
  Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is an obligation, but if an alternative dwelling were not forthcoming from the local authority the farmer could be in dire trouble. There can be no confidence that the Bill will work satisfactorily. The industry would like to see an absolute obligation on authorities to make a house available. That would solve their problem which in many cases cannot wait. But if such an obligation were to be imposed it would be at another family's expense. The imposition of yet another overriding duty on local authorities is, to say the least, controversial. They already have a duty towards the homeless and ex-Service men, and even that is not foolproof.
  1084
  The Chairman of the Association of District Councils put the issue fairly in his letter to the Daily Telegraph on 27th April when he said:
  "The Government is in no position to tell any district council whom they should or should not house."
  The letter continues:
  "The more special cases therefore that have to be met, the longer will those on council housing waiting lists have to wait their turn for accommodation …The tied-cottage question cannot be looked at in isolation. It is part of the local overall housing problem, and I am certain that district councils will continue to meet their obligations in this field as they are already doing in cases where farm workers and others are required to vacate their tied accommodation."
  The Bill to some extent acknowledges the sentiment of that letter because in using their best endeavours authorities are charged in Clause 29(7) to
  "take into account the urgency of the case, the competing claims on the accommodation which they can provide and the resources at their disposal."
  That provides more than adequate grounds for refusing which many district councils might have to do, however reluctantly, because of long waiting lists and all the other deserving cases which they must consider. So, in a well-intentioned attempt to be fair all round everyone is put in an invidious position and local authorities might have to make some terrible choices.
  Farmers believe that there is no method of enforcement and they cannot therefore be expected to have confidence in the system. That will affect their attitude to the other houses they have available at present. Estimates of the number of houses available vary from 3,000 to 12,000—the number mentioned in the consultative document—but, according to the Tavistock Institute report, many are being repaired. Whatever the number, it is minuscule in relation to the 850,000 estimated unoccupied houses in Britain today. If the houses can be released it would be of benefit. That requires either the certainty of alternative accommodation for the farm worker or some scheme for letting on a purely temporary basis.
  That is described in paragraph 12 of the consultative document which describes how such an arrangement might work. The scheme is often referred to as the

  1085
  "North Wiltshire Scheme" which is practised by about 40 local authorities. That is a side issue to this Bill but I hope that it will receive further study, because the House wants to see the best use of our housing stock.
  If we impose an absolute obligation of the local authorities we are unfair to them and those on their housing lists. If we do not impose that obligation we place agriculture in an uncertain and unsatisfactory position. It can be compared to the irresistible force meeting the immovable post. It is a contradiction in terms.
  In itself, that is enough to condemn the Bill, but there are other criticisms to make. The proposed process for obtaining possession is complicated and cumbersome. It is also expensive, as the Financial Memorandum makes clear. It would cost an extra £5 million to £6 million over each of the next five years without much noticeable advantage. If there were ever a time not to put extra burdens and expenses on local authorities it is now, and surely, it is contrary to Government policy.
  Apart from the cost, there is now the likelihood, in many cases, of delays in regaining possession, with all the serious consequences for the farmers involved. If the farmer has no other suitable dwelling to offer, which few of them have, he approaches the local authority. However willing to help, the local authority may be reluctant or unable to make an offer and may require proof that vacant possession of a particular house is needed in the interests of efficient agriculture.
  That involves the activation of the agriculture dwelling houses advisory committee, which must be appointed and convened. That takes time since it must deliberate, decide and report back. In some cases the Minister of Agriculture may be interested, as Clause 30(8) indicates. The length of time taken will vary, although I think that all those interested will understand the urgency of the matter and come to the quickest possible conclusion. But it will be a highly significant conclusion with far-reaching implications for the farmer.
  Should there not, therefore, be provision for some kind of appeal procedure? That would cause further delay, but in a case where the advisory committee found
  1086
  against the farmer, should there not be a right of appeal because of the serious implications for the farmer? I cannot think that it would be invoked often, but it should be there. I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary refers to that possibility in his winding-up speech.
  I hope that full use will be made of the land agency and surveyor's profession, which, not unnaturally perhaps, is not mentioned in the Bill but which has great experience of everyone on all sides involved in agriculture.
  Having gone through this process, the local authority is required to do no more than to
  "take full account of any advice tendered",
  to quote Clause 29(4). It will do that of course and, hopefully, in most cases act in accordance with advice—but again there is no certainty. I ask the Minister where and how the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service comes into all this. Apparently it is willing and eager to advise, but there is no mention of it in the Bill. The House would like to know what rôle, if any, is envisaged for it.
  Finally, on this central aspect of the Bill, suppose all the decisions are in favour of granting the farmer vacant possession but in the final stage the housing authority says "No". Suppose it says that it is sorry but it cannot provide another house. What happens then? Every approach and representation will have been made, taking much time and perhaps much expense, but to no avail. I suppose the farmer can take the local authority to court, but what a daunting prospect, and what a lengthy and expensive procedure! Anyway, what case could there be? The local authority will not necessarily have done anything wrong. It will have had other considerations to overlay its decision. So there could be a complete impasse. I suppose that the farmer might have a case for damages because of the delay, but I do not see how even that allegation could easily be made to stand up.
  If we must have such a scheme—and we on the Conservative Benches do not agree with it, because of its complexity —have the Government considered giving the agricultural dwelling-houses advisory committees more power? Would not an element of greater certainty be introduced if the advisory committee's advice, subject to appeal, were invested with the power

  1087
  of direction—the suggestion which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison)? I do not like direction, but a method must be found to prevent the whole rehousing process envisaged here ending, even in only a few cases, in a nonsense.
  I confess to a natural dislike of Part V. It is the insidious process of more and more people looking further and further into other people's business, and all at public expense. Can there be enough advantage for the industry to justify the cost and the time It must mean still more forms or another questionnaire, and yet more visits to busy farmers. What the country needs in its present economic troubles—and the Government at least pay lip service to this, even if their actions often contradict their words—is a single-minded dedication to productive output and efficiency. That must apply to farming as to all else. Deliberate diversion into a cul-de-sac such as this could be a waste of time and effort when everybody on the land should be getting on with other things.
  It is not clear to me what are the precise powers of the local authorities under Part V. Clause 31(4) (b ) refers to the notification to local authorities, and instructs them to
  "inform that person what action, if any, they propose to take as a result of the notice with respect to the dwelling-house."
  What are the options and criteria? We should like an assurance that nothing like a compulsory purchase order either could or would be contemplated. What is meant by those words?
  As for Clause 35, I intensely dislike the Government's waiving a planning condition that they find inconvenient and absolving themselves by Act of Parliament from a difficulty that no citizen or organisation could circumvent. I know that the Bill could not work without that clause, but that is another good reason for not having the Bill.
  I turn to another aspect, the qualifying period, which we on the Conservative Benches believe is too short. Ninety-one weeks' work on the land out of 104 to qualify under the Bill is too brief and insignificant a period. Double that period or, say, five years out of the last 10 would be more appropriate. To activate the procedures and conditions laid down
  1088
  here on the basis of only 91 weeks' work is out of proportion. We shall press this point. The Secretary of State said that he was immovable on it, but I hope that he will look at it again. Many people would be quite happy to do farm work for just a couple of years to establish certain rights. I believe that the farm workers themselves, highly skilled and professional as they are, would wish for a more realistic and substantial qualification.
  I doubt whether farmers will risk taking on a farm worker on that basis. After all, the wife or family might find that they disliked the isolation after two years. Agriculture has gained a great deal over the years from new entrants from outside the industry. Employers will have to take great care now to prove what previous work a prospective new employee has done.
  This qualifying period applies to work done anywhere in the European Community. I should be very surprised if the Secretary of State found as a result of his inquiries anything that could be described as a reciprocal arrangement in any other country in the Community. That is extremely unlikely. His hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) made a substantive point to which the House will wish an answer. Even if it did not apply to the Community, a farmer would certainly require to know accurately whether a new man or woman had worked in agriculture for any part of the previous 104 weeks. A stiffer qualifying test would be acceptable throughout the industry, including farm workers, and would be more appropriate.
  I also want to raise a point about Clause 5 and the width of these provisions for the dependants of a deceased farm worker to become statutory tenants. The industry has a good record and reputation for looking after its workers' families no less than its workers, but under these provisions a principle of succession is established which extends security of housing to those with no connection with agriculture except through parentage. Clearly, that would not apply in every case, because many sons or daughters would follow on. Of course, the widow or dependent family must be housed, but these houses are indispensable to agriculture. Whatever arrangements are made

  1089
  must take that into account. There is also a slight disincentive to a farmer to take on an older man. Has that aspect been considered?
  Here I should like to mention particularly retired farm workers and their housing. This section of the community has always been given special consideration. I understand from all the reports I have read that about 20,000 tied houses are now occupied by pensioners. Housing authorities have also been very helpful here. Some operate a scheme begun in Hampshire under which farm workers put their names on the council list five years or so before retirement. This has proved effective and has worked smoothly. It is an area of the rehousing problem where the local authorities could be willing to play a part on the basis of an absolute duty. I think that they will accept that four or five years' notice is a very different proposition from a sudden request as envisaged under the Bill.
  I remind the House that we are debating the Bill against the ever-increasing, important and urgent need to expand our agricultural output. This is an overriding national objective. The Secretary of State said blandly that in his opinion the Bill would have no effect on that, but we cannot escape the overriding need to increase the output from our own land and resources.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend direct his comments particularly to the livestock farmer? How is the livestock farmer to cope and look after his livestock in the long-drawn-out procedures laid down in the Bill? Is it not likely that such farmers will come out of livestock production entirely, and therefore defeat the purpose laid out so clearly in the Government's White Paper "Food From Our Own Resources"?
  Mr. Pym: My hon. Friend is right in that the livestock sector is the sector most directly affected, because that is where there is the absolute necessity for farmworkers to be on the job, housed very close to the farm. I am sure that livestock farmers will have these anxieties. It does, of course, particularly apply to that sector because animals cannot be left for very long. It is the delay and the uncertainty of the arrangements
  1090
  in this Bill which are causing such anxiety.
  I quote from paragraph 9 in the consultative document which says:
  "The tied cottage system is concentrated within that sector of the agricultural industry which makes the overwhelming contribution to the nation's larder and its balance of payments."
  This imposes on us a duty and a responsibility to think very hard before tinkering about with one element in the highly successful performance of our food producers. One of the many reasons for this success has been the mobility of labour combined with excellent promotion prospects and opportunities in agriculture.
  Farm workers can, and do, go up the ladder to managerial level, but it could not happen without the housing system. Promotion has not been hindered or hampered by house hunting problems. What has been happening for years in agriculture is the envy of other industries in which the work forces have faced insupable difficulties in moving house. One reason for our comparatively poor performance nationally is the difficulty of moving the labour force. In agriculture there is nothing to stop mobility of labour, and nothing to stop the worker from getting to the top. It will be more complicated and more uncertain now if the Government have their way. In addition, the industry is being discouraged from providing housing on the massive scale we have known.
  The consultative document also says in paragraph 28 in relation to the Tavistock Institute report:
  "By any reckoning therefore, agriculture has made a contribution towards employee housing which is notable both in itself and by comparison with provision in many other major industries."
  I also quote the last paragraph of the summary to which I have referred, which was undertaken by the University of Cambridge Department of Land Economy, where it says:
  "New investment projects have been delayed, partly as a result of uncertainty over the tied cottage. Over the country as a whole, the number of houses which might have been built by farmers and which may have been lost for ever, represents a deplorable loss."
  Despite their good record on housing, the agricultural and forestry industries have been singled out by the Government

  1091
  in the Bill not, in my view, for the benefit of farm workers or food production but to satisfy their own outdated political dogmas. This Bill touches only one-tenth of tied houses. The Secretary of State cannot claim that he has justified it this afternoon. It is ill-timed, and, in its present form, is not properly workable. I advise the House to vote it down tonight.
  4.43 p.m.
  Miss Joan Maynard (Sheffield, Bright-side): In the last 30 years there have been 27 Acts of Parliament for farmers. There have been only two for farm workers. The Bill makes a third and to some extent redresses the balance. I welcome the Bill and thank the Government for honouring a long-standing pledge by the Labour Party on this issue, which is so important to farm workers. It is particularly important that the Bill gives security of tenure.
  I will deal with the points that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) made about lack of rancour in our industry. I have been connected with this industry all my life, and I have heard a great deal about the good relations and co-operation in it. In practice, my experience has been that all the cooperation has come from our people and that all has been well until there has been difficulty about tied cottages, for whatever reason. It could be that there is a disagreement with the employer, a man could be too ill to work in the industry, he could have an accident which prevents him from continuing his work in the industry, or he could become too old. Then what happens to the good will? I have known men who worked for farmers for 30 years, and they have said to me "I have a good boss." Suddenly that boss changes when the worker can no longer work on the farm, and bang goes the good will.
  Again, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire says that farmers have a history of caring for their men and the families. I wish very much that I had taped the many stories of anguish told to me by farm workers which give the lie to what the right hon. Member says. He talks about the number of evictions, and I agree that the number in the industry
  1092
  has been greatly reduced. But eviction is merely the tip of the iceberg. It is not whether a person is evicted, it is whether the power is there to do it. That is what counts. This power has hung like the sword of Damocles over the heads of our people for many years.
  This is a historic day for farm workers. The point has been made consistently by farmers, and again today by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, that farm workers do not want the Bill. That is the kind of statement which is heard from the bosses, and when the farm workers say it they are simply mouthing the bosses' arguments. Of course, they are still living in tied houses. It is the farm workers' union which speaks for farm workers. I have been a member of that union for 30 years and I cannot remember a single resolution—
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: The membership of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied workers is only 39 per cent. of all farm workers. How can the hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard) claim that she speaks for all farm workers?
  Miss Maynard: I do not accept the hon. Member's figure. Our union represents over 50 per cent. in the country as a whole and many more in certain counties.
  I cannot remember a single branch meeting or county or national conference where there has been a resolution calling for the retention of agricultural tied cottages. But I can remember many calling for the abolition of the system.
  Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only place where one finds that kind of unanimity among farm workers is in the graveyard?
  Miss Maynard: That may be a good way of putting it. Farm workers are a very skilled group and are among the most important workers in the country, with a production record second to none. Unfortunately, we live in a society which is not concerned about loyalty, hard work and honesty. It is a society in which people get only what they fight for and what they are strong enough to enforce. If that had not been the case this Bill would have come many years ago.

  1093
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire says that this is a matter of dogma. Anything with which the Opposition disagree becomes a matter of dogma. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire talks about a lack of houses in rural areas. There is a lack of houses everywhere, but I hope that he does not blame farm workers for that. It is his people who own the land, his people who mainly control the local authorities in those areas, and his people have often been in Government.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady mentioned that one gets in this world only what one fights for, and she implied that because the union was not very strong it had not managed to secure the abolition of the tied cottage. Is she suggesting that the National Union of Mineworkers is insufficiently strong to secure the abolition of miners' tied cottages?
  Miss Maynard: No, but because the NUM is so strong it does not have the problem which exists in the agricultural industry.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that on many occasions the farmer will be unable to provide an alternative house. There are 12,000 empty tied houses. The tied cottage system is feudal. It gives a bad image to the industry and I would have hoped that the farmers would be glad to be rid of it. I forecast that once the system has been ended a few years the farmers will have forgotten all about it and all about the hoo-ha they are now creating.
  We in the union do not accept that the livestock farmer needs a cottage to enable him to carry on his business. There are such things as telephones and cars these days. Let me remind the House that I was brought up on a farm and I understand about cows calving in the middle of the night—
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Do they ring you up and tell you?
  Miss Maynard: It is possible for the farmer easily to telephone the stockman or the dairyman and to have him on the farm within 10 minutes. How does the farmer manage to get the veterinary surgeon to the farm? The vets do not live on the farms, and but for the dairy
  1094
  herds many of the vets could well go out of business.
  Farmers have security of tenure. I support that, and I support the new clauses in the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to extend that security of tenure to the nearest relative, with certain conditions. But why should farm workers not enjoy the same kind of security? The tied cottage system is inhuman and has meant untold suffering for farm workers and particularly for their wives. It is wrong for any man's home to depend on his job. I do not believe that any hon. Member would like to be in that situation.
  Mr. Cormack: The Prime Minister does.
  Miss Maynard: That comment is almost beneath contempt. There is no comparison between the Prime Minister and the farm worker, and there is a difference in their respective incomes. Under the system the children of farm workers suffer because they are moved from place to place, and that interferes with their education.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does my hon. Friend recall that the wife of the previous Prime Minister disowned that tied cottage and refused to live in it?
  Miss Maynard: I was at 10 Downing Street when I said to the last Prime Minister that it was the nicest tied cottage I had ever been in. He replied that he had opted out of the system. I appreciated that because neither he nor his wife liked it any more than our people do.
  The real answer to the tied cottage system is to pay the rate for the job to the farm worker with his many skills so that he can buy a home of his own like other people.
  It will, of course, be said that there are many other groups of workers who live in tied accommodation. That is wrong, too. We shall be asked why the Government have singled out the farm workers. The reason is that they have suffered longer and much more severely than any other group. They are more vulnerable because they work in small groups or singly. They live in rural areas which are dominated by landowners and farmers, and their trade union is not as

  1095
  strong as those of the industrial workers. Many more farm workers are dragged through the courts than any other group of workers, often because they have simply become too ill to work in the industry, because they have had an accident and can no longer work, or perhaps because they have simply reached retirement age. Our people have therefore been humiliated by being dragged through the courts like common criminals.
  Mr. Cormack: Why does the hon. Member persist in talking about "our people" and "his people" and all such divisive nonsense? If the farm workers have been suffering as much as she suggests, why did they not all join her union?
  Miss Maynard: I did not create the division. It is there in reality. Ellen Wilkinson, who was a highly respected Member of this House, said that the Tories did not preach class war because they were much too busy practising it.
  It is no good the Conservatives saying that this has become an expedient for securing council accommodation, in other words that there is collusion between the farmer and the farm worker in order to get a court order, and that that is why many of our people are taken through the courts. That may be true, but the practice flows from the tied cottage system. If that system did not exist our people could not be dragged through the courts in this way.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi (Homsey): Surely the need for the collusion and subterfuge arises from the reluctance of local authorities to rehouse at an early date. They will rehouse only where there is a possession order, and that forces the parties to go through the paraphernalia of getting a possession order. Without that requirement the collusion would be unnecessary.
  Miss Maynard: The collusion would be unnecessary if the system did not exist. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that local authorities had to house many other people. When it is suggested that many other types of workers live in tied cottages it should be remembered that no other union pays out as much as between £10,000 and £15,000 a year in defending their members in the courts as does the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. I have often been with our people at court hearings
  1096
  and I know the anguish they suffer on these occasions. I heard a judge say to one couple
  "It may be a hard thing for me to say to you, but land is more important than people."
  The truth will out. That remark is the truth of the matter and has been the truth for many years as our people have been kicked around in this rotten system. The Bill will restore dignity and human status to farm workers.
  Farmers say the Bill will be ruinous for the industry and ask how they will be able to get workers if they cannot offer tied houses. I will give them the answer, though I am sure they know it already. The way to acquire a labour force is to pay the rate for the job in an open, free and competitive market for labour. They are always saying that they believe in freedom and competition. Why de we not have some freedom of competition in this situation?
  Farm workers leave the industry not because they do not like the job but because it is impossible to bring up a family on the level of wages paid in the industry.
  Mr. David James (Dorset, North): Does the hon. Lady know of any farm worker who is in fact getting the basic agricultural wage and not considerably more?
  Miss Maynard: That depends very much on the area in which a farm worker is living. In a low wage area such as Norfolk, where there is less competition for jobs, farm workers might well be fairly near the basic rate in many cases. If they live near industrial Teesside, they will be getting more than the basic rate because farmers have to compete with the adjacent industries for labour. If the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James) thinks that most farm workers are receiving a high rate, why does he think the NFU resists so bitterly every wage claim we make?
  Mr. Shepherd: Surely the NFU opposes wage claims so strenuously because it knows that people of the likes of the hon. Lady will be crawling all over their backs with every increase in food prices which the extra wages produce.
  Miss Maynard: It is rather difficult to interpret that intervention. We have quite

  1097
  high food prices and very low wages in the industry. I hope the hon. Member is not suggesting that the wages of farm workers have produced high food prices in this country.
  We have heard a great deal about the burden which the Bill will place on local authorities. This could easily be overcome if farmers paid the rate for the job so that farm workers could afford to but their own homes.
  Abolition of the tied cottage system is a key question for farm workers. It is inexorably linked to the battle for better wages, as the farmers well understand. Militancy is a dirty word among employers because it means that people are willing to speak their minds and to fight for better wages and conditions. How can a person fight for better wages when his home depends on his job? What greater sanction can there be against anyone? I know of workers who have spoken out or written to the Press urging more militancy on wages by the union subsequently being sacked and put out of their homes. About 10 days ago, I had great difficulty persuading farm workers in a tied house to agree to be interviewed on television. So much for our much-vaunted freedom. Where the tied cottage system exists, freedom goes out of the window.
  The Bill is crucial for farm workers, but some improvements are necessary. The Government said in their consultative document in August that the aim was:
  "to disengage the farm worker's job from his home".
  That is the crux of the matter and I believe that aim to be right.
  Under the Bill, there are two kinds of tenants—protected occupants and statutory tenants. The protected occupant is a farm worker who has the same rent relationship with his employer as at present. He has a so-called privileged rent, which is less than the statutory rent, and presumably he will have no rent book.
  I want to see all farm workers become statutory tenants. As long as the relationship between farmer and farm worker in relation to rent remains the same, there will not be the complete disengagement between a worker's job and his home which the Government have said they believe to be essential. No one
  1098
  wants to be obligated to his landlord, let alone to his employer. As long as privileged rents remain, they will continue to act as bait to bring people into the industry.
  Privileged rents will be part of a man's wage and he will still be in a grace and favour situation in relation to his employer. Privileged rents deter farm workers from asking for their just deserts. They will be asked to do overtime and weekend work and to accept lower wages in return for the so-called privilege of a lower rent. We know that nobody in our society is given any privilege without paying for it and farm workers have always paid very dearly, particularly in terms of wages, for this privilege.
  The gap between the average pay of farm workers and industrial workers is now £17 a week and it has been getting wider over the years. This is an expensive payment for the so-called privilege of a lower rent. That £17 a week is the real rent of the cottage.
  I believe that the Bill should also cover estate workers who do some farm work and who are essential to the running of the industry and whose wages are closely related to farm workers, and gardeners who, like farm workers, grow food and whose wages are also closely related to those of farm workers. This is an issue we can deal with in Committee. It would be wrong to exclude these workers from the Bill.
  The Opposition believe that the qualifying period laid down in the Bill should be extended. I think that it should be reduced. I understand the reason for this period and welcome the fact that it relates to time spent in the industry and not on a particular farm. But a year would be much more appropriate. Surely that should be long enough for a farmer to know whether a worker is suitable. If he is unsuitable, surely it is the farmer's mistake for engaging him in the first instance. The worker should not be penalised for that mistake.
  I end as I began by welcoming the Bill. It has been a long and hard fight to get this far. Personally I shall devote every moment of my time to ensure that the Bill becomes an Act. I believe that I was sent to the House to help working people. As a sponsored Member of Parliament for farm workers, I shall

  1099
  rejoice with them when the Bill becomes an Act.
  5.11 p.m.
  Mr. David James: Both my parents were farmers, and I, too, have been a farmer. I have a son who is an agricultural labour in all his inclinations. I have spent my life, bar the war years, in the countryside. With the utmost respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), I cannot recognise the life of the countryside in the terms in which she describes it. It is not the country in which I live. She does not describe the people whom I meet in the local. The people she describes do not talk about the things that are spoken of by those I know. Nonetheless, I recognise the Bill's good intentions.
  I believe that the Bill suffers from two defects. I ask the hon. Member for Brightside to consider seriously whether in practice the Bill will improve the lot of the farm labourer. Secondly, I think there is no doubt from every document that one has ever read on this subject that the Bill will have a disastrous impact on agricultural production. That is surely something we must consider carefully.
  I am staggered that a country of animal lovers such as ours should even contemplate keeping livestock intensively without having people on the spot. I am staggered that it is not realised that skills are interchangeable in modern, highly integrated farms. A stockman may be down with flu or on holiday, in which case it must be the tractor driver who helps with the difficult birth of a calf. As all skills are interchangeable in farming, a specialised case cannot be made out for those who deal with stock on the premises, or for those who deal with machinery or cereals who are on a telephone perhaps only a few miles away.
  Another vital matter is the time factor. Very often in cereal farming there may be an unexpectedly bright day when farm managers want to get people out an hour early for harvest purposes. I have suffered a great deal from this myself when my son has been working on a farm, as one telephone is in my bed-room. If the farm managers wanted to get him out of bed at five in the morning, the telephone would ring on my side
  1100
  of the bed. He was only a mile away from the farm, but there is an enormous advantage in people being really close to the farm on which they work.
  Does the House appreciate the full extent to which a modern farm is labour intensive and a highly integrated exercise? I shall quote a specific case to illustrate my point. I have in mind a farmer who lives in my constituency but whose unit is just outside it. He has a unit with a thousand pedigree breeding sows turning out about 25,000 porkers a year. The farm is situated well away from anywhere else owing to the dangers of bacillus coli building up. It is surrounded by barbed wire almost as is a concentration camp. If the farm is approached by car it is necessary to drive through three basins of antiseptic. If hon. Members wanted to visit this farmer friend of mine—and they would be very welcome—they would have to strip to the buff, go through a shower and put on special clothes afterwards. That would apply even to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  The people who work in the unit very often have to go through that procedure four of five times a day. For example, they begin work early in the morning and go back for breakfast. When they return they have a second shower. When they return from lunch they have a third shower.
  The unit is utterly dependent on eight people who live in a group of cottages rather like the fo'c'sle of a ship. They are, in effect, a ship's company. They are extremely highly paid. They have alternate weekends off and three weeks' holiday a year.
  If a unit is to be run on that basis the farmer cannot afford to have one of his houses occupied by someone who is no longer part of the team. It is as though someone were to sign off his ship but keep his berth in the fo'c'sle. It just is not possible. The most enterprising farmers will be seriously wondering whether they should continue indulging in such a high degree of capita] expenditure. They will be considering whether they should be cutting back on housebuilding projects.
  For many years there has been a group of contemplative nuns in my constituency. There are 40 or 50 old ladies living

  1101
  behind a grill. They are entirely dependent for their livelihood on their farm. It was very sad that a few years ago their farm manager died, leaving behind a wife and seven children in the manager's cottage, a cottage that was crucial to their livelihood. I agree that the hon. Member for Brightside and the Government Front Bench have a point which needs examining very carefully, but I had to tell the Reverend Mother, who is naturally a religious person, and very reluctant to do what I felt bound to advise, that she would have to go through the process of taking the family to court to gain possession. I told her that if she did not do so she would not be able to gain another manager. In the end she obtained a possession order and the family was at once rehoused by the local authority.
  Miss Maynard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the gentleman who died was just as crucial and important to his wife and seven children as he was to the nuns? Does he agree that the family was in a much more difficult position than those who wanted the house? Is not that the crux of the matter? It seems that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the need for a farmer to run his farm to make a profit is more important than the woman and family he has described having security of tenure. Does he appreciate the difficulties that she faced, especially at a time when she had lost her husband?
  Mr. James: I think that the hon. Lady has missed the point of my story, which is that the farm was being run by 46 contemplative nuns. They may be called "the farmer", but 46 ladies of prayer have every bit as much right in this world as one woman with seven children. I agree that it is exceptionally difficult to get the balance right. The balance is not perfect at the moment, but I do not think it will be improved by the Bill.
  I suggest that matters work as they now stand because a farmer can obtain a possession order and the local authority has to rehouse those who are homeless. In my opinion that is a great deal better than the situation which would apply under Clause 29(6), where a local authority would have to use only its "best endeavours" to provide suitable accommodation. All I am pleading for is balance.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are many cases in which farm workers are evicted or faced with possession orders, cases in which the local authority will not rehouse? This happens when farm workers have failed to complete the residential period which is required by the local authority. Does he agree that farm workers in that position are faced by an impossible state of affairs?
  Mr. James: I have no doubt that that may be so in some parts of country, but it is not in the area from which I come. All I know is that a really good stockman, or a skilled farm hand, can get a first-class job, and a better paid job, anywhere else in the country if for any reason he falls out with his boss.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: No one can accuse the Government of rushing their fences. It was back in 1894 when the farm workers first started the campaign to abolish the tied cottage system. That was 82 years ago, and it is a testimony to the farm workers' patience and tolerance that it took them the best part of 30 years to persuade the Labour movement to associate itself with this view by including a promise to abolish tied cottages in an election manifesto in 1964.
  I regret—but I am not surprised—that the Conservative Opposition have spoken in the debate in a way which demonstrates once again that both their faith and their feet are set firmly in feudalism. To stand up in the House and argue that a man's house shall be tied to his job is feudalism. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), to point a cliché, showed the unacceptable face of feudalism in his remarks from the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the position in the coal industry? If it is feudalism in agriculture, surely it is feudalism in the coal industry?
  Mr. Corbett: I am coming to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) demonstrated the vast difference between the muscle power of the National Union of Mineworkers and the muscle power of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers.
  We are all extremely grateful for the large number of interesting and helpful

  1103
  reports and surveys that have been sent to us. The Grubb Institute Report published in November of last year, "The Future of Agricultural Housing" in commenting on the consultative document, argued the case for an agricultural housing agency. In paragraph 6.3 the Institute came to this conclusion:
  "We regard the severing of the tied relationship as of major importance, because our analysis indicates that this relationship is the key factor leading to the intense feelings within the agricultural industry about tied cottages."
  We do not have to accept all we are told by these surveys, but at the least they tell us what we did not know before. I regard that extract from the report as a significant comment.
  One of my criticisms of the Bill is that it leaves that position unchanged, because protection and security do not come into play until there is a breakdown in the relationship. Opposition Members should bear in mind that to this extent the Government have listened to the comments of the National Farmers' Union and others upon the consultative document. It is unfair to suggest, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire suggested, that the Government are acting out of blind dogma and have gone ahead without consultation and without taking into account comments made in consultation.
  The relationship between the farmer and the farm worker is fundamental. The farm worker starts off with an unfair disadvantage in his dealings with the farmer. He knows that if he pushes matters too hard—especially if he brings in his union—he can end up by putting his family on the street. Opposition Members should respect and acknowledge that fear. They may say that this is not the way to deal with that fear, but it is wrong to pretend that the fear does not exist.
  I welcome the Bill to the extent that it gives farm workers what they have sought since 1894—added security for the tenant. I also believe that the proposal for advisory committees with independent chairmen will be welcomed by the industry. That proposal will result in keeping these matters out of the courts, and that is a step forward. The decision is left in the hands of those who work in and know the industry, and that is an advantage. We might speculate that
  1104
  certain aspects could go wrong, but at the point of arbitration the people who will take the decisions will have experience and knowledge of the industry and its quirks.
  A report sent to us by the Arthur Rank Centre was not welcomed by the General Secretary of the NUAAW. The report argued primarily for a licensing system, which did not find favour with the General Secretary. A comprehensive survey was carried out, from which it emerges that the most universal single reason it is possible to isolate for the intense feeling that is experienced is insecurity. Whether that feeling is real or imagined, it is there. Farm workers face the fear that after a row with the boss, or the death of the farmer and a change of ownership, they may be rendered homeless. It is as well for us to accept with some humility that no hon. Member on either side of the House has to face that prospect. Even if an hon. Member had to face such a problem his salary is slightly different from that earned by an agricultural worker.
  The report comments on the findings of the survey as follows:
  "That there is a need for some sort of remedy for insecurity is evidenced by the 54 per cent. of our sample who mentioned insecurity as one of the disadvantages of the tied cottage. We cannot know from our survey just how great an anxiety this factor is, but no other disadvantage was mentioned by more than 11·6 per cent. of our sample. Those interviewed were encouraged to mention as many factors as they liked, but insecurity was mentioned nearly five times as often as any other disadvantage."
  The National Farmers' Union, in the brief which it helpfully sent to us for the debate, argues that not all farm workers wish for this change. I accept that absolutely. Why should we expect unanimity among farm workers on this or any other matter any more than we would expect to find unanimity amongst vicars, bank managers or Members of Parliament? Of course there will be differences of view. The secretary of the branch of the NUAAW nearest to my constituency wrote to a farming journal putting on record his individual view that the tied cottage system worked well in his experience. The views of people on both sides of the industry will be coloured by individual experience. Not every farmer takes the view of the National Farmers' Union. It is idle to pretend that all do.

  1105
  The survey which has been sent to us by the Royal Agricultural Society of England, conducted by Dr. Ruth Gasson, an agricultural economist at the University of Cambridge, is a survey of 40 farms in the South of England, and it is purely random. But it makes the point, to which not all members of the NFU suscribe, that,
  "Farmers thought it essential for the proper running of the farm to have 60 per cent. of their employees living on the premises".
  It goes on to give some percentages. There are differences of emphasis within the ranks of the NFU itself on the provisions of this Bill. I would expect to find that this difference of emphasis has a lot to do with the kind of enterprise in which they are engaged.
  It is perhaps a little easy to overstate the industry's case for having people living actually next door to the particular enterprise. I acknowledge that there is a case although some of my hon. Friends may not go that far. However, the fact of the matter is that at the moment about 52 per cent. of full-time farm workers in England and Wales live in tied cottages. Therefore, almost half of our farming enterprises manage to exist without their workers living in tied cottages. I do not want to make heavy weather of this but one would like to know the percentage of farmers who actually employ farm workers. That is just another straw in the wind.
  I must also confess to amazement over the attitude of farmers generally as stated in this debate. It strikes me as quite extraordinary that farmers should have volunteered over the years to provide housing for those who work with them. It is an additional capital investment and expense on top of the rates and taxes which, like the rest of us, they are paying. They have the right to expect that in return for those rates and taxes, like any other member of the community, housing should, by and large, be made available.
  It is quite an extraordinary phenomenon in this industry and something flows from it. Anyone with even the most brief acquaintance of the industry must be horrified by the inevitable photographs which appear on television screens, and in newspapers, of the heartbreak of evictions with bailiffs smashing down the doors, crying children, and with the police standing by to see that there is no physical
  1106
  violence. That is a situation which the industry has very much brought on itself because over the years it has said "Do not bother about it. We will provide the housing."
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman paints a picture of evictions from agricultural houses, with people crying outside, as though it occurs only in this industry. It also occurs frequently with local authorities. In the London borough of Camden, for instance, there have been frequent intrusions by television cameras when tenants have been evicted and they may suffer far more under the tyranny of a bad local authority than they ever would under farmers.
  Mr. Corbett: I think the hon. Lady misunderstands me. I am not saying that evictions happen only in agriculture. I am saying that many times when evictions are in the news, in my experience, they happen to be in agriculture, and that gives the industry a bad name. Whether she agrees or not, that is the point I am making. I am not saying that it happens exclusively in the agricultural industry.
  There was talk earlier about the need, under existing legislation, for a certain amount of collusion between farmers, as employers, and farm workers to secure repossession of cottages by trying to secure rehousing of a worker who was leaving the farm. This also happens in urban areas, too. We all know it does. But it is worth making the point that, by and large, in rural areas it has taken place with Tory dominated councils which have not been carrying out their housing responsibilities. Those farmers, who act in collusion, as employers, are often the self-same councillors because that is the nature of representation on many of those bodies who turn a blind eye to this sort of thing.
  This leads me to a more serious point. In the Arthur Rank survey it was pointed out that only 18 per cent. of farm workers living in tied accommodation have their names on local authority housing lists. I find that quite incredible. I have discussed it with farm workers in my own constituency who say—and I understand it—that they do not want to go and live on a council estate or that the estate is in the wrong place. I repeatedly say to them, "Put your name

  1107
  down and have it there as a safety measure if nothing else. You do not have to take up the offer of the council house if and when it is made by the local authority, but if you leave it until you have to call on existing legislation, and find yourselves at the mercy of the local authority, the first question they will ask is 'Are you on the housing list, and for how long?' ". I hope that the union, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside is such a distinguished member, will see whether some encouragement can be given to its members about this suggestion.
  The House will agree that, by and large, the agricultural industry has a very good record of labour relations primarily because of the nature of the activity itself. It is almost becoming unique for a man to be his own boss, to work with his own hands and skills and talents, and to be left to get on with the job. There is also, of course, the devotion of farm workers to a job which they enjoy doing. We should acknowledge that. Anything we do in this House should help that process and not hinder it. It is for this reason that the Bill is to be welcomed despite some of the criticisms made of it. This industry does not just need skilled men and women. Increasingly, it needs to retain them. One way in which we shall help to retain a skilled and devoted labour force, which must be the envy of many other industries, is by removing the uncertainty which, I have no doubt, many of those living in tied cottages feel.
  I have referred to the brief given by the NFU. It is not overstating the case to say that I do not read into that brief total opposition by the NFU to this measure. I was at a meeting of Tring NFU last night. We meet about once a year for a lively exchange of views. No one at that meeting spoke against the principle of this measure. They were concerned about someone going off and working in a Common Market country.
  The second point which came up—and it has been referred to in the debate—is that there is a phrase in the Bill about local authorities using "best endeavours" on rehousing. I understand the NFU's fears. They are wondering whether there are ways, during the Committee stage,
  1108
  in which the obligation, or commitment, could be written more firmly into the legislation to try to relieve them of some of their justifiable anxieties. It is one thing to say that there will be an obligation to rehouse, but it is an industry which needs people and workers to live near their enterprises. They want to be assured that when these problems do arise they will be dealt with as speedily as possible.
  I hope that the Bill gets a Second Reading and goes on to become the law because I believe that it is right to enact it. It is right that this House should say to those who provide us with a large proportion of our food, "We see no reason why you should not stand in the same fair and free relationship with your employer as every other worker in the country."
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am glad to be able to agree with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett). I have tried to approach the Bill from the viewpoint of one who is not directly involved in agriculture and who can therefore take as near as possible a disinterested third party view. I agree that that is difficult. It has not been easy to maintain objectivity in view of the conflicting arguments and the emotionality which is sometimes used and sometimes over-larded.
  I have discussed this matter in equal depth and content with branches of both the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and the National Farmers' Union, to which I have easy access. I am grateful to them for the time that they spent spelling out their concerns both ways—one about the situation and one about the results of changing it in the wrong way.
  Cutting through the meat of the discussion with the NUAAW, it came to the point at which we could agree that the three real issues worrying the farm workers were: What happens if I die? What happens if I am disabled? "What happens when I retire?" Those are absolutely valid questions and are related to the question of security which has been emphasised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead. It is when we try to solve those three problems that we start to go in different directions.

  1109
  At no time in my discussions with the NFU have I found anyone on the farming side—or even in the market place, among non-NFU members—who has taken an absolutely hard line or said, "That is their problem, not mine." There is genuine concern. The dispute, for a long time, has been about how to solve it.
  This Bill is guilty of the defect of overkill. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It sorts out the problems, but it does so in a far too heavy-handed a way and at far too great a cost to the industry and its whole future. We must be careful not to stifle the industry which has been built up, and which is supreme among all countries, by making it impossible to operate.
  The part of the world that I have been able to study is one of predominantly livestock farming.
  Miss Maynard: Would the hon. Gentleman explain how they manage in the Common Market without tied cottages?
  Mr. Shepherd: As far as I can deduce from the material available to me, accommodation is taken for granted in the Common Market, with the exception of Italy, where they have the same problems as we have. The main answer is the tremendous number of small family units in the Common Market which do not employ. The fragmentation of the scene in France creates problems in other directions but not with tied cottages.
  Mr. Evelyn King: It makes food more expensive.
  Mr. Shepherd: As my hon. Friend says, it also makes food more expensive. We have a tremendous record in this country of producing food economically.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Talking of sledgehammers, surely the hon. Gentleman does not mean that the efficiency—the supremacy, as he regarded it—of British agriculture depends on the maintenance of the tied cottage. Is he suggesting that?
  Mr. Shepherd: No, I am not suggesting that. What I am saying is that the manner chosen for trying to dispose of the tied cottage issue is likely to jeopardise the industry's effectiveness. This is a matter of opinion. I must take a balanced summary of the arguments that I have heard on both sides and formulate my views
  1110
  accordingly. I will come later to what I have deduced to be the effects of the Bill and to what concerns me, when the hon. Gentleman may be able to go with me a long way.
  Much has been said about the wish for good relationships betwen employer and employees. This applies not just in the farming industry but in all industrial relations. This trust is easily upset. I detect a great deal of concern on both sides that the trust betwen farmer and farm worker, between employer and employee, will disappear, that they will not feel able to talk and discuss the matter, that there will be a "We shall talk through my solicitors" type of approach.
  I have said that the Bill is a sledgehammer. The desire to provide security of housing is commendable, but the cost for agriculture and the social cost will be high and must be counted. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), in a speech to which I listened with interest, talked about the availability of cars and telephones. I agree that they exist, but, as she said, the need to live further off the job will not only involve higher rents because tenants will not have the advantage of protected occupancy or the tied cottage rate—it will also be a drain on their financial resources. They will need more money to work.
  Miss Maynard: Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that, if farm workers were all statutory tenants and had to pay a rent, say, equivalent to that of a council house in the area, the practical effect is that the farmer would pay that much extra on the wage or that the man, being a free man, would go to work somewhere else? It is as simple as that, and he knows it as well as I do. That is why I am for the status of statutory tenant for all our people, rather than that of protected occupant. We do not want any of the so-called privileges of low rents.
  Mr. Shepherd: I agree that if all were statutory tenants, a higher wage would be payable. But that brings me back to my earlier intervention, which the hon. Lady chose to ignore—that a higher wage for no benefit of production will lead to higher costs of food and therefore higher prices in the shops. I am surprised that the hon. Lady and her hon.

  1111
  Friends should be pushing that aspect of the matter.
  This is the cost of this exercise to agriculture and the community. Once again, we have to weigh up whether that is desirable. The hon. Lady cannot have her cake and eat it when it comes to prices. Higher wages for no benefit other than statutory tenancy across the board has other connotations as well.
  Miss Maynard: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that in no industry have workers such a good production record as in farming? Where has that got them in terms of wages? Absolutely nowhere. As for his argument that if they got more wages, production would not increase, my answer is that the production increase which they have achieved over many years has got them nowhere in terms of wages. I know why it has not. The other point is that food prices are very high at the moment, and the other thing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Lady has already made one speech, and she has made a fairly good intervention.
  Mr. Shepherd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your prevention of a second speech.
  I shall not deny the record. I applaud farm workers for their record of productivity and achievement. However, the hon. Lady draws attention to a point that I was wishing to make a little later. The standard, quality and style of life is one that makes it highly desirable, especially for those seeking employment in the agricultural industry in my part of the world, in due course possibly to use to facilitate jumping the housing queue.
  The dependence of the Bill on the phrase that the district councils
  "shall use their best endeavours"
  is both the hinge-pin and the weak point of the Bill. It is the hinge-pin because at the end of the road it will always fall to the district council to provide housing. Nothing in the Bill can work unless the district council does provide housing. To provide housing it will have to want to provide housing, and it will have to be able to overcome its other difficulties. It is the weak point of the Bill because of the commitment of the district council—
  1112
  the district council that has a waiting list of needy cases.
  What hon. Member present in the Chamber can deny that a good deal of his correspondence and time is taken up in trying to sort out housing problems of people who have been waiting on the housing list and who are absolutely stuck and stymied? Here we are trying to find a means by which people can move ahead of the queue and jump it. The priorities of housing committees and housing authorities are a nightmare for them in trying to judge who is the most deserving as they come up.
  The housing stock in itself is a difficult matter. If there is inadequate housing stock and the requirements have changed, it will take a substantial period to meet needs, and housing authorities are sometimes reluctant to invest in a large programme of housing accommodation knowing that if it is to be council housing it will cost the ratepayers about three times the rent received. There is also the question of the location of homes.
  All of these points were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) in a rumbustious and thunderingly good opening speech, which showed tremendous appreciation of the depth of the problems involved.
  If we accept that the housing matter will not easily be solved, we find that it is not difficult to imagine the situation of a district council with no housing available and refusing to help. The stock of service houses will become more and more tied up, until we get—as the hon. Lady would like—a totally statutory tenancy situation. What happens then, when all the service houses have statutory tenants? Will the farmer be allowed to build another house? Will he be able to afford to build another? Most important, will he want to? Or will he shuck that responsibility on to the housing authority?
  As the number of houses is reduced and more people become more static because they dare not lose the benefit of a statutory tenancy, we shall get restriction on mobility, in terms of both job and location. The ambitious and highly skilled must be mobile in order to develop their skills and to get around and experience the agricultural industry.

  1113
  The qualifying period, as I have indicated, is an avenue for queue-jumping. A two-year period—91 weeks out of 104 —is a short time if one is fed up with Manchester or Sheffield, Brightside, and wants a nice house in Herefordshire. The measure will temper with caution the wish of livestock farmers to invest and expand, and it will almost certainly stop the further building of houses.
  Another point that has not yet been covered today is the threat to milk production. If it becomes more difficult to house people because of statutory tenancies developing and because of stockmen living away from the job, the temptation will be to take the golden handshakes available and opt out of milk production. As things stand, we do not have sufficient milk in Britain.
  The horticultural scene is threatened by the Bill. The orchards in Herefordshire depend upon people being able to go out and switch on sprays immediately the temperature drops—not on people having to get into a car and drive about five miles, taking 15 minutes. When the temperature drops below freezing point, the sprays must be switched on. The blackcurrant crop, which forms the basis of our Ribena and so on, depends on someone being there at the time. The poultry industry must have people in attendance—the right people in the right place. That is the overkill aspect that makes me wonder.
  There is also in the Bill a financial provision for the district councils to be able to provide more housing. Frankly, the provision is hopelessly inadequate. It is a piece of misrepresentation. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment upon this matter later. According to my counting, there are 333 non-metropolitan district councils in England and Wales. For these, £5 million per year is to be allowed. That gives £15,000 per district council per year—1¼ houses each.
  Where will each district council put its 1·25 houses—at one end of its area or the other? Bearing in mind that many district councils cover an area of 500 square miles or more, it can be seen that the inadequacy of this provision comes to the fore. It will take a long time to provide the necessary housing to be able
  1114
  to realise the wishes of Labour Members on this matter.
  As a result of all this, I ask myself why it is that there is so much pressure to bring this measure forward. I cannot help but think that this is a means of extending the grip of bureaucracy and Socialism into agriculture, which for years has been independent, with an independence of mind, spirit and action. Agriculture has a proud record of independence. It is not so much that it is frantically wished by everyone to abolish tied houses, although some concern has been shown. In Scotland, as has been mentioned, 70 per cent. of farm workers live in tied houses, yet there is no great clamour in Scotland, nor does the Bill claim to cover Scotland. The real move behind this measure is an attempt to control agriculture through controlling the mobility and availability of the labour force.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I shall not say that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) spoiled a very good speech, but he spoiled the most reasonable and moderate speech that we have heard from the Opposition Benches today. I thought that he would at least concede that there was some case for the Bill, when every hon. Member must know that there is an overwhelming case for it.
  The hon. Gentleman must know that with the changing pattern in agriculture, as mechanisation has been increasing the need for land workers on each farm has been diminishing. The falling numbers employed in agriculture are a reflection partly of the miserable wages paid in agriculture but also of the steady increase in mechanisation. A farmer whose father may have employed about 15 workers in the past now finds it increasingly attractive, if he employs only three workers, perhaps, to sack one, to sell his cottage and to make a profit out of it, thus creating one additional homeless family. That is the pattern that has been developing throughout England and Wales. It is one of my regrets that the Bill does not extend to Scotland, because no doubt that is happening in Scotland as well.
  It is wrong to suggest that there is no need for this Bill. Corporate owners are going into agriculture and buying

  1115
  farms simply as investments and, in pursuit of capital gains, are exploiting the people who work in them. There was an example only last week in this category, when a farm was taken over by a Danish farmer who had decided to invest in British agriculture. His idea was to organise the entire farm so that there would be little need for many employees, and those he needed he would bring with him. He has given the workers notice and will probably proceed to sell off the farm cottages for use as second homes.
  I cannot believe that responsible Opposition Members—and there are still some who fall into that category—will pretend that in such a situation no change is required in the law to protect agricultural workers. The hon. Member for Hereford acknowledged the fears of workers as to the situation if they became disabled, or what would happen to them when they retired, or to their widows following their deaths. However, the hon. Member did not go on to suggest measures to correct the situation. He says he regards the Bill as a sledgehammer, but he made no suggestion as to how a proper measure could be achieved. Perhaps he will make his views clearer in Committee and will then suggest what steps should be taken to deal with the situation.
  The hon. Member made no mention of the possibility of redundancy, or other problems. There is a continuing diminution in the level of employment in the industry and there is great incentive for the farmer to chuck the farm worker and his family—or, indeed, a widow and her family—out of the house. Therefore, a measure such as the present Bill is vital, and is many years overdue.
  I accept that there are difficulties for farmers, which can be serious. Problems arise because some workers need to be close to their jobs. Difficulties arise when the farm is situated well away from other available housing. But it must be remembered that it has been estimated that there are 12,000 empty cottages of this nature throughout the country. Therefore, it is desirable to bring that accommodation into use as soon as possible.
  I recognise that there are difficulties in ensuring a proper balance between interests that should not but do conflict. On
  1116
  the whole, I believe that the Government have achieved the right balance. I was originally attracted by an adaptation of the idea put forward by the Grubb Institute that agricultural cottages should be transferred to an agricultural housing agency which, in turn, could grant tenancies. I think that eventually we may reach a solution on those lines, and certainly a situation in which cottages are not owned by the farmer. Such a proposal would mean that the housing agency would be responsible for ensuring that a house would be available to the agricultural worker on the spot. However, I believe that this Bill, as a transitional measure, has the balance substantially right.
  The overwhelming majority of local authorities in agricultural areas are blessed, if I may so call it, with Tory councils which have not been the most active in making provision for local authority housing. I hope that in future those authorities will see to it that the housing stock in their areas is increased to ensure that alternative accommodation can be made available when needed.
  I hope that the fact that there will be a duty to rehouse agricultural workers, following the ending of their employment for whatever cause, will not prevent others in rural areas from obtaining council houses. That is a danger, and I hope that it is adequately covered by the Bill's use of the words "best endeavours" and by the setting up of the agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees. I hope that those committees will take account of the needs of others.
  After the system has been set up for some time, we may have to consider introducing a pre-licensing system. In respect of certain farms it may be vital for the farmer to be able to obtain possession—
  Miss Maynard: No.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) obviously does not agree, but if an employee for any reason ceases to work on a farm, or decides that he can obtain a better job elsewhere, the farmer in certain circumstances must be able to obtain possession. I am merely saying that there may be a case for a pre-licensing system. However, that proposal may have to be grafted on to the

  1117
  legislation after this Bill has been in operation for a period of time.
  Dr. Colin Phipps: What is the objection to rural local authorities providing all rural housing? Why should any part of it be the farmer's responsibility?
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is part of a municipalisation programme which I should personally like to see carried through to its full extent. My hon. Friend knows my commitment to municipalisation. However, at present we are limited by certain constraints on public expenditure, and therefore I would not put the acquisition of rural housing as my top priority; there is an even greater need for municipalisation. However, I certainly hope that as a result of the Bill local authorities will acquire more and more agricultural cottages, whether they be occupied or vacant.
  I agree that it is wrong the employers should possess such an overwhelming amount of bargaining power. Many of us know, from going round the constituencies at election times, how many agricultural workers are loth to express their views. They are afraid to make their views known even to the local candidate, for fear that it might spill out to their employers. I went to one village in Essex in which every house belonged to the same farmer. I came away without the promise of a single vote, but when the ballot box was opened the Labour votes were overwhelming. They dared not express their views because they did not wish to offend their employer. They felt that their homes and their jobs could be at risk.
  I agree that it would be desirable if the full statutory rent were to be paid, and even more desirable if agricultural cottages were taken out of farmers' hands altogether. However, as an interim measure I emphasise that the Bill has the balance about right. It imposes an increasing obligation on local authorities to use their endeavours to build or buy more houses. I hope that local authorities will take advantage of the North Wilts scheme of taking leases of houses that are not immediately required by the owners. That is one of the satisfactory
  1118
  transitional means of ensuring that adequate housing is available.
  For the most part, adequate housing is available in the agricultural areas and there is also no shortage of land. Much of the problem in many urban areas is one of not enough land on which to build houses, but there is no such problem in the rural areas. There is no problem with planning permission, either. The farmer can get and the local authority can give permission to build.
  Mr. Shepherd: How would the hon. Member cover this in cases where the structure plan expressly goes against such development in villages? If I may quote the structure plan with which the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) will no doubt be familiar, it does not allow for development of this kind outside the market towns or the main urban centres.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: The great majority of such plans make an express exception for agricultural cottages. The hon. Gentleman intervened, but he does not even see fit to listen to the reply. I would have thought he would be aware that the vast majority of structure plans make express exception for the building of cottages for agricultural workers. The cost of building in the rural areas is certainly very much less than the average cost, so in practice there is no serious constraint on the provision of adequate housing.
  The fundamental problem that we are discussing is a problem of housing, but it is also a problem of human relations. If hon. Members on the Opposition Benches cannot understand that it is intolerable to be in a situation in which one cannot express one's mind, or voting intentions, even, for fear that one will lose both home and job, they are living in a past age.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough): On the question of people's voting intentions, the hon. Gentleman is making a very serious allegation. He says that he knew how the inhabitants of a certain village voted. Are we to believe that in spite of the declaration of secrecy he made a note of the ballot box numbers. went to the polling station and saw that ballot box opened at the count, and followed it through? I believe that he is making an irresponsible and inaccurate allegation.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps been present at even more counts than I have. One does have a certain indication of the places from where ballot boxes have come, and I do not think I am offending against the declaration of secrecy that I made when I say that when a ballot box is spilled open one can see quite a number of the votes cast. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, I do not know what he has been doing at the counts he has attended.
  The point that I wish to make is a serious one. This Bill involves a number of difficulties, which the Government have tackled bravely. We cannot pretend that we can be certain that the system will work perfectly. There will have to be balances, and points conceded on both sides. There will be difficulties, but I think that the Government have got it about right. I hope that when we implement the Bill we shall bear in mind the possibility that it may he desirable to introduce a limited pre-licensing system. In the meantime, the important thing is to get as much housing as possible made available, and to ensure that agricultural workers have security and the bargaining power that others take for granted.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I thank you for calling me to speak in this very important debate, Mr. Speaker. I declare my interest once again as a livestock farmer with three tied cottages on my property—cottages that are occupied by shepherds and cattlemen. After listening to different views of hon. Members on both sides of the House I am proud to say, as a farmer and a Liberal, that I welcome the Bill. It will do a power of good for the farmers and the farm workers of this country.
  Perhaps one of the main reasons for my welcoming the Bill—a reason which many right hon. and hon. Members of this House do not know—is that I was brought up on a hill farm in Cardiganshire with a total acreage of 250. I remember the days before the war, when the gross takings were only £60 and we used to pay a farm worker £5 per annum and he was living in. They were the bad old days, and here we are in 1976
  1120
  and it is my duty as a radical and a Liberal to do what I can to help the workers and the farmers alike. I never forget the days in the 1930s, when things were so bad for the owner-occupier and the worker on the land.
  Although I welcome the Bill, I have a few reservations, especially regarding council housing, but I shall come to that later. The system of tied cottages in agriculture has generated a great deal of heat over the years, both from those who wish to abolish it completely and from those who see its destruction as a severe blow to agriculture. These points of view have produced extreme statements from both sides, but I think that the whole problem should be approached from a reasonable standpoint, so that the interests of both the farmer and the agricultural worker are adequately protected.
  The Government are continually urging the farm industry to increase production, and they are right to do so. In the Government White Paper on "Food from our own resources" they exhort the British farmer to make every effort to increase production and thus make his contribution towards an improved balance of payments. The then Prime Minister, speaking at the Royal Welsh Show at Stoneleigh last year, said:
  "The Government policy is to establish a framework which can give confidence for the future for the consumer and for the producer, so that he can plan and invest. At this time above all we need to make the best and most economic use of our resources, not only of land but of the skills of our own agricultural industry."
  The recent survey shows that a large percentage of farmers believe that the abolition of tied housing will have an adverse effect on production, but I do not believe that. To attract and keep labour in the agriculture industry, they say, it is essential that they should be able to offer accommodation to key workers. In one farming journal a farmer is quoted as follows:
  "We would have more confidence in the future if we knew we would be allowed to keep the staff housing we have. This is a key to future confidence. We cannot produce without labour."
  As a farmer, I believe that in many branches of the industry, such as the dairy and livestock sectors, it is vitally important to ensure that the staff concerned live

  1121
  as near to their jobs as possible, and the tied cottage system has, over the years, worked very well in this respect, from both the employer's and the employee's point of view. This is an aspect that must be safeguarded in any legislation. Farming is dependent on an efficient and dedicated work force if output is to increase. However, the work force has declined dramatically over the last 15 years. In 1960 there were 505,000 full-time workers in the industry: today there are in the region of 233,000 men—a decrease of over 50 per cent. If we are to have a thriving agriculture industry this trend must be stopped.
  It makes good sense, therefore, that an employer should want to offer incentives to his workers to prevent a further drift from the land, and it would seem that providing good, cheap housing could be one effective way. At present there are about 90,000 farm workers—nearly half the work force—in tied cottages, representing a capital investment by the farmers of £1,800 million. On the other hand, housing in rural areas is scarce and council housing is woefully lacking, and it could therefore be said that the farmer is making a contribution to the resources of rural areas by providing much-needed housing.
  The Tavistock report, published last year, provided some interesting and important statistics, which destroyed some of the myths perpetuated by those who do not understand agriculture or its needs. The report makes it clear that a commonsense approach should be adopted rather than passionate, unreasoned accusations.
  One much-used argument is that the system leads to disadvantages in pay. The report shows that the mean take-home pay of workers in tied cottages is 17 per cent. higher than that of those not living in tied accommodation. This argument also holds good for groups of workers doing the same jobs. The report also find that there are no appreciable differences in the numbers of hours worked by those who live in tied accommodation and those who do not.
  The report concludes:
  "If those living in tied cottages receive higher than average wages, yet do not work longer hours … it must be tentatively concluded that farmers either place their more highly paid workers in tied houses or that
  1122
  employees living in tied houses tend to become better paid."
  Miss Maynard: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, because of the shortage of dairymen, probably more dairymen live in tied houses than general farm workers or tractor men and that might be one reason why they tend to be more highly paid? Does he also agree that the Tavistock Report—he is quoting selectively—clearly made the point that nobody could disagree that for any man to have his home dependent upon his job was detrimental?
  Mr. Howells: I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady. I shall go on to prove that there are two sides to the argument.
  Workers in tied houses tend to stay longer and acquire valuable specific experience of their employer's farm, which, it could be argued, is good for the industry. For these reasons, we must resist abolishing—we must improve, not abolish—a system which has many good aspects, by putting forward a workable alternative.
  It would be disastrous to disrupt the pattern of rural housing—a procedure which could lead to a farm worker being without a house or a job. Stringent safeguards should be devised to protect the farm worker against unfair eviction, on the one hand, and the farmer against an unsatisfactory employee and tenant, on the other. A great effort should be made to improve rural housing.
  The Government's proposals, as they stand, do not abolish tied housing, and I feel that the farming community's worst fears have not been realised. On the other hand, the Bill provides security of tenure to a certain section of farm workers who were not previously protected.
  However, the Bill has one serious defect—the housing authority's obligations in the matter of rehousing. It seems to me that the Government's proposals are unfairly weighted against the farmer. Although the responsibility for rehousing tenants is placed on the housing authority, plenty of loopholes are provided to enable the authority to evade that responsibility too easily.
  My view is that there should be an automatic obligation on the housing authority to provide alternative accommodation to the tenant, thus freeing the

  1123
  housing for essential agricultural accommodation. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will give us that assurance.
  We would also like an assurance from the Minister that legislation will not result in the drying up of rural tied housing, which makes such an important contribution to efficient farming today, and that the Government will take steps to tackle the problem of housing in rural communities without delay.
  Being a practical farmer, I had to look at the Bill as a farmer and as an employer. In my view, the benefits to a livestock farmer, once the Bill is on the statute book, will be—
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of housing, may I ask whether it is the Liberal Party's view that this House should lay down that, in any circumstances, the local authority should be under an obligation to rehouse a dispossessed farm worker before other families, whatever their needs may be?
  Mr. Howells: That is my personal view, and I have advised my colleagues that it should be the Liberal Party's policy. In my view, an agricultural worker who is turned out of his tied house should have the right to a council house, if the Bill is to work. That is a view held by my colleagues and myself.
  As the law stands, a farm worker can stay on in a tied cottage for six months. The majority—90 per cent.—of farmers and farm workers are reasonable people. Only a few will not keep to the law. If a farm manager is not very well—he may not be able to work for the next five or 10 years—as a reasonable farmer, I would not force him out of his tied cottage. But if the Bill goes through I shall have the right to go to the local housing authority to discuss the problem, and the farm manager will be rehoused by the authority.
  The major objection to the Bill is contained in Part IV—"Rehousing". Clause 29, which lays down the duties of the relevant housing authority, is sufficiently loose to create massive loopholes for the housing authority to escape through.
  1124
  For example, subsection (6) provides that the authority
  "shall use their best endeavours to provide the suitable alternative accommodation."
  The words "best endeavours" have no legal meaning, in my view, and place no legal obligation on the local authority. I should like to see inserted there a provision that once the local agricultural advisory council has given the local authority the go-ahead it should have the right to act and help to rehouse the farm worker.
  Similarly, subsection (7) provides that the authority shall assess
  "the priority to be given to meet the applicant's case "
  by taking into account
  "the urgency of the case, the competing claims on the accommodation … and the resources at their disposal."
  That subsection gives the authority not only the power to make all kinds of value judgments, but a whole list of possible excuses for avoiding its responsibilities.
  The clause provides no method of appeal which allows the applicant to challenge the authority's decision. The only course of action open to him is to apply for a mandamus order through the High Court, which is an expensive procedure. Furthermore, as the NFU points out, the local authority can easily avoid such an order by showing the existence of competing claims for accommodation in its area or by saying that it simply did not have a council house available.
  If there is to be any real benefit from the Bill—this applies equally to the farmer and to the farm worker—it will be achieved only by strengthening Clause 29 and placing on local authorities a mandatory responsibility to provide accommodation if the local agricultural advisory committee decides that there is a proven case for rehousing on grounds of efficient agriculture.
  Local authorities should have a statutory obligation to rehouse anyone in the agriculture industry leaving a licensed or otherwise tied cottage. Special housing finance should be made available to housing authorities to enable them to implement an urgent building programme to deal with the increased housing needs created by that proposal.
  An hon. Member from the Government Benches said that he would like to

  1125
  see the day when farm workers are paid enough to enable them to buy their own houses. I hope that day comes soon.
  I have advised my colleagues in the Liberal Party to support the passage of the Bill tonight.
  6.31 p.m.
  Dr. Colin Phipps: I have to declare an interest, which is probably unique on this side of the House because not only am I a farmer; I also own a tied cottage. I enjoy being a farmer, but I wish I were not the owner of a tied cotage—that is not the most enjoyable part of being a farmer. For a long time I have felt that housing in rural areas should be the responsibility of local authorities and that it should not be part of a farmer's investment in the industry.
  It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), since I agree with much of what he said.
  If we do not impose an obligation on local authorities to provide housing in rural areas we will impose obligations on farmers. I find it difficult to understand why farmers, as a group, should be singled out by statute to be obliged to provide rural housing for people who do not work for them. That seems totally unjust.
  Miss Maynard: Can my hon. Friend explain why skilled farm workers should not be paid the rate for the job, so that they can buy their own homes and relieve farmers such as him of this terrible burden? They should be paid the rate for the job so that they can buy their own homes, like other people.
  Dr. Phipps: I was not arguing against my hon. Friend's view. I shall be delighted when that day arrives.
  We could be imposing an obligation on an arbitrary group of people—farmers with properties—to house members of the rural community at a fixed rent, irrespective of whether they work for members of that group. One might just as well say that because he is well paid an hon. Member should provide a house for one person in the town which he represents. When a company builds a new factory in the urban area the local
  1126
  council provides the necessary houses. Why should this not be done in rural areas? I am not arguing that rural workers should not buy their own houses, or that local authorities should not provide them, but one does not right one wrong by creating another. The Bill is in danger of creating another wrong.
  Ministers, and my hon. Friend for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), have argued that local authorities must provide local housing under the Bill, but there is no such obligation in the measure. The infamous Clause 29, in subsections (6) and (7), does not provide that obligation, because of the reference to competing claims on accommodation. I can imagine what my local housing manager would do with that clause. He would always say that there were competing claims, and I am sure that they would be justifiable. More rural houses is the answer to the problem. The Bill protects rural councils—most of which are Conservative-controlled—and I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) supports that.
  I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in a Written Question:
  "What percentage of all housing is provided by local government in rural as opposed to urban, areas of England and Wales?"
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told me in an answer that I received today:
  "Immediately prior to local government reorganisation in 1974 —
  which was the last date on which that could be done before the change from rural and urban districts—
  "it was estimated that housing authorities in England and Wales provided 20 per cent. of all housing in rural districts and 31 per cent. elsewhere."
  That is the nub of the problem, and the cause of the difficulties faced by farmers and agricultural workers. In the past farmers have been pleased to provide this kind of housing, which is essential in certain types of farming, but so long as only 20 per cent. of housing in rural areas is provided by local authorities it is ridiculous to expect the Bill to have any direct effect. Not enough housing in rural areas is in the possession of local authorities to enable them to

  1127
  solve the problem. The solution is not to impose an obligation on an arbitrary group of people who happen to be farmers owning property we must solve the problem in toto. To pick out farmers will damage agriculture, because they will be forced to sell their houses as soon as they become empty.
  My tied cottage is insured for £10,000 and the land attached to it is worth about £12,000. The rateable value is £143 a year and I shall be allowed to charge £4·12½ a week rent. The cost of insurance and maintenance of the house, because of improvements that I have made, is more than that. I do not want to sell it, because it is an attribute to my farm, but if I am obliged to supply it to an individual who does not work for me, at a rent of £4·12½ a week, I hope that the Government will give me the opportunity to ask for a compulsory purchase order from the local council and that the council will take it over at its market value.
  The Bill imposes on farmers an arbitrary duty which should be placed upon local authorities. Such authorities are mainly Tory-controlled, but we are now the Government of the country and we should impose an obligation on those authorities—an obligation that is shared by every other local authority in the country—to provide houses for the people who live in their areas. If that means increased rural rates, so be it. For many years the farmers have subsidised rural rates by providing cheap housing. About 90,000 houses of this kind exist, and they represent an investment of between £700 million and £800 million in agriculture. I would prefer to see that money invested in other ways. The return on it is infinitesimal, apart from the convenience that it provides.
  If the problem is not tackled, farmers will sell their houses. That is no solution, unless there is something to replace them. If we are to solve the problem of tied cottages we must take on the obligation to provide rural houses. We cannot say that that is the farmers' obligation. We cannot say that we will right a wrong by granting security of tenure to agricultural workers and then insist that farmers provide houses irrespective of whether the people living in them work for them.
  1128
  I believe that the whole House will welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. But we cannot effectively right one wrong by producing another. We must accept our responsibilities as a nation and Government, make money available, and ensure that rural housing is provided to solve the problem.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Regrettably, if the Bill becomes law it will be known as "Maynard's mischief". After 30 years of lying on the shelves of the Socialist Party archives, it has been dusted off, and the extreme Left has managed to bring it forward as part of the old gospel of the Socialist manifesto. I remind the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) that in Russia today the system is one of tied cottages for the farm workers. Nevertheless, there are many Labour Members who support many of the old shibboleths of Marxist philosophy, of which that is one.
  Mr. Buchan rose —
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I shall give way a little later.
  The Bill covers only England and Wales, because the workers of Scotland, who are a sensible crowd, refuse to have anything to do with it.
  We in Kent want none of the Bill. I am aware of no farmer or worker in my constituency who wants the Bill to be introduced. In Thanet, with about 250 tied cottages, there is not a farmer or worker who supports the Bill, as far as I am aware. In East Kent the tenants pay no rent or rates. I know no exception to that. They live on site in suitable homes with no cost of travel, and most of them with the advantage of free farm produce.
  Miss Maynard: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept from me that my union has dealt with more tied cottage cases from Kent in the past two or three years in particular than from any other county in the whole of England and Wales?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Lady may challenge my statement, but my investigations show that there hast been only one genuine eviction order in East Kent in the past five years. Out of the total of

  1129
  about a thousand a year evictions under court orders for possession, it is claimed that there are only about 20 real eviction orders in the current year. I believe that that figure is accepted by the union.
  The reason why the Bill is a shibboleth of the past came out in an aside by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), when he said that the whole concept of tied cottages or living on the premises where one worked as part of one's employment was one of feudalism. Not only do I dissent but I take the view that it is a concept of the greatest modernity and the most progressive thing that one can do.
  One of my principal concerns in the House over many years has been to try to look after the interests of the tourist industry. I have been deeply interested in the planning of new hotels and restaurants and similar premises. It is an integral and essential part of the life of those who serve the tourist industry that they shall live in tied accommodation. Almost as many live in tied accommodation as farm workers do.
  I remember challenging very strongly both Tory and Labour Ministers on the matter. I shall challenge the new Secretary of State for the Environment, because one of the most important things he can do when granting planning permission for any hotel or similar building is to make certain that there is proper accommodation for the staff and, incidentally, proper parking facilities and transport arrangements.
  It is equally essential that the miners shall live in tied cottages. There are more tied cottages in mining than in farming. Tied cottages are equally necessary for forestry, which is not included in the Bill. The Forestry Commission is covered by the Bill only to the extent that it may be brought under it in the future. The reason for its exemption now is that it is essential that forestry workers shall live in suitable accommodation on the site.
  Whether we deal with them, the clergy or others, the fact is that tied accommodation is a great advantage. For example, it would be a great advantage to us to have accommodation for our secretaries. It is difficult today to obtain something which gives one an enormous
  1130
  tax advantage. It is immensely valuable to have accommodation provided rent-and rate-free in which one can live near one's work. The barristers who can live in the Temple are another example, living on top of their work at rents lower than they would otherwise have to pay—or, rather, than they used to pay in the old days.
  The hon. Gentleman is 50 years out of date when he talks about the concept being feudal. It is an immeasurable advantage to be able to stay in accommodation provided by one's employer close to the work.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is being serious or is speaking with his tongue in his cheek. Does he seriously suggest that a secretary should be available here at all hours of the night? One of the problems in the tourist industry is tied accommodation. That is why such a large proportion of those who work in it are foreign. British families are very reluctant to become dependent on tied accommodation, because then they have no home when they retire or lose their job.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not accept that. The chefs and others very much like being in accommodation where they very often have the great advantages of having their food provided. The same is true of those who work on the farms and live in tied accommodation. They frequently enjoy the farm produce.
  Miss Maynard: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman like to live in a tied house and have his home dependent on his job? Would he like to be one of the 20 who were evicted?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I should be delighted to live in a tied house. In normal circumstances one would not be evicted. We cannot introduce legislation for the sake of 20 evictions in a country where there are many tens of thousands of houses. We do not legislate for the unique, specialised case, the numbers of which are minimal, as the hon. Lady knows.
  I turn to the financial advantages, which are very great. For example, if the Minister were fortunate enough to have a flat or other accommodation close to the Palace of Westminster which he could provide for a secretary on beneficial

  1131
  terms, it would be extraordinarily advantageous. I merely underline that a person who can live in his accommodation rent-and rate-free has a very considerable advantage. That is why the workers do not want to be deprived of that opportunity.
  I come to how we deal with the important question of the person who occupies a tied cottage during his working life—incidentally, the hon Member for Brightside is wrong about that—and is quite happy to live there because his only concern is what is to happen when he retires. How right he is. The point is that when he retires and may have to move out of that accommodation, it is right that accommodation should be provided for him. I can say straight away what should be done, and it is a course which the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends can now press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt. They can insist that mortgage interest relief be given to anyone who purchases a tied cottage with a view to his retirement. At present, such relief is not obtainable. If it were given, it would enable people to purchase such cottages for their retirement.
  I believe that there are two classes of people who are the tenants, licensees or occupiers of tied farm cottages. All of them want homes of their own when they retire. Either they would like the homes in which they are living—and in certain circumstances they might be able to purchase them—or they should be given the advantage through tax relief of buying tied cottages in the villages or areas in which they live at present with a view to their retirement.
  If people are not in that position they will fall into one of two categories. I give the figures. At present, there are 63,000 out of 135,000 farm cottages which are subject to the tie. That is roughly half. Of those, 20,000 are tied but are let to pensioners. In other words, about a quarter of the total, thanks to the kindness and generosity of farmers, at present are let to those who have given them valuable service. That is a measure of the unique sense of loyalty of the farming community to those who serve them. Those 20,000 are people who are remaining in their cottages. Why should not they have the chance, which obviously the farmer would give them,
  1132
  to buy their houses, and why should not there be also a duty imposed upon local authorities to rehouse retired farm workers?
  I cannot go along with the Liberal viewpoint that the farm worker should be given an absolute priority over everyone in every case. But I can go along with the argument that, if a man has spent a great many years of his life as a key worker in agriculture, he should have priority when he becomes a pensioner. If we do this, I believe that we can meet the position of those to wish to buy their homes and that we can also meet the position in part of those who ought to and want to become tenants of council houses. Incidentally, we can also meet the position, which is partly met, of those who remain in their tied cottages. I do not believe that it is impossible.
  Of course, the real way to deal with this is to put an end to the acute shortage of rural housing. What has caused this is "Maynard's folly". The moment that it became apparent that the agricultural workers' union was successfully pressing the Labour Government, the result was many empty houses. There is an estimated figure of 12,000 empty cottages around the countryside. But it is not only there. There are many people who are willing to invest and to provide and build cottages for farm workers, provided that the tie is not removed. For, just as it is necessary to provide accommodation in hotels and restaurants or above small businesses to enable their owners the better to conduct them, which is the modern tendency, so it is necessary in the mining industry, in police authorities and in the Armed Services. It is one of the patterns of today to encourage people to live close to their work and to occupy the premises concerned at cheap rents.
  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: Let me correct the hon. and learned Gentleman on one point. It is that tied police cottages in villages no longer provide local villagers with local police protection. That is totally out of date. The policeman in a tied police cottage may have no relationship with the village in which he lives and is not on call.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman must be careful about correcting me on a subject on which I am something of an

  1133
  expert. There is very little about which I do not know when it comes to police matters. I never said that the local policeman lived in the local village. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that in my constituency there are not only tied cottages but they are placed in eminently suitable centres where they can be used to cover the districts which they serve. We have a number of admirable tied cottages on one corner of a council housing estate which provide excellent accommodation for the police of Margate, Cliftonville and nearby villages.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is a self-confessed expert, he would do well to use words carefully. When he says that it is necessary to have tied accommodation, does he really mean that? I know of many occupations where it is not necessary, though it may be desirable from the employer's point of view.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: When I said that I had expert knowledge, I meant about police matters, and not generally. But, on the general matter, I think that it is necessary, because it is for the employer to decide what is necessary and best for his industry. In agriculture, employers have concluded that it is a necessity, and I think that they are right, though in my view "desirable" is a sufficiently strong word. Certainly it is thought desirable and necessary in the police and in the Armed Forces, and I have argued repeatedly that it is essential in the hotel industry.
  It is difficult to draw a difference. The only difference which has been drawn for the agricultural worker is that it was in the old Socialist Party archives in the past. It was one of the left-overs which had been lying about for many years and it was brought forward when it was decided that it was time to prepare some manifesto.
  I now deal with the likely future cost. There is no doubt that Miss Ruth Gasson put her finger on the pulse accurately when she concluded her report on a study for the Department of Land Economy at Cambridge University in March 1976 with these words:
  "Production would be bound to fall, as present tasks would be carried out less efficiently and because of the switch to less productive systems. Employment would also be reduced. The ultimate losers would not be
  1134
  large business farmers … but the nation as a whole, which could expect to be faced with steeply rising costs for a smaller volume of food."
  I share that view, because I have worked out the cost which would be involved as a result of moving people from tied cottages. First, the worker would have to pay up to £8 to £10 a week, plus rates, for the rent of his council house, whereas at present he pays nothing. In most cases the worker would have to drive from the town, or if he was lucky, the village in which he lived, to his place of work, which at present he does not have to do. The cost of a car and petrol is considerable, and it is no use saying that he should take rural transport because that is extremely unreliable. Thus, he has imposed on him the duty to buy a car and the responsibility to be able to afford it. All this will put up costs and ensure that men will tend to move out of the countryside.
  Dr. Phipps: How does the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) account for the fact that only 40 per cent. of agricultural workers are living in tied cottages at present? Should not his arguments apply to the 60 per cent. who do not?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: In fact 63,000 of a total of 135,000 farm workers are living in tied houses. More would be living in tied cottages but for the threat of takeover in the Bill.
  It seems quite plain that financially it is considerably to the advantage of the worker in the tied cottage to stay there, rather than move out, because his costs will be very much higher. Clearly, it is also to the advantage of the farmer to keep the man. It is to the advantage of the nation to keep down costs and to do so by using the facilities that the farmers are prepared to provide.
  I do not take the view that Clause 29 can stand as it is. It does not in any sense order the Thanet District Council, for example, to house farm workers. It gives no sense of priority, and to "use their best endeavours" is inadequate and not legal terminology which the courts would want to consider or adjudicate on.
  Farm workers will become very unpopular if it is known that they are queue-jumping the waiting lists for council houses. It is not an attractive thing to do.

  1135
  The Chairman of the Association of District Councils, Mr. Duncan Lock, has said categorically that councils will continue to meet their obligations to farm workers as they have been doing in cases where farm workers have been required to vacate their houses. They will continue to do that despite this measure. Perhaps it would be a good idea for councils to introduce a scheme of registration of key workers similar to that which exists for some industrial workers. In Thanet we have a scheme in which key industrial workers can have priority. I think that priority should be given to a retired farm worker when he moves out of acommodation which is being made available for another incoming worker. In certain circumstances it will be necessary to apply this provision to key workers. The situation would not apply in Thanet, where we are famous for cereals and we do not have any kind of intensive animal farming, but it will apply in areas where herdsmen are required.
  This has been an enthusiastic debate and it augurs well for the future. But I hope we can rid the Socialists of the view that there is anything modern or progressive in their approach. In fact it is the reverse. Modernity and progressive views will be heard ringing from this side of the House until the conclusion of all the stages of this Bill.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott (Lichfield and Tam-worth ): I declare a constituency interest before I begin. Although I have no personal financial interest in farming, I represent a constituency in which there is a considerable amount of agricultural activity. On the Labour side of the House it is increasingly rare to represent such a constituency, because the division between the two parties is becoming increasingly one of urban and rural interests and seats. Therefore, there is a kind of unreality about debates of this sort, because many who speak have a financial interest in the industry, which inevitably makes this kind of debate rather different from others in this House.
  Having an agricultural interest in my constituency, I have frequent talks with both the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and the National
  1136
  Farmers' Union. On this and all kinds of issues, they find themselves in direct conflict with each other. I have an interesting relationship with the National Farmers' Union in my constituency. I meet its members fairly frequently, and they form a most effective pressure group. In all the books about pressure group activities, the National Farmers' Union should take a high place—indeed most modern journals refer to the way in which it has been effective over the years. However, I offer it this advice: it is in danger of overkill. So many times in the past it has put out far too many pamphlets to hon. Members and has given far too much advice, much of which is often conflicting.
  The example I can give is not exactly related to agricultural tied cottages, but it shows the conflicting evidence that I have had from the NFU. I always talk to my farmers on financial and tax matters. They were very quick to point out that the Socialist capital gains tax is a most iniquitous measure, which is likely grossly to over-value agricultural land. Being an innocent about the value of agricultural land, I listened to what they told me. A few months later along came the Community Land Bill, and they then told me that it also under-valued land. Then they said that capital transfer tax would tend to over-value agricultural land. This leaves the innocent rather bewildered about the value of agricultural land. Perhaps there is a strong financial interest behind all this. Perhaps farmers are concerned not with land use but with its profitability. This is an understandable objective of any capitalist organisation.
  The National Farmers' Union is guilty of inconsistency, but it is consistently guilty of overestimating the dangers of Government decisions, objectives and legislation. Farmers always say that Government actions will threaten their interests. They are like prophets of doom.
  Every time I see my farmers one of the first things I say is "I am glad to see you all here," because six months previously they had told me that they would have no chance of being in business if the present trends continued. But they all come back again, and no doubt they will do so in the future, as their fathers have before them.

  1137
  Their arguments for the protection of agricultural tied cottages are quite ludicrous. I am told that it will be quite impossible to run any kind of dairy undertaking without the agricultural tied cottage. I am told that the cottage is esesntial because the worker must be on the spot at all hours, day and night. One never knows, apparently, when a cow will have a calf or when a sheep will have a lamb. We are told that there will be dire consequences if the worker is not present. My wife managed to have sons on a couple of occasions, once very recently, and I found no need to employ a midwife in a tied cottage anywhere near the house. This argument seemed a little out of touch with modern developments, particularly in transport.
  It is suggested that we are singling out agricultural interests and tied cottages, as opposed to all the other types of tied cottages that the National Farmers' Union is so fond of using as examples. There are, however, crucial differences between agricultural tied cottages and mineworkers' tied houses or Ministry of Defence tied houses. One crucial difference is that the other types are publicly-owned and publicly accountable —and that makes all the difference in the world. The mineworker's tied house is allocated, at least in part, on the basis of discussion with the National Union of Mineworkers. It would make all the difference if the agricultural tied house were allocated on the basis of sensible discussions between the owner and the union, and if I, as an MP, could appeal to a public body if the tenancy was being conducted unsatisfactorily. There is a vast difference between the case of an agricultural tenant threatened with eviction from a tied cottage and a worker in a publicly-owned house who is in the same position. In the case of the latter one can bring pressure to bear, and there is a much better chance of redressing the grievance.
  I do not like private landlords, particularly when they also control the tenants' jobs.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member had better address himself to the position of the hoteliers and the caterers, because there are as many tied houses in that industry as there are in mining and farming.
  Mr. Grocott: I should be interested to see the statistics for hoteliers and caterers. I note that the hon. and learned Member was prudent enough not to include them in his speech.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The answer to that question—I do not know whether it is correct—comes from an organisation that is dearly beloved in the hearts of Socialists. The breakdown is given in the 1974 report from Shelter, where it says that tied houses among hotel and restaurant staff number 70,000, compared with 96,000 in the mining industry.
  Mr. Grocott: The hon. and learned Member has made an excellent case for the public ownership of the catering industry. I am interested not so much in the statistic that he quoted as in the proportion of the workers in the industry who are in tied houses. That proportion is high for agriculture, and that is the difference from other cases that have been quoted. I believe that we should look carefully at the various kinds of private tied housing, and perhaps a Bill to deal with that aspect will be forthcoming in the next Gracious Speech.
  I turn now to the local authority involvement in the provision of houses in rural areas. Responsibility in this respect is very much attributable to the activities of farmers and others who were members of the rural authorities in the past. The old rural district councils were dominated by farmers and agricultural interests, and they pursued the most disastrous housing policies. In my constituency the old rural district council—and one good aspect of local government reorganisation was that it rid us of the rural district councils—sold off priceless building land to private developers who erected expensive housing on it. The result is that now the local council, in seeking to provide more local authority housing, is being forced to take the gardens from existing council houses because of the shortage of land. The blame for this sort of ludicrous policy lies with agriculture and the farming interests, and the people who sat on those local authorities.
  This debate has been going on for 70 years, and that is long enough. There can be no real compromise on an issue such as this. The NFU is fond of saying that we should not swallow hook, line

  1139
  and sinker the argument advanced by the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, but either one accepts the principle or one does not. I do not. and that is why I support the Bill.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. W. Benyon: The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Grocott) let the cat out of the bag, as did the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), when he said that he did not like private landlords per se. That is the background to so much of the debate. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth thinks it right to single out agricultural tied accommodation, but in his constituency there must be school caretakers and even a steward of the Labour Club. Those people are there to protect valuable assets. The same applies to a considerable extent in agriculture particularly in dairying and other stock enterprises. One hundred Friesian cattle represent an asset of £40,000, without the milking equipment, the buildings and the feeding stuffs which may be there. Do Labour Members suggest that no one should be present but that someone can be summoned by telephone in the event of an emergency?
  The Bill follows the pattern which has been all too familiar in recent years. It is a typical child of this Government. The process starts with agitation, a commitment is written into their manifesto, the Labour Party comes to power, consultations begin with the NFU and other interested bodies and the difficulties start to appear. The whole thing is then thrown over to the parliamentary draftsman who produces a long, complicated and difficult Bill for us to consider. The effect is of benefit to no one except lawyers. If ever a statue is raised to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) it should be in the Inns of Court. He has done more to give sustenance to the legal profession than any other political leader.
  I congratulate the Department of Environment on producing a question and answer consultation document, a method which could be followed by many other Departments when Bills such as this are presented. The Department has tried to set out the questions in the language that would be used by farmers and farm workers.
  1140
  At a meeting with farmers last week I read to them question 49:
  "What could I do if the Advisory Committee gave me unqualified backing and the Housing Authority did nothing about it?"
  The answer was:
  "As with any other Housing Authority matter, you could take up the matter with the officials concerned, or with your local council representative. If all else failed it would be open to you to take the Housing Authority to Court on the grounds that they had failed to fulfil their obligations under the Bill."
  I am sorry to have to tell the Government that the answer produced an amused reaction from my audience. Under the terms of the Bill, it is impossible to sue local authorities. They have a ready-made reply. They can say that they have used their "best endeavours" and are putting the claims of one applicant on the housing list against another. I am advised that it is impossible in law to bring such an action in the courts.
  I hope that I shall not embarrass the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) if I say that his contribution was the one refreshing speech from that side of the House. Until he spoke, I wondered whether we were all living in different worlds. The situation described by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard) does not exist in my part of the country. We do not know what she means by the conditions she described today.
  Ideally, housing in rural areas should be freely available so that workers can please themselves how they are housed. But that is not the situation, and that is why the farming industry has invested an enormous amount of money in tied houses.
  I should have declared an interest when I started my speech. I am a farmer and I own tied houses. Because of the nature of my enterprise, I was forced to produce two new houses 18 months ago. My part of the world is an expensive area of the country and it was impossible to get a lower tender than £12,000 per house. Perhaps I was wrong, but I went ahead with that undertaking. There is no possibility of that sort of investment in future. The Bill makes it totally unattractive.
  The Bill must be judged on two criteria —how it affects the tenant of a tied house and how it affects agriculture. They are obviously intertwined and the effect on

  1141
  both is bad. The great advantage of the existing system is that it allows mobility of labour. Listening to hon. Members opposite, I find it difficult to believe they could ever have been connected with producing a contract of employment in this industry.
  My employees are highly skilled and in short supply. It is no good saying, as the Secretary of State said in introducing the Bill, that the first necessity is to persuade a local authority and the advisory committee that there is an incoming worker ready to take the position. It is impossible to get staff of the calibre of person I am employing unless I can show the employer and his family a house in the condition it will be in when he occupies it. If I told a worker that a house was occupied but that I would ask the tenant to allow us to see it, he would ask when it would be available and what state it would be in when he occupied it. Workers can pick and choose now. The Bill will be a shackle from which farmers will find it impossible to break free.
  Mobility ensures far greater independence for workers in agriculture than for those in other industries for whom homing needs reduce mobility and the choice of jobs. It is illogical and dishonest to apply these strictures only to agriculture. The qualifying period of two years must be lengthened. If no other changes are made to the Bill, this period must be extended. In my area, it will be regarded as a short cut to the local authority waiting list.
  One of the best points raised by the NFU is that if this measure must be introduced, it should be introduced in stages. The difficulties with forestry have already been admitted. If this Bill is introduced too quickly the effect will be cataclysmic. All informed opinion believes it will have a very great effect on production. Consideration should be given to a phased introduction.
  We are told in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill that £5 million will be made available for local authority rural housing. I calculate that this will pro. duce 300 houses, though it is difficult to judge with today's rapidly rising building costs. However, they will not be in the right place, and 300 houses spread
  1142
  all over England and Wales will not be much use.
  I was agog when the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) was speaking. He has three houses occupied by employees on his farm in rural Wales. I was longing for him to tell us how far they were from the local community and how he would get by if one of the houses became unavailable. Unfortunately, he skirted round this point and a great deal more besides. I agreed with the hon. Member that we should make local authorities responsible for housing displaced workers who have the accolade of the advisory committee, but the Bill does not do this.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: For the hon. Member's information, the three tied cottages in my possession are within a mile of the village of Ponterwyd.
  Mr. Benyon: The hon. Member is very fortunate. From comments in the agricultural Press, it seems that many people from the Principality are not so fortunate. It seems that only farmers are to be denied the final right of appeal to a court of law. This places them in a totally different position from others who are involved in landlord and tenant legislation. This cannot be just or right. Nowhere else is a licence to occupy made into a statutory tenancy. The situation facing the farmer is unfair.
  The real tragedy is that the Bill will mean more empty houses at a time when the housing position is getting worse. As in other matters, Socialism is synonymous with shortage. It is not the employee, the employer or the consumer who will benefit. The only possible beneficiary is the lawyer. That is a true assesment of this Bill.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I welcome this measure as a historic Bill that will give agricultural workers a security that they have long demanded but have been denied. A number of speakers, especially from the Opposition Benches, have alluded to the relative smallness of the problem at this stage. That casts shame upon the House rather than gives cause for congratulation—shame that this legislation was not put on the statute book decades ago.

  1143
  I shall concentrate briefly on rehousing. From the farming community there has been some exaggeration of the vital necessity of having the agricultural worker cheek by jowl, or by something else—of having the stockman next to the herd. But as the Bill admits, in some sections of the industry there is a case for having the agricultural worker living as close to his job as possible. The collusion system, which I think most hon. Members condemn—it is certainly condemned by all my right hon. and hon. Friends as being undignified, unjust and a ridiculous means of proceeding to a rehousing—was in some cases more satisfactory than what we may be about to introduce in the Bill. It was without doubt more satisfactory for the farmer, but it was also more satisfactory for the agricultural worker.
  The system was more satisfactory for the farmer because it gave him a guaranteed if rather tortuous way of ensuring that he got hold of his housing. However, perhaps it was satisfactory for the farm worker, especially in the event of his dying and leaving a widow, in that the possibility of rehousing her in more congenial surroundings, perhaps with more companionship than in an isolated tied cottage, was made possible.
  Under the legislation that I hope will be given a Second Reading today, what will local councils do, especially under the reorganised system of local government where, unlike the old days of rural councils, we now have in many areas, certainly in my constituency, a combination of both urban and rural areas? When housing officers have to make a choice between families who are housed shockingly badly in their towns or cities—and there is much accommodation of that type in the two towns in my constituency —and families who are living in acceptable rural accommodation, such as a tied cottage, there is no doubt in my mind which families they will choose to rehouse. Indeed, there is no doubt which families should be rehoused—namely, those who are living in the substandard urban accommodation.
  My worry is that we are replacing the historic injustice that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) described as a feudal system with a system that will have a harmful
  1144
  effect upon the farming community, a community which in some sections, as the Bill acknowledges, needs to have men close to the job.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) has stressed the impact that the Bill will have upon the farming community. He stressed the burden on the farmer, and the unfairness of it. I shall stress the burden on the agriculture industry, and in doing so I shall make three suggestions.
  I discussed my first suggestion with members of the local branch of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. In its simplest form it concerns potential retirees—agricultural workers who are at the age of retirement or about to reach it. I suggest that it should be compulsory for a local council, in conjunction with the new advisory committees that the Bill would establish, to conduct a census so that the precise location of older agricultural workers is known, and the likely demand that they will make upon local accommodation. Given a five-year lead time, there could be a statutory obligation for the local council to provide housing for such workers on retirement.
  Secondly, I suggest that the local housing department, after discussion with the advisory committees that are to be set up, should have a list of tied cottages rather like the current lists of families in need of housing that councils have. Tied cottages should be graded according to the relative urgency from the industry's point of view, such as the need for a specific farmer to have a specific house occupied by someone employed by him for his farm. If we had a system of grading tied cottages, it could be accepted, for example, that grade I urgency was not a fatuous demand by the farmer. It could be agreed by a representative of the agricultural workers' union, a representative of the NFU, and the housing officer that there was a grade I case of a farmer urgently requiring a worker in a house for the conduct of the farm concerned. In such cases there should be a statutory obligation for the local authority to rehouse.
  My third suggestion relates to a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West, namely, the shortage of council housing in rural areas. We all know that such housing has never

  1145
  been built because according to the old rural councils, it destroyed the amenity value of the villages. The farmers preferred—and they ran the old councils—to have tied cottages. In the old days it was probably a cheaper system than building council houses in villages and destroying the nice rural atmosphere.
  Surely it would be possible for the Government, with the plethora of figures now available to them, to isolate those districts in which the need for rural council housing will be especially urgent —where, if the farmers are deprived on a large scale of the possibility of housing their workers close to their work, there will be serious damage to the industry. The Government would then be able to enter into discussions with the local authorities, and perhaps have powers to persuade them to do much more than the rural councils did in the past to build council houses in villages.
  This is a historic Bill, which is long overdue, but it is essential that while we are serving the interests of the agricultural workers—which most Members want, and certainly all my hon. Friends want—we must try also to protect the industry in which they work.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am sorry that my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), considers this to be a historic Bill, for I consider it to be yet another example of the utter irrelevance and lack of realism of Socialism in our society at the present time. I hazard the guess that more farmers and farm workers in that part of the world which I share with my Member of Parliament will share my view, not his.
  Seventy years ago the union represented by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) began fighting this battle. I have little doubt that at that time, long before the Welfare State, long before the achievement of powerful unions, there was oppression of farm workers and their families. It may have been right then to seek to relieve the farm worker of the widespread serfdom that held him in thrall to near-feudal farmer landlords, but is it not absurd to introduce legislation aimed at dealing with a situation which no one in his right mind could say still exists?
  1146
  Is there widespread eviction or misery? Of course not. The Government's consultative document refers to a handful of cases of formal eviction. The number of eviction cases is probably fewer than the number of evictions of miners. It is conceded all round that a fair proportion of evictions are collusive between farmer and farm worker to get the farm worker a council house.
  Is there widespread misery and suffering? There are about 800 tied cottagers in my constituency. Despite the length of time that this matter has been before the public eye and my well-known accessibility to all my constituents, not one has complained to me about the system of tied cottages or sought my support for the Bill. Many of them must be members of the Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, represented by the hon. Member for Brightside.
  Is there no protection for the farm worker under existing legislation? Again, the opposite is true. Labour's Rent Act 1965, following Labour's Protection from Eviction Act 1964, followed by Labour's Rent Act 1968 and Labour's Agriculture Act 1970, guaranteed security of tenure to the majority of farm workers for six months—only marginally less than the security accorded to private rented tenants elsewhere, which, incidentally, has destroyed the private rented market and distorted the demand for council housing.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the Agriculture Act 1970 gives such massive protection, will he tell the House why his friends in the House of Lords in 1970 removed a clause which gave protection to the tenant when the farmer proved that the cottage was reasonably necessary for the efficient operation of the farm? Why did the 200 or so Members of the House of Lords who have farms and farming interests collaborate to oppose that clause?
  Mr. Lawrence: I was not here and I do not know, but if the evil which the Bill purports to attack is so great as to occupy valuable Government legislative time and energy, why did not the Government seek to introduce it in those years between 1965 and 1970 when they had a real majority in the House? Can we escape the conclusion that this, like so much else, is less necessary legislation

  1147
  than another Labour Government's sop to their trade union masters? Again, as frequently happens, the farmer, the farm worker and the housewife will all be the sufferers together.
  Are farm workers suffering from appalling housing conditions? The Tavistock Institute report shows that the living conditions of farm workers are just as good as are the living conditions in tied accommodation for miners, policemen, teachers and clergymen, for which no pressure for legislation exists.
  Is there shocking pay for the occupants of tied cottages? Again, the Tavistock Institute report shows that their pay is significantly higher than the pay of those who live otherwise off the farm. In all these circumstances, it is no surprise to learn from the Shelter report that only 5·3 per cent. of farm workers want tied cottages to be abolished.
  Astonishing as the fact may be to dyed-in-the-wool Socialists who have been fighting the battles of yesteryear for so long that they find it impossible to stop, the world has moved on since 1906, and other evils have replaced those that once existed. This battle is one which has certainly become irrelevant. But the Bill is not just irrelevant. It is harmfully unrealistic.
  Miss Maynard: If it is so irrelevant, why are the Opposition expending so much energy to prevent the Bill from being passed through the House?
  Mr. Lawrence: The energy I am expending is to try to stop the Government introducing irrelevant legislation. If my hon. Friends do not seek to do that, the Bill will go through on the nod. There does not seem to be much point in introducing legislation which is supported by only 5·3 per cent. of those who work on farms.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: Is the figure really as small as 5·3 per cent.?
  Mr. Lawrence: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that 5·3 per cent. is the figure produced by the Shelter report. Although the Opposition have the greatest regard at all times for Shelter, it can hardly be said to err on the side of the views held by the Opposition. Therefore, we can assume the 5·3 per cent. to be a high figure rather than a low figure.
  1148
  It is no use blithely talking about making more local authority housing available, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) suggested, or giving the farm worker higher wages to enable him to buy his own house, as suggested by the hon. Member for Bright-side. However desirable those aims may or may not be—and I find the hon. Lady's desire for more owner-occupation quite exciting—they are both utterly unrealistic aims for achievement at the present time. How can it help the shocking housing situation in so many semi-rural areas to deter farmers from building houses or letting cottages and thereby taking the pressure off the council house lists? What would those who come to my surgery weekly, complaining about bad housing conditions and the length of time they have been on the council housing list, have to say if I told them that some farm workers who were perfectly happily housed in available houses near to their work had jumped the list because farming is so important?
  If priority is not be given to farm workers in, for example, such areas as East Staffordshire—and priority need not be given under the Bill where "best endeavours" is to be the test—evictions are likely to mean the rundown of dairy, poultry and pig farming in my constituency. That point was well made by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). It is also the point made by one of my farmers who has written to me in the following terms:
  "We have a 450 acre farm five miles from here with two service cottages, one of which is the farm house. If these cottages are lost to agriculture we should most certainly have to give up our pig enterprise after spending about £10,000 on purpose-made buildings."
  Is that the reality which the Government are pursuing? There are 12,000 empty tied cottages around the country which would soon be occupied if the Bill were dropped. If the Government were single-minded about homelessness, would the Bill be introduced?
  The Government's other policy in farming is to encourage maximum self-sufficiency in food production. That is good, and that policy is outlined in "Food from Our Own Resources". Yet Ruth Gasson's study, relied on by Labour Members, concludes that production would be bound to fail if tied cottages were abolished, and employment—which

  1149
  is important to Members on both sides of the House—would also be reduced. The ultimate losers would be not large business farmers but the nation as a whole which could expect to be faced with steeply rising costs for a small volume of food. How often do we have to set these obvious truths before Labour Members? Is that the reality which the Government seek?
  The Government have told local authorities to curb their spending. That is good. Yet the Financial Memorandum requires £5 million a year for five years. Is that the reality the Government are seeking?
  I cannot honestly believe that a Government who seek to improve production, to keep down local authority costs and to reduce homelessness can be enthusiastic about this Bill. It will be substantially amended in Committee and in the end may well turn out to have been an utter waste of time.
  This brings me to my concluding point. In the time I have been in this House one thing, above all else, has been made clear to me—we are churning out too much legislation at a speed as though it were going out of fashion—too much, too ill-considered, too ill-directed and too ill-drafted. When are we going to stop producing this rubbish? When all has been said and done about this Bill, what will be the only argument left standing? It will be the one with which the Secretary of State began. The system, he said, is "inherently liable to abuse". Little or no abuse will have been proved, at the end of the day, any more than it has been proved during the course of this debate, but there is the remote possibility. What, oh what, sort of insanity is it that makes people who come to this place, particularly on the other side of the House, keep saying "Here is the possibility of an injustice; let us legislate, legislate, legislate"?
  Legislation cannot cure every existing evil, let alone every possible evil. It is time we stopped, and by stopping this Bill we shall be making a good start.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I do not know why the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is here if he does not accept that this place should legislate. He asked many questions in his rather
  1150
  florid speech but never produced a single answer. Rather he put his hands together, as is his wont, and bemoaned the effect of legislation without looking clearly at the iniquities of a longstanding system which this Bill is trying to eradicate.
  The hon. Gentleman, with many of his hon. Friends, as on many previous occasions, has come to us pleading about the catastrophe which will engulf the farming industry and agriculture in general as a result of the Bill. We have heard it all before. We heard it when the farm workers got their Saturday afternoons off. We were told that it would bring the farming industry to its knees and lead to catastrophe. It did not. We heard also, when the wages board was set up, that it would ruin the industry and dissipate profits. But none of these things happened and farmers, certainly in my part of the country, have become more efficient and affluent. This is not a Bill which seeks to damage agriculture or farmers. What we are doing ought to have been done a long time ago—to give a series of rights to farm workers who have been badly treated by this House, and by the country, in the past.
  One Conservative Member asked why we were debating the Bill today when the iniquities of the system were much more serious in previous years. It is true that they were, but that is no argument against the Bill. It is, perhaps, a reflection on my own party that it did not have the wherewithal, or the courage, to introduce the Bill at a much earlier stage. It has taken us 70 years to get to this Second Reading tonight and although that is a long time, nevertheless it is welcome.
  I welcome the Bill and hope that it will get a Second Reading. It honours a long-standing commitment by this party successively, though various Parliaments, to the farm workers of this country.
  The complaints we have had from the Opposition, and the case against the Bill, seem to be only that it will, in some way, be detrimental to the farmer. No one has talked about the disadvantages of the present system, or the advantages which will accrue to the farm worker under this Bill. What disadvantages will the Bill bring to the farmer? The only one we have heard is that the mobility of his labour will be increased and he will lose

  1151
  the ready access on his doostep of his farm workers.
  Farm workers have been tied not only to their cottages but also to their farmers for too long. It is a degrading system for a farm worker to be beholden to his employer not only for his job but also for the cottage in which he lives and brings up his family.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that farm workers are forced into that employment?
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: No, not necessarily, but they have a great deal of difficulty getting out of it.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Perhaps the hon. Lady will contain her impatience and excitability for just a moment. I was saying that farm workers have a great deal of difficulty in getting out of that situation. That is the major reason which has been put forward by the Opposition tonight for opposing the Bill. They do not wish farm workers to have the mobility to move around the country and to enter different employment—which has been the prerogative of other workers for a long time. That is one of the frequent arguments put forward by Conservative Members.
  Mr. Crowder: Would the hon. Gentleman address himself to the figure of 5·1 per cent. which my hon. Friend mentioned? At the moment on the Labour Benches we have about 1 per cent. attendance. That is not very high and does not show great enthusiasm.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The figure which the hon. Gentleman mentioned as quoted in the report was 6 per cent. A more interesting figure from the same source was the number of evictions in a year. Why was that figure not quoted? Why have we not had a single figure from the Opposition about the number of evictions? The fact is that 50 per cent. of our farm workers live in tied cottages and are tied to their employers.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose —
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: We know of about 1,200 evictions every year. This is an
  1152
  intolerable situation and one which has needed to be remedied for a long time and which this Bill will remedy. One of the abuses of the tied cottage system is the large number of evictions which still occur. This is particularly important at a time—
  Mr. Rossi: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I will finish the point. The hon. Gentleman is used to bullying but I am afraid that he will not be able to bully me.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose —
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The number of evictions is particularly important at a time when there is not freely available alternative accommodation. This is particularly a problem in agricultural areas.
  Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I am sure that he does not want to mislead the House. He has not had the advantage of listening to the whole of the debate and he has considerably overstated the number of evictions. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), who is a great supporter of the Bill, has said that there are only about 20 evictions a year. There are some 1,200 possession orders, most of which are obtained by collusion in order to persuade local authorities to accept their housing responsibilities. That is the evidence that the House has been given.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: There are 1,025 possession orders, as it happens, but we do not know whether there has been collusion. We have no evidence to suggest that they are the result of collusion.
  The farm worker who lives in a tied cottage is tied not only to his cottage but to his job. That has serious implications for his relationship with his employer. He is not as free or as able as other workers to negotiate freely with his employer over wages when he happens to live close to his employer and his home is always in the possession of his employer.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this precise point?
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: No, I will not.

  1153
  This is perhaps partly the reason for the traditionally low wages in agriculture, for the exploitation for which that industry is well known and for the low degree of unionisation among its workers. How can they develop a free relationship with their employer in which they have the ability to negotiate freely over wages and conditions, to belong to and participate in the workings of a trade union, when not only their jobs but their homes and the prosperity of their families are tied to the good will which they must extract from their employers?
  Nor is there any security for them in their home. Their security depends on their constantly renewing and obtaining the good will of their employer. As many of my hon. Friends have said, it is a relic of the feudal system that we should have had to retain the tied cottage system for so long and have not abolished it earlier.
  The Bill does not, unfortunately, abolish the system, but at least it goes some way towards ameliorating many of the problems with which the system is associated. At least it gives security of tenure to many people who have not had it in the past. Unfortunately, we have lost some of the provisions which were in the consultative document. One example is the absence from the Bill of a register of agricultural cottages. There are many other aspects of the BM which I hope will be not weakened in Committee, as Conservative Members seem to wish, but tightened.
  This is a historic Bill. It begins a new era for farm workers. It has been long awaited. It is to be largely applauded and welcomed. I know that it will be welcomed by all the farm workers in my constituency who want the freedom and dignity of a home of their own in which they have security of tenure and who want not to be constantly beholden to their employer for their home as well as for their wages. It will also enable them, for the first time, to stand up freely to ask for higher wages and to bargain collectively as they have not been able to do in the past. I give the Bill my warm support.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) seems to have little practical
  1154
  knowledge of the industrial relations in agriculture and the present relationship between farmers and the highly skilled and expensive labour that they now employ. I would incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to stray into the realms of Scottish divorce, but over the last few years the House has got rid of collusion in divorce. All that one can say about this Bill is that, under it, the House is getting rid of collusion in the evictions of farm workers.
  In the last few years, in my constituency in Lincolnshire, the local Press has reported eight cases of farm workers being evicted. In each case, when I have written to the agent of the farmer concerned, I have been told "Leave it alone." It is the only way in which we can be certain that someone who wishes to leave the industry can get the necessary priority in obtaining a council house. I have never come across any real hardship in any of those cases.
  The agricultural worker will now lose that priority in obtaining a council house when he wants to leave the industry. If one wants to arrange for the chap who does not like the job, or is not suitable for it, to get a council house, one goes through the eviction procedures and the local authority has to house him. The National Farmers' Union itself is very worried about this point. It is honest enough to say in its brief:
  "It could be argued that the Union's fears about the consequences of abolishing the service house system are without foundation because the Bill imposes a duty on local authorities to provide a house for an occupier leaving a farm service house … This duty has no real substance and cannot give farmers confidence that Council houses will be forthcoming as and when legitimate applications are made"
  by farm workers who wish to leave the industry.
  "Clause 29 obliges local authorities merely to ' use their best endeavours' ".
  That is not good enough.
  The part of Lincolnshire that I am privileged to represent still has a large agricultural element. In most constituencies in England the number employed directly in agriculture is falling dramatically, but in North Lincolnshire 14 per cent. of the population are still directly employed in that industry.
  The Shelter survey found, from an admittedly small sample, that almost half

  1155
  the farm workers were totally indifferent to the Bill and the abolition of tied cottages. That is the position in my constituency. The local representatives of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers are lukewarm and indifferent to the Bill.
  Today, one can afford to keep on a farm only good men, and good men demand really good houses. In practice, most of the housing now made available to valuable farm workers is much superior, in construction and amenities, to any council house. I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that the industry has an enormous amount of capital tied up in its houses. It is a burden that we can ill afford at the moment. Some of us were fortunate enough to get 50 per cent. grants under the Livestock Rearing Regulations to modernise and renovate houses and to build new ones. Without that help, many farmers would have been in a difficult position today.
  We are concerned about stockmen. We cannot argue quite so positively, on a large arable farm, for the absolute necessity of having the men on the spot. It is a convenience; not a necessity. But it is necessary to have a shepherd, a pig-man or a cowman available on the spot. Anyone with experience knows that one's profit and the performance of the herd or flock depend on the individual skill of one man. No one can say why one shepherd has 120 per cent. lambing and a good return while another, on the same farm, cannot do as well. Individual men have particular skills and a particular feel for the job. They are the men who must be housed on the spot. They must be on hand to deal with emergencies.
  One of the greatest expenses and hardships for anyone today is the business of getting to work. It is an enormous advantage to have a modern house immediately next door to one's work. Even if one lived in the nearest village, in a council house, one would still have to travel to work. Travel to work in itself is not eligible for tax relief. I am constantly filling in, accurately but sometimes on the lines of a fairy story, Schedule E expenses claims for the various people I employ. If a man has a motoring allowance, he pays tax on it unless he fills in a complicated form at the end of the tax year—a
  1156
  form which most employers have to fill in for these people. So it is a great disadvantage and expense to live far from one's work.
  Much rural council housing is among the worst housing in the countryside—perhaps five or six houses in a block, with no facilities for drying clothes and no wash basin by the lavatory. Much rural council housing compares badly with the best type of farm accommodation.
  The present system has some enormous advantages. The figures have already been quoted. We have well over 135,000 modernised farmhouses available today, 70,000 of which are occupied by farm workers, 26,000 by outside workers, 20,000 by retired farm workers, and 7,000 by farmers' families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has said, at present there are 12,000 empty houses—empty because of the fear that the Bill has brought to people. I know that many people are already looking at the contracts of employment that they have made with other people in the countryside in order to be certain that there is no reference to their conditions being the same as those of a farm worker, for fear that the procedures in the Bill will be extended to cover people other than those who work on farms.
  I find that there is no desire for the Bill whatsoever. It will reduce the amount of good housing available to people who work in agriculture. It will take away one of the great advantages of going to work on a farm today, where one gets with one's job a good modern house, in excellent surroundings. In many cases council houses are not suitable. They are certainly not suitable for stockmen. In many cases they do not have the right facilities for drying clothes, for keeping dogs, and so on.
  Having gone through the gesture of introducing the Bill, very late in the Session, I hope that Labour Members will feel that honour has been satisfied. I hope that the Bill will die, as many other Bills have died, by starting the parliamentary process so late in the Session. The Government must have second thoughts.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I certainly hope that the Bill will not die. I was present when a delegation of about 200

  1157
  farm workers came to the House about two years ago. They impressed me greatly with their determination and their suffering. They were not people who spoke from the heights of farm ownership. They were not people who owned 500 or 1,000 acres, and told other men what to do. They were the people who received the orders. They had the marks of toil on their hands. They came to this House with the very strong message that the tied cottage in agriculture had to go. They pointed out that it was a promise that the Labour movement had been making for many years.
  From the Opposition Benches we hear talk of progress and modernity—as though because a promise is of long standing it somehow loses worth, as though if an idea is old it is somehow diminished in value. I do not suppose those who propose that notion would think that the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 is of diminished value because it was passed then. They would say that it is the keynote of our individual liberty and freedom. So it is for a Socialist promise, a basic promise set out many years ago when the Labour Party was first formed and when it started on the path that has produced a majority on these Benches. It is a promise that we aim to keep.
  This matter goes to the Opposition, because on many occasions Conservative Governments have done U-turns and disenchanted their followers. There have been occasions on which Labour Governments have done the same thing. Keeping a promise is something that heartens our supporters. They say "That is the sort of Government we want—a Government who stick by their election pledges." We included this one in the Queen's Speech.
  On the basis of that lobby of farm workers, largely from Kent, I put forward a Ten-Minute Bill to abolish the tied cottage. It was designed simply to chivvy the Government along and to remind them of the promise. We were then in a minority position, and it was very difficult. We are now back in a minority situation, to a differing degree. However, to the Government it was a reminder of their promise.
  By the publicity surrounding my Bill, I received evidence from all over the
  1158
  country about the difficulties and hard ships that are faced by farm workers. I received evidence about the hardships of people in other occupations, but the overwhelming majority of evidence was about the difficulies faced by farm workers. There was no question in my mind that the opposition by Conservatives was due to a doctrinaire approach—that they were the people who owned the land and they were the people to determine the future of their goods and chattels, and the people included in that category.
  The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has now left the Chamber, but I am happy to say that he included in his speech mention of much Labour legislation. I raised the question with him that if the protection afforded by legislation was so great, why did the Conservatives in the House of Lords block a clause of the Agriculture Bill in 1970 which would have required a farm owner to say that a cottage was necessary for the efficient running of his farm? Why was that clause deleted after being passed through the House of Commons without the support of the then Conservative Opposition? The fact is that they were simply not prepared to make even the most modest compromise in the situation. They wanted total power.
  Although, happily, we have only two dozen or so actual evictions every year, the fact is that if an agricultural worker lives in tied accommodation he is subject to a great degree of intimidation. The tied accommodation prevents a proper relationship developing between an employer and his employee, such as that which exists in other circumstances. It allows a farm owner to require a farm labourer, or a farm worker of some sort, to undertake extra duties. It gives the owner an edge, because if the worker does not perform those duties, at the back of his mind there is always the question "What happens about my accommodation? Will I come up against the boss? If so, what will happen? Will I be evicted?" There is that continuing threat of intimidation at the back of these situations.
  It is true that evictions are comparatively few, tragic though they are. However the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers deals with between 500 and 1,000 cases every year. Although

  1159
  those cases do not result in actual eviction, they are stories of misery, concern, deprivation and worry over a long period, which are eventually solved without resort to the courts.
  When I put forward my Ten-Minute Bill in 1974, the NUAAW was kind enough to send me some details in a letter, which said:
  "Here are a few details of recent cottage evictions dealt with by this Union.
  Mr. and Mrs. Hogben of Faversham—3 children between 4 and 7 years of age. Evicted …
  Mr. Golding, dependant wife and family of teenage children, of Wingham, were evicted. Spent nights in a St. John's Ambulance Hall."
  Of course, Opposition Members who talk about this matter say that eviction is not really so bad, but how many have actually spent a few nights in a St. John's Ambulance hall because of a decision of their employer? I suspect very few of them have done that, because they are the people in the big house. They are the people with the power, and they expect obedience from their employees. They are the people who simply do not understand that there is a different point of view over eviction, especially on the part of those who suffer from the situation.
  The NUAAW also gave me details—these were published in the Kent Messenger —of another farm worker who was evicted, a Mr. Henty. The threat of intimidation frequently goes with the question of union membership, so that frequently, alas, membership of the NUAAW is very difficult. There is no doubt that if a man is a member of a trade union and is regarded by a farmer as being a bit bolshie, the moment can be picked when a job can be dispensed with and a person can be evicted.
  Mr. Henty was not a disloyal employee and, indeed, worked on the farm for 13 years. He was then made redundant. Was he a bad worker? Was he ill? Was he evicted as a result of a farming accident—of which, unhappily, there are far too many? None of those reasons is apt in this respect. Mr. Henty, as he admits, was bought. The Kent Messenger sets out his case. Mr. Henty said:
  "My advice to young people is to keep well clear of the tied cottage. You are owned by the farmer and once you are in, you are
  1160
  in for life. I had no choice over whom I worked for. I was bought."
  He points out that when the farm changed hands the new employer decided not to employ him and Mr. Henty's services were dispensed with and his tenancy came to an end. He had no control over the situation and was not consulted about the change of ownership. That is what he meant when he said he was "bought".
  Opposition Members tend to speak in glowing and romantic terms about people buying little houses with honeysuckle growing over the porch, and about people who save up to become part of our property-owning democracy, which is no doubt a laudable thing to do, but when Mr. Henty was made homeless after working on that farm for 13 years, he was awarded £437 in redundancy pay. That was in 1974, and fortunately a Labour Government have now significantly improved that situation. The report in the Kent Messenger goes on to say that with that small amount of money the couple were determined to escape the tied cottage system. They had to look for property at the bottom of the market and eventually found a house at East Farleigh for £8,500.
  At the age of 51, with some small savings behind him, Mr. Henty realised that he had left it too late. The property was valued, and he could not obtain enough mortgage to cover the cost. Mrs. Henty said:
  "The worst part about it was that he was offered a really good job as a field services worker, but he could not take it because there was no accommodation. We have been trapped by the system."
  That is a vivid and graphic illustration of the difficulties experienced by one agricultural worker and his family.
  Let me continue to deal with the topic of intimidation. Some hon. Members may have seen the BBC television series about life in the country. Cameramen from BBC2 wanted to film a farm worker carrying out his work on the farm on which he was employed, but they were not allowed to do so. The camera crew was not allowed on the land, because the farm employer decided that he would not permit the television unit to film his employee. Instead, the filming took place in a nearby pub.
  Mr. Alan Clark: Invasion of privacy.
  Mr. Cryer: Is it an invasion of privacy to film an employee loyally carrying out his work? That man had probably given years of his life to that farm. Instead of the employer's saying "It is splendid that you have been chosen to be filmed by the BBC, because you are a good worker: it is a credit to you that they want to show you at work on the land", the employer said to the BBC cameraman "No, you cannot go on my land". That is a stark example of the attitude displayed by Conservative Members and those they represent.
  I wish to make the further point that although evictions do not always take place, the farm worker faces uncertainty because of the possibility of accident through his contact with farm machinery. Fortunately, from 1st March the Agricultural Inspectorate came under the auspices of the Health and Safety Commission. That is regarded as a very good move by the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers because, by and large, it is true to say that the agricultural inspectors were not regarded with any great degree of confidence by the employees. It is worth reminding the House that if an employee is injured at work on the farm, he faces the strong possibility of having to end his stay in the cottage in which he lives. That happens through no fault of his own.
  It is obvious that the Opposition are extremely confused on this issue. In their speeches some of them said that many people would resent the fact that farm workers would be given priority on local authority housing lists The hon. and learned Member for Thanet West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that there would be great bitterness and resentment on that score, and that point was echoed by the hon. Member for Burton. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) said that it was usual to have such priorities in any event. I do not know whether he meant that in his neck of the woods farmers had more pull locally. The fact is that in 1973 the Country Landowners' Association and the NFU put out a Press statement to the effect that it would be a good thing if farm workers were given priority on council housing lists if they
  1162
  were coming to the end of their working life. The Opposition should clarify their position before they make confident assertions on this matter.
  I accept that there are certain difficulties in the operation of a farm, but there are difficulties in the operation of a factory. We must try to take everything into account. Under the provisions of Clause 28 a farmer will be able to make application to a housing authority to justify a situation involving a tied cottage. The local authority must make reasonable endeavours to provide alternative accommodation, and the ball is in the farmer's court to justify the case. That gets away from the present situation in which the farmer can make the determination in a patriarchal manner.
  It is said by the Opposition that it will be impossible for a farmer to run a farm without his stockman being close to his work. However, we are not told by the Opposition that veterinary surgeons must live on the farm, or that they need to occupy tied cottages. The Bill takes account of reasonable grounds for doubt and uncertainty. In my view, the Bill should work well.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture has put in an enormous amount of work on this legislation. I know that he has had consultations on all sides and that he has issued a consultative document which has been widely read and greatly appreciated. He is to be congratulated on the job he has done, and the other agricultural Ministers with him.
  I shall certainly give this Bill my wholehearted support. There may be one or two corners that need to be rounded and one or two things that need to be tied up to make sure that there are no unnecessary compromises, but I hope that this Bill has the support of the House, because, although we shall face criticism from the vested interests on the Opposition Benches, that is one of the tests of our legislation. We are here not to prop up a mouldering capitalist society but to improve society and push it along on a more Socialist basis, so we naturally expect antagonism, obduracy and dogmatism from the Opposition Benches. But I believe that this Bill will be widely welcomed inside this House on the Government Benches, widely welcomed by

  1163
  the agricultural workers, and widely welcomed by their wives and children, because for too long they have been subjected to the sole arbitration of the farm owner. The fulfilment of the promise to get rid of that power of arbitration is long overdue.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I first declare an interest as an owner-occupier of a farm, with two tied cottages occupied by men who have managed to put up with me for the past 15 years and with whom the relationship has always been harmonious.
  I believe sincerely that this Bill has seriously damaged the prospects of many farm workers and in particular two sectors of farm workers—the young and ambitious and those approaching retirement.
  First let us take the young and ambitious, on whom the future of our industry and indeed the future of the country, when one considers how much we can save the country, will depend. With the large amount of capital now required to become an owner-occupier or a tenant farmer it is obviously vital that there is a chance of promotion within the working structure of agriculture. The chances of becoming a farmer in one's own right are very slender indeed. Therefore a career structure is absolutely vital for any man entering the industry. It is with this in mind that we have spent millions of pounds on training young men in agricultural skills. But very few farm workers can gain promotion on the one farm on which they start. They must move around.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard), who has not been here for the past few hours, asked how it is—
  Mr. Cryer rose —
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I have been here—she departed before I did.
  Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman would not give way to me and I shall not give way to him.
  Mr. Cryer rose —
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. Lady does
  1164
  not wish to give way, she cannot be pressed to do so.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose —
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order. In the interests of accuracy I must point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) has been out of the Chamber for half an hour for the first time since 3.30 p.m. when the debate started.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: In point of fact—
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Further to that point of order I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) has been sitting in this Chamber from the beginning of the debate and has just rushed out to get something to eat in order to be back here for the summing up by the Minister.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The question of who has been here and who has not is going a little wide of order. We shall return to the debate.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The reason I raised the point is that I never like to refer to what an hon. Member has said unless that hon. Member is there to correct any detail which may be inaccurate.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside asked how EEC farmers manage without tied houses on the Continent. The answer is very simple. On the Continent they have not the same rigid rent control system, which puts promotion beyond the reach of many men in industry in this country because they simply cannot find a house to go with a better job. On the Continent they have not killed off the rented sector. If we abolish tied cottages in this country, we kill off the career structure of those working in agriculture. But it also works against the interests of those approaching retirement age, and in. particular their wives.
  In my early days we used to farm 1,600 feet up in the mountains of Wales. Many men in those parts, and their wives, were perfectly content to accept that they lived on the tops of mountain or in isolated areas during their working lives, but when they came to the end of their working lives they often wanted

  1165
  to move down into more inhabited areas, into villages, with their friends. Moreover, the whole concept of welfare in this country is to allow people to remain in their own homes as long as possible. If, therefore, they can get out of an isolated dwelling where they have little in the way of support services into a small bungalow in a more populated area they have a great deal better chance of remaining in their own home to the end of their days than in a isolated farmhouse—and that is what the wives of the farm workers in this country want. I have them coming to me in my surgery and saying "Our farmer is perfectly happy for us to stay where we are, but we want to get into a more convenient bungalows where we can end our days."
  The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who is not in his place at the moment, said that mobility was the prerogative of all other workers. Is it? What about the 10 families which the National Coal Board—[Interruption.] I was speaking to Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to hon. Gentlemen opposite. What about the 10 families whom the NCB chucked out on their ears—evicted-last week from their tied cottages? What about the schoolteachers, the clergymen and the railwaymen, of whom I have many in my constituency, and others who form nine-tenths of the tied cottage population? Only one-tenth are in farm tied cottages.
  The hon. Member for Ormskirk said that tied cottages accounted for low wages. If so, why is it that 50 per cent. of workers in industry who are not in tied cottages remain within the industry?
  Unlike most hon. Members opposite, I started my working life as a farm worker. I was in the Women's Land Army. I was a dairy maid—[Interruption.] I was a very good dairy maid. I know about the hours which farmers have to work.
  I confess that, although I trained my cows well, I never succeeded in training them to use the telephone. Apparently the hon. Member for Brightside considers that it is adequate, when a cow is calving, for the cowman or dairy maid to be notified by phone. That is an unrealistic concept. If a cow in my charge were starting to calve, however soundly I might have thought I was sleeping, I
  1166
  should automatically have heard that cow begin to bellow. I guarantee—ribaldry apart on the Benches opposite—that I should be with that cow, respectably clad in gum boots, a long skirt, and a pullover, in two minutes flat. That cannot be done if the farmer has to phone for the cowman.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said that one does not have the vet on the premises. Indeed, one does not. If a farmer has a good dairy maid or stockman, nine times out of 10 he will not need the vet. The vet is and should remain the second line of defence. The stockman, whose instincts are to care for his stock, who can hear what is wrong, and knows instantly when his attention is required, must inevitably live on the spot. Without the stockman our dairy industry cannot survive.
  If we are to have this bad Bill, which is against the interests of farmers and farm workers, I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) in asking for the qualifying period to be five years. We all know only to well that people drift into agriculture because they want houses. Therefore, two years is not sufficient as the qualifying period. It must be five years. Although the qualifying period could be reduced, I suggest that it is improbable that we should succeed in increasing it. If our stock, pig, poultry and dairy farms are to play the part which they are entitled to play and must play if we are to survive as a great agricultural nation, we must alter the qualifying period at least to five years.
  This is a bad Bill, but it can be improved.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The contribution made by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) reminded me of the lovely song which I learned as a child—
  "It is dabbling in the dew which makes the milk maids fair."
  It is a lovely song. I have a good voice, but I shall resist the temptation to sing it now.
  I represent part of a steel city—Sheffield. My aim in making this brief contribution is to demonstrate the solidarity of working people generally, and certainly the organised trade union and labour

  1167
  movement, in support of this Bill and their comrades, the agricultural workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) has the complete backing of the great steel constituency which she represents and, indeed, of the entire trade union and labour movement in that city. I want to "solidArise" with the agricultural workers—[HON. MEMBERS: "SolidArise?"] I want to "solidArise"—s-o-l-i-. Oh, never mind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside made a point of coming back from a conference of agricultural workers to be here today. She would not dream of being missing from here for longer than was strictly necessary. Some time ago I went on a picket of agricultural workers with her outside the Ministry. It was midwinter and cold. She and I were the only hon. Members to join the agricultural workers. It was a bleak day and one of the workers was an elderly man who had retired some time before. I engaged in conversation with him and we became friendly. In a few hours he taught me a great deal about the subject, although I had been interested in it for a long time. I asked him why he had joined the picket at his age. He said, "Before I die I want to see the cottages free and not tied. I have worked for that all my life." I discovered that he had tramped from a remote area in Yorkshire to join his union comrades and to demonstrate.
  Incidentally, he died a short time ago. He was witty and humorous and he told me some of his experiences as a young man. One of those stories epitomises the feelings of agricultural workers. He said that he had attended a committee where the wonderful things one could do with a sheep's head were discussed. The four wealthy farmers present were asked, "Who gets the rest of the sheep?" Agricultural workers are in a similar position today.
  I first became interested in tied cottages after reading Thomas Hardy's novel "Tess of the D'Urbervilles". According to the novel, on Lady Day agricultural workers moved from one employer to another. They put their belongings on farm carts and shouted across to each other to find out what the farmer that their fellow workers had just left was like. The workers regularly told each other exactly what their previous employers
  1168
  were like in language that Thomas Hardy did not use. Those workers lacked security and had to move from one farm to another. It is appalling that today any section of work people should be tied to a cottage under feudal conditions.
  Opposition Members argue with a vested interest. They literally lift up their visors, look across at us over the battlements and engage in feudal arguments which should have been relegated to the dustbin long ago. I speak at every possible meeting of agricultural workers.
  Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman is repeating a word used earlier by one of his colleagues—feudalism, If he believes that the system is feudal, as I understand he does, what is he doing to deal with what must also be feudalism in the coal industry?
  Mr. Flannery: We are talking about the agricultural tied cottages. The hon. Gentleman may assume that those of us on the Labour Benches who are arguing the case for this Bill will do everything in our power to rectify what is happening in that industry. Many councils, such as the council for the Chesterfield area, are taking over old tied cottages and doing them up. I am not an expert on that matter, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is our aim, and it will be achieved in exactly the same way.
  In meeting the agricultural workers as I have since I have been a Member, through my hon. Friend and others, I have found that their most deeply felt desire is to get rid of the tied cottage. At meetings in the House they pressed the point over and over again and repeated that, with wages, which were so deplorable and have since been slightly improved, it was the matter closest to their hearts. They said that they would never let the issue go. Incidentally, the farm workers were against the Common Market, while the farmers were for it. There are differences between the working men in tied cottages, with their background, and the rich farmers.
  We are told that few evictions have taken place. A great part of the struggle has been because of the feudal conditions under which farm workers were held down, and which made many of them realise that if they engaged in the normal practices of any trade unionist their very homes would be in jeopardy.

  1169
  They were held on a leash. It is now clear that in areas where the tied cottage has been abandoned trade unionism, which Conservative Members do not like, has taken a leap forward. The whole trade union movement in such areas is much more powerful, and it will become more powerful.
  My hon. Friend said that farmers will soon adjust to the reality of the tied cottage having gone. Of course they will. The whole of agriculture will take a leap forward because free human beings who do not have the threat of eviction hanging over them will now have proper trade union rights, or will be struggling for them without the fear of losing the homes tied to their work.
  The Bill is a profound measure which will give the entire farming community a feeling that it has friends all over the country, even among people who are not usually seen to be such. As someone from a steel area, I thought that I should like to show my solidarity with the Bill, which is about to go through.
  8.49 p.m.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: As a Tory representing an urban area, I had not expected to contribute to the debate. I am stung into speech—
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: To make up the numbers.
  Mr. Budgen:—by the frequent references from the Labour Benches to the feudalism of the tied cottage system. The whole basis of feudalism was status, not contract, whereas—
  Mr. Sedgemore: It was ownership of land.
  Mr. Budgen: But not contract—not agreement freely entered into by adult members of a free society. Therefore, I ask myself whether in this instance the State should interfere and vary a contract which has been freely entered into.
  Many people argue that being a farm worker is an unpleasant job. I have never been an employee of any sort and I should not want to be a farm worker. I would not want to be a worker on a lathe in a factory. But no doubt many factory workers would not want to be Members of Parliament. Many factory workers would say that we lead an insecure life,
  1170
  with unsocial hours, that we are dictated to and that we are intimidated by our supporters and our opponents. They would say that there is much that is inconsistent and humiliating in the work of a politician, and they would be right. But we have chosen freely this way of life.
  In the same way, the farm worker has chosen freely his contract of employment. He takes into account both the advantages and the disadvantages, and unless we are to say, in an offensively paternalistic way, that the farm worker is such a fool that he must be relieved of the disadvantages of his contract, I believe that we are right, as a society and a State, to say that he is entitled to keep to the contract that he has entered into freely.
  Mr. Newens: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that precisely the opposite prevails —that frequently a farm worker is not free to decide what sort of job he wishes to do, and that once he has a tied cottage he is unable to change his job, unlike a Member of Parliament, because he will lose his home and not be able to get another one? Therefore, he is unfree.
  Mr. Budgen: That was a good argument in the days of which Thomas Hardy wrote. At a time when there was no free, good public education, when public transport did not exist, when many working people could not afford to buy transport and when, probably, only the very able and the very spirited could opt out of the society in which they found themselves, perhaps there was an argument for varying the terms of the contract into which they entered freely.
  There is a second circumstance in which I would be in favour of varying the terms of a freely agreed contract. That is where there is a monopoly employer. I have in mind a monopoly employer like the Army, or the National Coal Board. If a person wishes to be a soldier or a coal miner, he has only one employer, and in cases like that there is a strong argument for the State reviewing the terms and conditions of the contract of employment. But where the situation is one in which a free citizen enters into a contract. taking into account all the advantages and disadvantages, I see no argument for the State stepping in and in a paternalistic way saying to the employee "You are such a fool that you do not understand fully what you were entering into."

  1171
  That is a philosophic point. But what are the consequences of this measure likely to be? First, I believe that there will be very substantial long-term disadvantages to farm workers themselves. Here, I adopt the eloquent arguments put forward from a wealth of practical and detailed knowledge by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). All of us know the expense and disadvantage of travelling to work. In the course of my reading today, I remember seeing that the Automobile Association now estimates that it costs 13p per mile to run a motor car. This measure will mean many people having to live some distance from their work and having to travel at expense and inconvenience and in a way that loses them time.
  The Bill will also impose on the countryside all the disadvantages that the Rent Acts have imposed upon the town. Here, I may perhaps speak in this rural debate as an urban Tory, because we in the towns have seen the suffocating effects of the Rent Acts. We have Seen the vacant houses. We have seen the badly maintained housing. We have seen the immobility that is forced upon those who live in a privileged position in rent-controlled accommodation. We have also seen the conditions that give landlords a greater incentive to use strong-arm methods to get tenants out of controlled or protected housing. All these evils are now to be inflicted upon the rural community.
  The Bill will cause a serious reduction in agricultural efficiency. Here I adopt many of the arguments from my hon. Friends who have detailed knowledge of agriculture. We shall see extra costs in agriculture—
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Name them.
  Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made the same point. If I am wrong, and if there are not to be extra costs in agriculture, and efficiency is not to be reduced, the only way this can be done is by councils providing extra accommodation on a large scale. The result of that will be that over the next five years £25 million will be spent by councils which are already free spenders in providing extra
  1172
  council housing unnecessarily. All that is happening at a time when there is a £12 billion borrowing requirement and we could be on the verge of hyperinflation. All this is in order to placate 5·3 per cent. of farm workers who are against the system of tied cottages, to placate 20 or 30 hard cases a year. If there are only 20 or 30 hard cases a year it would be almost cheaper and easier to give each one of them £200,000 and let them get on with it.
  Mr. Cryer: If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) had been in the debate a little longer he would know that the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers deals with almost 1,000 cases each year, each one of which could result in eviction. As for the 5·3 per cent., the basis of Shelter's information is totally wrong.
  Mr. Budgen: I have been in the Chamber for most of the day. Everyone knows that the larger figure was the result of a largely collusive arrangement by which the farmer and the employee got together in the hope of getting council accommodation. I am dealing with the figures given by the Minister in paragraph 8 of the consultative document. This deals with at least 1,000 instances of court orders for possession, but there are only a handful where the end result is eviction in distressing circumstances. The hardship that we are dealing with is limited to a handful, and yet we are going to spend £25 million on it.
  It is profoundly wrong for the State to intervene in this area. It is profoundly distressing, and is based on a disgraceful and insulting attitude towards the farm worker, who is described by hon. Members opposite as being such a fool that he is not able to evaluate the deal before entering a freely agreed contract.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: I apologise for not having been present earlier in the debate but I have been detained in a Standing Committee.
  I add my support to the Bill. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) spoke of her experiences in farming. I was employed for some time by the Milk Marketing Board which involved travelling around Shropshire farms. I therefore know something of

  1173
  how farmers and farm workers live. The hon. Lady reminded me of the many explanations of why cows have long faces. I have heard another tonight arising from the way in which she looked after the livestock.
  I understand that about 50 per cent. of farm workers no longer live in tied cottages. It was my experience in many farms in Shropshire that the herdsman, cowman, or dairy manager, or whatever other sophisticated term was applied, quite often lived in local authority housing and was able to hear the cows bellowing before they calved. I did not find that there was ever any difficulty. The worker did not have to live in a ramshackle hut close to the cows when they were calving.
  The hon. Lady spoke about career structure and of those agricultural workers who were approaching retirement age. I can assure her that farm workers in tied cottages were most worried as they approached retirement about where they would live after the farmer had exploited them and knocked the stuffing out of them for 30 or 40 years. This was where the feudal system came in. If they were lucky the farmer might put them in a tumble-down cottage with a cabbage patch where they could look after a couple of pigs—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: What absolute rubbish !
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Stop that mooing over there.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Courtesy is required on both sides.
  Mr. Thomas: It is foolish to talk about mobility when an agricultural worker is ensnared in a situation in which if he hints to his employer that he is even thinking about taking another job he is threatened with eviction. If he applies to another farmer for a job and both farmers are members of the same regional NFU, the employer is almost certain to hear and before he knows where he is the worker is threatened with eviction.
  Anyone who believes, as was suggested by one Conservative Member, that it is evil to give security of tenure, whether in the countryside or in the city,
  1174
  deserves to be criticised. Such a remark is not worth responding to.
  The tied cottage system prevents the development of effective trade union organisation and collective bargaining. I should like to see the agricultural wages council abolished and free collective bargaining introduced in the agriculture industry. That cannot happen until the tied cottage system is abolished.
  I am a little concerned that the Government have not taken up the main proposals in the consultative document and that there will now be two separate types of tenancies. The consultative document proposed that tied cottage occupancies should be converted into protective tenancies under the Rent Acts. I assumed that that applied to all. It is a pity that the Government have not taken that on board, rather than bringing in a twin definition system which does not go as far.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We have had a full dose of Tribune Group contributions in this debate. On this side, we respect the views expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) because she, of all the members of the Tribune Group who have spoken, has had considerable experience of working in agriculture and representing workers in the industry.
  It was interesting that little mention was made in the Tribune Group speeches of the many other sectors of industry in which there is tied accommodation. Perhaps the members of the Tribune Group were not here at the beginning of the debate when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) provided a number of pertinent statistics on tied housing and showed that it existed for the police and the clergy and in local government, mining, hotels and catering. Agriculture is only one sector in which tied accommodation exists.
  I represent both urban and rural dwellers. There are many delightful rural villages in my constituency where livestock farming is very important. The agricultural workers there are highly skilled and I am delighted to be able to tell hon. Members opposite below the Gangway that these men are very

  1175
  much part of the community and are treated like anybody else. Indeed, in many villages they play a more important part in community affairs than the land owners and farmers whom hon. Members opposite have been running down so vociferously today.
  The new Minister of State at the Foreign Office, who is sitting below the Gangway, represents a rural area. I am sure that the farmers in his constituency, who include the president of the NFU, have made strong representations that this Bill will have a severe effect on the livestock industry. The agricultural workers in my constituency are worried. They work in the livestock sector—dairy, pigs, beef and sheep—and they are deeply concerned about the effect this legislation will have on their industry. There were very few severe cases of eviction in agriculture last year. However, 10 people were evicted by the National Coal Board last week alone—probably almost as many as were evicted from agricultural tied cottages in the whole of last year.
  There are a number of questions which I would like the Minister to answer in his winding-up speech. Where a farmer finds, against his wishes, that he has a statutory tenant, will he be compensated for the loss of value of the cottage? If the cottage is in his farmyard, will the farmer be compensated for what could be a substantial loss of value to his farm?
  Because of the housing problems in many areas, it is inevitable that some farmers will have to take local authorities to court. The farmers will incur considerable legal fees and have to suffer the loss of an employee's service during that time. Will there be any compensation for farmers, particularly in the livestock sector, who suffer this disadvantage?
  It may be a good thing that the provision for the transfer or succession of tenancies to widows should be written into the legislation, but should it be extended to a dependant who has lived in a cottage for only six months, perhaps solely in order to gain possession? I believe that that is going too far.
  What about the power that a Minister will have to obtain information? Information for what purpose? Will it be used
  1176
  to interfere with a highly efficient industry? This reeks of Big Brother State once again, which seems to be the hallmark of so much of the policy promoted by the Government.
  What about notification of disposal of a dwelling-house? Does this mean that bureaucracy will take control of all agricultural dwellings and, in turn, of agriculture as a whole? How can livestock farmers plan long-term production with so much at risk at regards value of stock, when under the Bill so many people will be able to make or not to make decisions that will directly effect the farming policies that they may wish to pursue?
  Let us take a specific case. A farmer whose herdsman leaves him will have to notify the housing committee which in turn will request the advice of the special agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee, which will request the advice of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ADAS surveyor, who will appraise the farming system and provide factual data and in due course report hack to the local housing committee, which will come to a decision when it next meets.
  That is the situation in which the livestock farmer will find himself. It is only then, or perhaps after that stage, that the farmer will know whether his house can be made free for another worker. But even then there could be many more months before the man is rehoused—indeed, it may be years—if the authority is difficult and the farmer has to take it to court.
  Who is to look after the stock all that time? I pose that question to those on the Labour Benches below the Gangway —[Interruption.] I have a lot more to say. I say to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who had a long innings in this debate, that there are others who hold as strong a view as he does. We have a right, fortunately, to be able to express ourselves freely in this House, and that is precisely what I am doing.
  I remind Labour Members below the Gangway that a great deal has been said about the trade union movement. But I also remind them that the union which has been mentioned so frequently, NUAAW, represents only a minority of those who work on the land in the agricultural industry. Perhaps some of them

  1177
  came into the Chamber rather late and did not hear the Front Bench contributions. The fact is that the union representing agricultural workers in Scotland does not want this legislation. There is a difference of opinion in the very trade union movement that has been put forward by Labour Members as representing all working people. It is a movement which represents a mere 40 per cent. of working people. I hope that the Minister will comment on the many people who are not represented by a trade union who hold strong views about this legislation.
  I believe that agricultural workers will find the Bill detrimental to the healthy flow of labour. Workers who in the past have left their jobs quite happily and moved on without any pressure from the farmer, perhaps in many cases going to another job, will now sit by waiting for the council to rehouse them at great expense to the country, an expense which it can ill afford. It will place additional burdens on agriculture.
  How right my hon. Friends have been to draw the attention of the House to the special problems of the livestock industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) talked about calving. The fact is that people have to be in attendance when calving takes place. I hope that I shall receive some sympathy from the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps), who earlier made a quite constructive contribution, if I may say so without sounding patronising. He will know that the farmer and some of his support staff have to be on hand when animals are in labour. Helpers cannot be summoned from a council house perhaps six miles away. Time does not permit, and nature does not work to the hours of the normal working day.
  I challenge the necessity for the Bill. The Government are creating a bureaucratic monster to interfere with the most efficient agricultural industry in the world. There is a fine industrial relations record in the British agricultural industry, which is virtually second to none in any other sector of the economy. There is a fine record of relationship between worker and employer, and I am deeply concerned that the legislation will destroy the fine relationship that has been built up over so many years.
  1178
  I hope that the Minister will answer some of the points I have raised. If he cannot do so, perhaps he will do me the courtesy of writing to advise me of the answers. I shall go into the Division Lobby against the Bill because it is damaging to the industry and to the worthy and skilled people who serve the industry so well.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: The last farmer left my constituency in 1895, yet, according to the last census of 1971, we still have, curiously enough, four agricultural workers.
  I have had no great lobby from constituents of mine either for or against the Bill. Therefore, I am in the unique position of being able to take a somewhat detached view of the arguments. I have been listening with great fascination as my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen disputed with one another as to how necessary it was for farmers to have workers living on the farm. I have learned about stockmen, dairymen and general labourers—about cows calving in the night and the respective merits of someone who knows the animals to be on the spot as against the adequacy of the telephone and the motor car.
  I was most impressed by the firm assurance given by the Secretary of State for the Environment—the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), whose rural atmosphere must vie with that of Hornsey—that the Bill as drafted will have no adverse effect on the efficiency of the agriculture industry. That was not the view of the National Farmers' Union, which may be said to have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo but which, at the same time, has some knowledge of the problems.
  The right hon. Gentleman's view is not the view of 60 per cent. of the workers who, in the Arthur Rank Centre report—glowingly recommended, somewhat selectively, by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett)—stated that they needed to live in tied cottages. The right hon. Gentleman's view is not echoed in the findings of Ruth Gasson, who, in her study "Tied Cottages on Large Farms" for the University of Cambridge Department of

  1179
  Land Economy came to the conclusion that
  "Through allowing operations to be carried out at the critical time, through enabling the farmer to compete for labour and to attract and retain the services of the best workers, the tied cottage system helps farmers with really large businesses to maintain and improve their efficiency. It would not be impossible to run farms such as these without any accommodation for workers. It would be quite impossible to achieve anything like the present levels of efficiency and output."
  The Government's own consultative document expresses the greatest reservations, and an anxiety not to go too far. It states that the tied cottage is concentrated within that sector of the agricultural industry which makes an overwhelming contribution to the national larder and the balance of payments. In view of this expert advice from farmers, farm workers, independent studies and the Government's consultative document, impliedly, why do we have the Bill?
  We have been told during the course of this debate that there has been a campaign for some 70 years, and that this must be the justification. We have also been told that it is wrong for people to live under constant threat of eviction, and, worse still, under threat of losing both their job and home at one and the same time. No one would deny this and it is a matter that requires investigation and remedy. The first question we must ask ourselves is "What is the size of the problem?" and the second is "Is this Bill the most effective means of solving the problem, or is it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) stated, a sledge-hammer to crack a nut?" In terms of people at actual risk, as distinct from people at a psychological disadvantage, the problem is minuscule. Several hon. Members have quoted the various reports and studies that have been made into the matter.
  The Secretary of State told us that there are about 70,000 tied cottages in respect of which there are about 1,200 possession orders a year. Out of these the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) said that there were between 20 and 30 evictions a year. In the Tavistock report we are told that 45 per cent. of those evictions occur during the first five years of employment, which
  1180
  could imply that perhaps the people concerned should not have been put into that employment and that particular home. The Tavistock Report goes on to say that 6 per cent. of all farm workers, at some time or other, faced the threat of eviction but that in the majority of cases they found another home—another tied cottage—on another farm because of the flexibility of the system. It would be extremely dangerous to remove that flexibility and to fossilise accommodation in the way that we have fossilised accommodation in our urban areas through successive Rent Acts, from which the people of this country are suffering.
  We have also been told that of the 1,200 possession orders—a number of hon. Gentleman have mentioned this matter—the majority are collusive. They are merely brought about as a device to obtain accommodation from local authorities because of the points schemes they have adopted and because those authorities will not look at a prospective tenant unless there is a real threat of eviction. Therefore, when we look at the evidence from the farm workers themselves, one finds conflict with the evidence, or the statements made by hon. Members who represent the workers' union and who told us that the overwhelming majority of members of that union are in support of the Bill or in support of the total abolition of tied accommodation.
  However, they themselves admit that this is a small and weak union, and reports and surveys suggest that it is unrepresentative of a large proportion of the farm working population. If one turns not to the statements that are made in this House on behalf of that union, but to what the farm workers themselves are saying to the people who carried out the surveys, one hears that 60 per cent. of the farm workers thought there was a need for farm workers, or some farm workers, to live in tied accommodation, while 83 per cent. of those approached considered that they derived a benefit from the tied accommodation system. As several of my hon. Friends have said, only 5·3 per cent. thought that the tied cottage system should be abolished. Therefore, one asks again—why have this Bill?
  When one considers the agriculture industry as such, the question seems almost unanswerable. For all the villainy

  1181
  that it is suggested exists in farmers' hearts towards their workers, they have a capital investment of £1,800 million in providing homes so that their workmen can live on the job and do it more efficiently. The relationship that emerges —again, not from those who come to this House with a political vested interest but from all the impartial studies—is very good indeed.
  What other industry provides, by private capital, homes for 14 per cent. of its retired workers and their widows? That is what the farming community has been doing, in addition to homes for the workers. When one talks about risk and security of tenure against a background of figures like that, one begins to wonder whose leg some hon. Members are trying to pull, and why.
  The curious historical fact is that, for reasons of its own, the Labour Party has given a pledge to abolish the tied cottage system. No doubt it found it to its electoral advantage to make that pledge in some areas, and that is why it made it. But a somewhat more cautious approach is taken in the consultative document. It says that there is a need to ensure that there is no adverse effect on agriculture from any steps that the Government may take. In the Bill itself, we find that the Government have departed completely from the concept of the abolition of tied cottages.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, the Bill does not give a farm worker security of tenure of his own home. It gives him security of housing. The hon. Member for Brightside complained that the Bill does not give the full Rent Act protection to farm workers in their cottages. The matter was adequately summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) when he said that the Bill is a cumbersome bureaucratic device to remove the need for collusion between farmer and farm worker in order to ensure that the local authority produces accommodation for the worker when the farmer needs his accommodation back. So this elaborate bureaucracy is to be set up at considerable expense to the community as a whole.
  In the end, according to the best considered opinion, this scheme will not work. It falls between two stools. The farmer is
  1182
  left with no absolute guarantee that he will get his cottage when he needs it, without considerable, damaging and expensive delay. The local authorities consider that a burden is being thrust upon them which they do not want. They complain bitterly that they will be directed on what priority to allocate their own pool of available housing. Members of the local authority world have gone on record with that complaint in public statements.
  Therefore, we start from a very unsatisfactory attempt at compromise—the "best endeavour" situation, which really is neither fish nor fowl. It will leave the local authorities, the farmers and the farm workers all dissatisfied and getting the worst of all possible worlds. All will be done at public expense.
  Listening to the debate, what I found rather curious was that while we heard a great deal about the attitude of farmers and farm workers, we heard very little about the views of the district councils. They have produced a paper containing their comments. They are quite unhappy. What they say is that if the Government wish to put the agriculture industry in a situation, in which over a period of years, it loses the accommodation that it needs for its greater efficiency and productivity, or in which the burden is placed on the local authority, the Government should make resources available to provide the houses that are needed.
  That is where the Government are failing in their duty. They are falling between the two stools that I have described, because they are simply not prepared to make the effort themselves and to provide the resources themselves. By playing off the farmers against the local authorities, they hope that somehow, out of that mess, a solution will be found, or that at least those voices that are raised on behalf of the farm workers' union will be stilled, because the Government will be seen to have produced a piece of paper that pretends to do a great deal but which ultimately will do very little.
  If we are to pursue this new concept that the Government are introducing—the concept that local authorities must use their best endeavours to rehouse a certain section of the community in priority to all others, care must be taken as to the precedent that this is creating, because other sections of the community will not be slow to argue on their own behalves

  1183
  that something similar should be done for them. Why should farm workers be put in this situation, as distinct, for example, from the police, or from Service men, ambulance men, people working for London Transport, or teachers? Each of those categories can show and prove its importance and worth to the community as a whole, and most of them can show that they are in great difficulties themselves when their jobs are terminated and they have to leave the homes that go with the jobs. The Government are creating a precedent, and that precedent will be followed.
  From the results of studies that we have seen, it is apparent that there are other schemes. As my hon. Friends have mentioned, the real problem is the feeling of insecurity that arises, particularly when a farm worker falls sick or retires, or—for his widow—when he dies. That is the nub of the problem.
  No one would deny that this is a situation that we must try to meet if we possibly can. In the past the problem has been met relatively adequately by the device of possession orders, forcing upon the local authority the need to rehouse where otherwise it would not. It was a rather fatuous device, in the sense that it put people to a lot of unnecessary expense. Obviously, if one could find a way out of that, so much the better. But the Bill does not find a solution by creating the bureaucracy that it creates —the bureaucracy of these new consultative committees to which people will have to go, and the certificate that has to be sent to the local authority, and so on. The consideration by the local authority when it has a case suddenly thrown in its face will be on the question whether it should give priority to that family or to some other family.
  What is needed is a more planned approach. This has been suggested convincingly by Shelter, among other organisations. What is envisaged is a system of registration and licensing, whereby farm workers go on to the council housing lists. The council will know that a farm worker aged 40 will, in 25 or 15 years' time, come to the local authority to ask to be housed. The local authority, with the necessary Government assistance, can then deploy its
  1184
  resources. However, the Government are avoiding that course under this Bill.
  I promised to give the Minister 25 minutes in which to reply to the debate. I conclude by saying that we believe that the Bill is unsatisfactory and that it will damage agriculture. It will not help the workers, who do not want the legislation. There are far easier ways in which to alleviate the many human problems that exist—problems with which we should like to deal if we were given the opportunity to do so.
  9.36 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): We have today debated a historic measure, and it is not surprising that it has aroused such strong passions on both sides of the House.
  The debate has been both interesting and useful. The most interesting feature of the debate is the complete lack of appreciation and perception displayed by Conservative Members as to the position of a farm worker and his family living in an agricultural tied cottage. The striking aspect of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was the total absence of any reference in his remarks to the position of the farm worker. He spoke at length of the farmer and of local authorities but made no reference at all to the farm worker—or any reference he made was totally spurious. That attitude was echoed in the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). Opposition speeches gave the impression that the farm worker and his family do not want security of tenure but are happy to live in a house in which they have no right whatever should they cease to work on the farm.
  The Opposition's case has been based on a statistic drawn from the Arthur Rank Centre report, to the effect that only 5·3 per cent. of farm workers favour the abolition of the agricultural tied cottage. Let us look at that report and examine the way in which the question was posed. Farm workers were not asked whether they were in favour of abolition but, instead, were asked "Do you think there are any categories of workers who need to live in tied cottages to do their job?". The result was that 60 per cent. replied "Yes" and 40 per cent.

  1185
  replied "No". Some of the 40 per cent. who said "No" volunteered various reasons—and a few, not surprisingly, said that they had replied "No" because they were in favour of abolition. Therefore. it is a nonsense to say that only 5 per cent. of farm workers are in favour of abolition.
  It is as though an opinion poll were conducted on the basis of the question "Will you vote Conservative?", to which 40 per cent. reply "Yes" and 60 per cent. reply "No". Some of the 60 per cent. then add that they take that view because they do not like the Leader of the Conservative Party, or because they think that the party represents the bosses, and a fraction say "We shall not vote Conservative because we intend to vote Labour." Again, it is a nonsense to draw from that the conclusion that 5 per cent. will vote Labour. It is ridiculous to use statistics in that way.
  I turn to deal with some of the more practical points made in the debate. Let me start by dealing with the question of which workers and their families will be covered by the Bill. It is our intention that the Bill shall apply to whole-time workers whose wages are subject to the Agricutural Wages Act, and the definition in Clause 1 of the Bill is drafted accordingly. This is the most sensible and understandable way of drawing a boundary which has to be drawn somewhere. It also makes it easier for us to focus on the work which is actually done rather than on the mere title of the job.
  It is equally evident that there has to be a qualifying period of service under the Bill. We obviously do not want the special provisions of the Bill as regards rehousing to be abused as a short cut to a council house.
  There are quite a few factors, however, which can modify this period of two years. It is intended that weeks not worked full time because of illness, disease or injury shall count towards the two years, as shall holiday weeks and weeks during the whole-time employment in which fewer than 40 hours are worked by agreement between the worker and his employer. Finally, we propose to allow for up to 13 weeks for any other reasons which does not have to be specified—for example, weeks spent unemployed or in
  1186
  employment outside agriculture. A person whose employment in agriculture ceased as a result of sickness or injury consequent on his employment will be regarded as qualified irrespective of the time he has served.
  The term "agriculture" is defined in the Bill as including forestry, but provision is made for a different operative date for the application of the proposed procedures to whole-time forestry workers. Unlike the situation in farming, relatively little is known at present about the tied housing situation in private forestry. This will be remedied through a survey to be initiated by the Forestry Commission, the arrangements for which. I am glad to say, are now well in hand. The Government have still to decide the date for applying the Bill to housed workers engaged exclusively in forestry. As far as workers employed only partly in forestry are concerned, they will be covered by the Bill from the date it applies to farm workers if the remainder of their work counts as qualifying farm work under the terms of the Bill.
  I turn to one of the key features in this measure—the agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees. Each of these will consist of three people, one representing the employers, nominated by the National Farmers' Union, one representing the workers, nominated by the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, and the third an independent chairman.
  A number of hon. Members have commented on the fact that we do not intend to proceed with legislation as envisaged in our consultative document. The proposals now contained in the Bill provide a much more direct system for calling on local authority housing without the very complex and costly administrative machinery which registration would have required. I believe that this approach will allow a much more individual and up-to-date consideration of cases than would have been possible solely under a registration scheme. I say to my hon. Friends the Members for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) and to the hon. Member for Hornsey, who raised this point, that even if we had a register it would have constantly to be updated because the farming system is always changing and a farmer may have a stock enterprise

  1187
  for a few years and then go out of stock completely and into arable farming.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire asked whether there could not be an appeal system against the advisory committees. We considered whether there should be appeals against the committees' findings, but we concluded that it was not necessary. If we provided for appeals against the committees we should be creating a new tribunal from which there would be an appeal to the High Court, and we should be making the arrangements much more complicated than they are. Furtermore, we believe that the responsibility for housing decisions must at the end of the day rest with the housing authority.
  The way in which any application by a farmer to a local authority to house an outgoing worker is dealt with will depend on the authority's being satisfied that agricultural need genuinely exists. Agricultural need has already been defined in relation to the approval of planning applications for agricultural dwellings and, while the situation of the farmer wanting to house a new worker in an existing cottage is not the same, that will serve as a useful starting point in considering guidelines.
  The farm worker, the farmer or the local authority can call on the advisory committee to provide advice if they so desire. If the committee wishes to call on the professional advice of the agricultural development and advisory services of the Ministry, it may do so. I am sure that the impartiality and expertise of the committees will be widely recognised and prove valuable in this context.
  The other main agricultural innovation in the Bill, apart from the advisory committees, concerns the information which we, in the Ministry of Agriculture, propose to gather to help housing authorities to plan their likely commitments so that they can act as promptly and effectively as possible in rehousing outgoing farm workers where the need and urgency have been established. We propose to conduct a kind of census of accommodation available to farmers, including any accommodation on which they have a call for example, whether on the farm in question or on another farm in which the farmer has an interest. That will help considerably to build up for each area a picture
  1188
  of the extent and distribution of these properties and the nature of their occupation—for example, whether they are occupied by serving farm workers, by retired workers or their successors, or by others. This information will be sent by the Ministry to the local housing authorities, and in individual cases relevant parts will be available as background material for any advisory committee's deliberations.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Belper, who raised this matter, will recognise that, on the basis of this information, should the local housing authority wish to draw up its own register of agricultural tied cottages, it will be able to do so, and it will also be able to indulge in the kind of planning for which the hon. Member for Hornsey asked.
  Mr. Pym: Will an opportunity be given to the House of considering any arrangements under which this information will be acquired? The hon. Gentleman said that the Ministry would circulate local authorities and make these arrangements? Will the House have an opportunity of considering the detail?
  Mr. Strang: I will consider whether we can do that. I think that the hon. Gentleman would want us to push forward with this proposal without delay. It is important that we get the information from the farmers as quickly as possible in order to process and disseminate it to the local authorities. This information, which will help the system to work, will be of advantage to the industry and to the local authorities.
  I next turn to the attitude of the farmers to this measure, because much has been said about this matter by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Goodhew: Before the Minister does that, will he apply his mind to a point which I made when his right hon. Friend was referring to Clause 6, which exempts those who are tenants of the Crown? I attempted to make it clear that in cases of estate duty, and so on, farms were transferred to the Crown in place of estate duty and that the tenants, who were the same tenants, suddenly became tenants of the Crown. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may check that if they wish, but it is quite true. Will

  1189
  the Minister deal with the difference between the position of that person— [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—who, simply because of the death of the owner, the farmer—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Mr. Strang.
  Mr. Strang: There will be a difference in law between the position of Crown and other property, but there will be no difference in practice because, as we have made clear—my right hon. Friend made this point earlier—we have undertaken to ensure that, through administrative arrangements, farm workers in tied cottages on Crown property will be on even terms with farm workers in other agricultural tied cottages.
  I turn next to the attitude of the farmers. I acknowledge at the outset that many practical farmers have been genuinely apprehensive about the nature of this reform and the effect that it might have on their farming operations. To some extent that is based on a misunderstanding of our intentions. There is no doubt that the word "abolition" has confused many people. Hon. Members sometimes think "abolition" means "demolition." There has been scare-mongering in the Press and some hon. Members from the Opposition have added to that confusion in the industry.
  Mr. Goodhew: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Strang: I cannot give way.
  Mr. Goodhew rose —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not wish to give way, he must not be pressed.
  Mr. Strang: I recognise that some farmers are genuinely concerned because they feel that when a worker essential to the farming operation ceases to work on the farm, the farmer will not be able to obtain that cottage for an incoming worker in any circumstances. The Bill makes it clear that the Government recognise that where there is an essential need, the farmer should be able to secure that cottage for an incoming worker, provided that alternative satisfactory accommodation has been made available to the employee.
  1190
  The National Farmers' Union recognises that the Government are determined that nothing in this measure shall adversely affect agricultural efficiency. I refer the House to the latest edition of the British Farmer and Stockbreeder, the official journal of the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales. The headline on the leader reads:
  "Tied cottage plan can work if enforced"
  The first sentence reads:
  "With all its defects, the Bill to abolish the agricultural service house system is very far removed from what most farmers had feared and it provides yet more testimony to the NFU's moderating role in safeguarding farmers' interests."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it all."] I have read it, and that is a substantially fair statement. An article by the editor, Monty Keen, is entitled:
  "Revised tied cottage rules could help farming".
  The opening sentence of that article says:
  "If, but only if, district councils play their part in rehousing ex-farm workers the Bill to abolish agriculture tied cottages could be of positive benefit to the farming communty".
  Dr. Phipps: Surely that is the point which a number of hon. Members on both sides have tried to make. The Bill would be of benefit if it contained teeth to make local authorities provide alternative housing. But the Bill does not do that. It contains no time limit and it therefore has no teeth.
  Mr. Strang: My right hon. Friend dealt with that point at length. We cannot put an absolute priority on local authorities to provide a house the day after a farmer asks for it. There must be a balance of priorities. There will be an urgent need in some cases but there will be other circumstances in which the need will not be so urgent and in which it can wait, perhaps, to the end of the season in the case, for example, of a fairly large arable farm.
  Mr. Goodhew: The Minister should read Clause 6.
  Mr. Strang: The farmers' constructive attitude is in sharp contrast to the attitude taken by the Tory Party. The Government were accused by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) of dogmatic and doctrinaire Socialism and the right hon. Member for

  1191
  Cambridgeshire said that the Bill will damage farm businesses and all who work on the land. That is nonsense and the vast majority of hon. Members recognise that.
  The Opposition have not only shown themselves to be out of line with the NFU in their estimation of the practical effect of the Bill on farming but have shown no understanding of the position of farm workers and their families and of the case of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers.
  The case for this legislation does not rest on the number of actual evictions of farm workers and their families which take place every year. Nor does it rest on the number of eviction orders granted by the courts, though I must say that the figures on evictions and court orders in themselves justify the Bill. What Conservative Members fail to realise is that these figures are simply the tip of the iceberg. They are manifestations of the basic lack of security which afflicts all farm workers and their families who live in tied cottages.
  Mr. Pym: Why, then, does the Bill not apply to Scotland?
  Mr. Strang: The commitment applies to Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will decide the nature of the measures in Scotland and their timing
  The Tory Opposition may not understand the deep insecurity which affects farm workers and their families, but the NUAAW does. That is why the union has been campaigning for abolition of the agricultural tied cottage since its creation. The Bill has been warmly welcomed by the NUAAW. I quote from the statement issued by the General Secretary on its publication:
  "The conceding at long last of security of tenure to the occupants of tied farm cottages will remove the fear of homelessness which has for generations been part and parcel of the lives of farm workers and their families in their employers' houses."
  I pay tribute to the contribution and the help which the leadership of the NUAAW
  1192
  has given to us in introducing the Bill. I also pay tribute to the enormous contribution which my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Miss Maynard) has made throughout the years as a member of the union campaigning on this issue, now as a Member of Parliament and, perhaps most crucially, as a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party.
  Some months ago I watched a BBC farming programme devoted exclusively to the tied cottage issue. The centre piece of that programme was an interview, perhaps predictably, with a farm worker who was a member of the union but against abolition. Many farm workers have undoubtedly misunderstood what we mean by abolition. Some of them thought that we would prevent them from continuing to live on their farms. I am glad that the hon. Members for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), a farmer, is voting with us and is recommending his Liberal colleagues to do the same.
  That programme was very interesting. At the end of a long interview with the farm worker, the interviewer turned to the farm worker's wife, who had been sitting beside him, and asked what would happen to her if her husband had a serious accident and could no longer work on the farm. She replied, "I don't know". It had always been that way. Suddenly the film stopped and we were brought back to the studio. Although the producer did not realise it, those 20 seconds said more about the agricultural tied cottage than everything else in the programme.
  That is what the agricultural tied cottage is about. It is about the insecurity of the farm worker who has a young family and a young wife and knows that if he gets on the wrong side of his boss and loses his job there will no longer be a roof over their heads. It is about the insecurity of the wife who sees her husband's health deteriorating and knows that one day he will no longer be able to work on that farm and also knows that they do not have another house to go to. It is about the insecurity of the older farm worker.
  I commend the Bill as a historic reform.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 258.

  Division No 118.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Allaun, Frank

  Flannery, Martin

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Archer, Peter

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ashley, Jack

  Ford, Ben

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Ashton, Joe

  Forrester, John

  Madden, Max

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Magee, Bryan

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mahon, Simon

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Freud, Clement

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Bates, Alf

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bean, R. E.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Marquand, David

  Beith, A. J.

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Benn, Rt Hn Anthony Wedgwood

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Golding, John

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gould, Bryan

  Meacher, Michael

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Boardman, H.

  Graham, Ted

  Mikardo, Ian

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Millan, Bruce

  Bradley, Tom

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Molloy, William

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Moonman, Eric

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hatton, Frank

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce(Wood Green)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Moyle, Roland

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Campbell, Ian

  Hefter, Eric S.

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hooley, Frank

  Newens, Stanley

  Cant, R. B.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Noble, Mike

  Carmichael, Neil

  Horam, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Carter, Ray

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Ogden, Eric

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Huckfield, Les

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Ovenden, John

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Owen, Dr David

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Padley, Walter

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Hunter, Adam

  Pardoe, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Park, George

  Conlan, Bernard

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Parker, John

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Parry, Robert

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Janner, Greville

  Pendry, Tom

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Penhaligon, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Perry, Ernest

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg ,

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  John, Brynmor

  Prescott, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Radice, Giles

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Dempsey, James

  Kelley, Richard

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Doig, Peter

  Kerr, Russell

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kinnock Neil

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rooker, J. W.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lamond, James

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Eadie, Alex

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Edge, Geoff

  Lee, John

  Sandelson, Neville

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Selby, Harry

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  English, Michael

  Litterick, Tom

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Ennals, David

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Leyden, Eddie

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Luard, Evan

  Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Silverman, Julius

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McElhone. Frank

  Skinner. Dennis

  Small, William

  Tierney, Sydney

  Whitlock, William

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Tinn, James

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Tomlinson, John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Snape, Peter

  Tomney, Frank

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Torney, Tom

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Tuck, Raphael

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Stallard, A. W.

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Stoddart, David

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Stott, Roger

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Strang, Gavin

  Walker, Terry (Kingawood)

  Woodall, Alec

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Ward, Michael

  Wool, Robert

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Watkins, David

  Wrigglesworlh, fan

  Swain, Thomas

  Weetch, Ken

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Weitzman, David

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wellbeloved, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  White, James (Po11ok)

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fell, Anthony

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Alison, Michael

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lawson, Nigel

  Arnold, Tom

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Ian

  Baker, Kenneth

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C' f' d)

  Loveridge, John

  Banks, Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  Luce, Richard

  Bell, Ronald

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Farenham)

  Fry. Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Benyon, W.

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  McCusker, H.

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Biffen, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  MacGregor, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Blaker, Peter

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Body, Richard

  Goodhart, Philip

  .McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Made!, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Gorst, John

  Marten, Neil

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mates, Michael

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mather, Carol

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Maude, Angus

  Brittan, Leon

  Gray, Hamish

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mawby, Ray

  Brotherton, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grylls, Michael

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hall, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hannam, John

  Moate, Roger

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Monro, Hector

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hastings, Stephen

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Carson, John

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hayhoe, Barney

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hicks, Robert

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Clark, William(Croydon S)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Clegg, Walter

  Hordern, Peter

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Cockcroft, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Mudd, David

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Heave, Airey

  Cope, John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Neubert, Michael

  Corrie, John

  Hurd, Douglas

  Newton, Tony

  Costain, A. P.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Normanton, Tom

  Crouch, David

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Noll, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  James, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutaford)

  Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'drd)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Osborn, John

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Percival, fan

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Dunlop, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Durant, Tony

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kimball, Marcus

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Elliott, Sir William

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Raison, Timothy

  Emery, Peter

  Knox, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lamont, Norman

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lane, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  1196

  1197

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Sims, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Trotter, Neville

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Spence, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Wakeham, John

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Sproat, lain

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stainton, Keith

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wall, Patrick

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Stanley, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wells, John

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Stokes, John

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  St. John-Steves, Norman

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Scott, Nicholas

  Tapsell, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Younger, Hon George

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Shepherd, Colin

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Shersby, Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson. Sllvester, Fred

  Silvester, Fred

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's Sitting, the Motion relating to Appointments by the Committee of Selection may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock or for two hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and the Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Bill and the Land Drainage (Amendment) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

  RENT (AGRICULTURE) [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made. and Question put,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to afford Security of tenure for agricultural workers housed by their employers, and their successors, and to make further provision as to the rents and other conditions of tenure of such persons, including amendments of the Rent Act 1968, it is expedient to authorise:

  A. Payments out of moneys provided by Parliament as follows:

  1. Expenditure of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees.

  2. Any administrative expenses of a Minister or Government department.

  3. Any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act.

  B. Any payment into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Armstrong]

  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 258.

  Division No. 119.]

  AYES

  [10.13 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cartwright, John

  Allaun, Frank

  Boardman, H.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Anderson, Donald

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Archer, Peter

  Bradley, Tom

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ashley, Jack

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Coleman, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Buchan, Norman

  Conlan, Bernard

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Cook, Robin F. (Eden C)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce(Wood Green)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bates, Alf

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Bean, R. E.

  Campbell, Ian

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Beith, A. J.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Cryer, Bob

  Bern, Rt Hn Anthony Wedgwood

  Cant, R. B.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Carter, Ray

  Davidson, Arthur

  Bishop, E. S.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dempsey, James

  Kelley, Richard

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Doig, Peter

  Kerr, Russell

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kinnock Neil

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Rooker, J. W.

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Eadie, Alex

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sandelson, Neville

  Edge, Geoff

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Selby, Harry

  Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scull)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Litterick, Tom

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Ennals, David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, RI Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Luard, Evan

  Short, Mrs Renee (Woiv NE)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Silverman, Julius

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Small, William

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Flannery, Marlin

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Snape, Peter

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fool, Rt Hon Michael

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Ford, Ben

  Madden, Max

  Stallard, A. W.

  Forrester, John

  Magee, Bryan

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Maguire. Frank (Fermanagh)

  Stoddart, David

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Mahon, Simon

  Stott, Roger

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Strang, Gavin

  Freud, Clement

  Marks, Kenneth

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Marquand, David

  Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Swain, Thomas

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Ginsburg, David

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Golding, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tierney, Sydney

  Graham, Ted

  Millan, Bruce

  Tinn, James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Tomlinson, John

  Grant. John (Islington C)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Tomney, Frank

  Grocott, Bruce

  Molloy, William

  Torney, Tom

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Moonman, Eric

  Tuck, Raphael

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Hatton, Frank

  Moyle, Roland

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Ward, Michael

  Heifer, Eric S.

  Newens, Stanley

  Watkins, David

  Hooley, Frank

  Noble, Mike

  Weetch, Ken

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Oakes, Gordon

  Weitzman, David

  Horam, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Wellbeloved, James

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  O'Halloran, Michael

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Orbach, Maurice

  White, James (Pollok)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Whitlock, William

  Huckfield, Les

  Ovenden, John

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Owen, Dr David

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Padley, Walter

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch ch)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pardoe, John

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Hunter, Adam

  Park, George

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Irvine, RI Hon, Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Parker, John

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Parry, Robert

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Pendry, Tom

  Woodall, Alec

  Janner, Greville

  Penhaligon, David

  Woof, Robert

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Perry, Ernest

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Prescott, John

  John, Brynmor

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Awdry, Daniel

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arnold, Tom

  Baker, Kenneth

  Alison, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Banks, Robert

  1200

  1201

  Bell, Ronald

  Hall, Sir John

  Neubert, Michael

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareliam)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Newton, Tony

  Benyon, W.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Normanton, Tom

  Bitten, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Holt, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hannam, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Blaker, Peter

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Body, Richard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Osborn, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hicks, Robert

  Percival, Ian

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Holland, Philip

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Britian, Leon

  Hordern, Peter

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Raison, Timothy

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hurd, Douglas

  Rathbone, Tim

  Budgen, Nick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Irving, Charles (Cheitenham)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Burden, F. A.

  James, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Carson, John

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Churchill, W. S.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Clark, William(Croydon S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Clegg, Walter

  Kimball, Marcus

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cockcroft, John

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Cope, John

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Knox, David

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Corrie, John

  Lamont, Norman

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Costain, A. P.

  Lane, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Crouch, David

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Crowder, F. P.

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lloyd, lan

  Shersby, Michael

  du Cann, RI Hon Edward

  Loveridge, John

  Siivester, Fred

  Dunlop, John

  Luce, Richard

  Sims, Roger

  Durant, Tony

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Dykes, Hugh

  McCrindle, Robert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  McCusker, H.

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Speed, Keith

  Elliott, Sir William

  MacGregor, John

  Spence, John

  Emery, Peter

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Eyre, Reginald

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sproat, lain

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Madel, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Fell, Anthony

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Marten, Neil

  Stanley, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Mates, Michael

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Mather, Carol

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maude, Angus

  Stokes, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)

  Mawby, Ray

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fox, Marcus

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fry, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tebbit, Norman

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Monro, Hector

  Trotter, Neville

  Goodhart, Philip

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Goodhew, Victor

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Gorst, John

  Morgan, Geraint

  Viggers, Peter

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Wakeham, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Gray, Hamish

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mudd, David

  Wall, Patrick

  Grist, Ian

  Heave, Airey

  Walters, Dennis

  Grylls, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Weatherill, Bernard

  1202

  1203

  Wells, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Younger, Hon George

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant,

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I understand that the motion concerning the Committee of Selection, in the name of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and her right hon. and hon. Friends, is not to be moved.
  ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (SPECIAL CONSTABLES) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
  'The Authority shall ensure that complaints by the public against members of the police force are dealt with under the same procedures as those applicable to police forces maintained by local authorities'.—[Mr.Beith.]
  Brought up, and read the First tune.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we are taking Amendment No. 7, in Clause 4, page 4, line 11, at end insert:
  '(4) Any complaints by members of the public against Authority Constables in respect of the powers exercised by them under this Act shall be subject to the same complaints procedure as is for the time being in force for police forces maintained by police authorities'.
  Mr. Beith: I am glad that this apparently obscure Bill has aroused wider attention that it attracted on Second Reading, and I hope that hon. Members will give thought to the serious issues raised by it, particularly those which Mr. Speaker has wisely selected for consideration.
  I apologise to the Minister and other hon. Members who served on the Committee on the Bill for my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) being unable to be present at the only sitting which the Committee held. Some of the amendments which were moved then were, therefore,
  1206
  unable to be dealt with by him at that time. I know that the Minister has comments he wishes to make on the amendments, and I hope that he will have the opportunity to do so tonight.
  The clause, which has support wider than that of the Liberal Party, is designed to deal with an unsatisfactory aspect of the Bill. Any complaint by a member of the public against the Atomic Energy Authority force is much harder to pursue than is a complaint against the civil police, for there is none of the recourse, none of the formality and none of the safeguards which are available in the complaints procedure under the Police Act.
  The independent element, which the Government are now seeking, with our support, to introduce into the police complaints procedure, has a degree of formality, and a large number of safeguards in the system of registration, which goes far beyond anything the Atomic Energy Authority's force now has. The Minister himself, in reply to me on a previous occasion, said of the complaints procedure:
  "In addition to the constabulary's own internal procedures for handling complaints from the public the AEA Constabulary is subject to the jurisdiction of the Authority's management and to the civil police if any offence is suspected"—[Official Report, 25th February 1976; Vol. 906, c. 18.]
  Of course, we all are. But on other matters there is only a limited management responsibility. It is seriously inadequate. This House has decided that even the procedures under the Police Act applying to civil forces are insufficient and that we should go beyond that. The House has gone a considerable length, and will receive and consider on Report a Bill designed to introduce an independent element into the procedures.
  But the discussions at that stage revealed something which is rather significant, namely that the Atomic Energy Authority did not wish to see the procedures for its own police force improved in this way. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said specifically that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority police are more reluctant to co-operate on a voluntary basis with the kind of new scheme which the Government themselves will

  1207
  provide not only for ordinary local authority police force but for other police forces maintained by nationalised industries and by other bodies. It is particularly this reluctance in accepting the principle of providing an independent element in the complaints procedure which calls for a far clearer assurance than we have had so far.
  We know that it is now the Government's intention that there will be mandatory provisions in the Police Bill to make sure that forces of this kind will come under such a procedure. However, I am suspicious from what has been said so far about the Atomic Energy Authority's attitude, I suspect, even at this stage, that the Authority will be lobbying that it should not be included in any such procedure.
  We are seeking a clear indication from the Minister that it is his wish and intention that the procedure by which a member of the public can register a complaint, however rare a thing it may be, and have it investigated when it relates to a constable from the Atomic Energy Authority's force, shall be no different in essential particulars and in the safeguards and independent element it provides from the system by which he will have recourse against a local authority police officer or a police officer from the Metropolitan police force.
  It is impossible to conceive why a force such as the Atomic Energy Authority force should not be subject to the same safeguards, particularly when the whole purpose of the Bill is to provide safeguards for an armed force—a force, unlike any of the other nationalised industries' police forces, and one which carries arms in certain situations and in places where it is in contact with the public and not simply with employees of the authority. These may not be the most frequent circumstances but they may give rise to serious difficulty, and a system for public complaints ought to be provided in the same way as in the case of the civil police force. No hon. Member can let this part of the Bill proceed any further unless he is absolutely certain that by one means or another that would be the case.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should declare at the start
  1208
  that I have a connection with the Police Federation—[Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members opposite, who have their connections with bodies of workers, wil! believe that the House is frequently the better for being able to hear those who have intimate knowledge of the bodies of employees who are affected by legislation.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: The hon. Member is the official voice of the police.
  Mr. Griffiths: Of course, if the hon. M. ember persists in that vein, he will be impugning his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who for a number of years held precisely the same post as I hold. He served very well and I was glad to follow in his footsteps.
  I wish to support the new clause, with which is associated my Amendment No. 7. The central point is simple. The Atomic Energy Authority police will be called upon to work in conjunction with the civil police. That is a point on which the Minister, both in his speeches and in his correspondence, has laid much stress. Therefore, from time to time, a member of the ASA police and a member of the civil police will carry out duties together.
  When some incident takes place which gives rise to complaint against the way in which those police officers, whether civil or AEA, have conducted themselves, the procedures to be followed should apply to both those officers in the same way, and a member of the public, who may not be as wise as hon. Members in distinguishing between the two, should be quite clear that the complaints procedure is the same for both.
  It would be wholly unjust and somewhat absurd if two police officers, one civil and one working for the AEA, were to become involved in a fracas with a member of the public—it could be the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Kerr)—who then wished to complain about their behaviour, and the extraordinary situation were to arise that only in the case of the civil police officer, who in the end has the final responsibility, was there all the apparatus that the House is now laying on the police service under the Police Bill. There would be the obligatory reference to the Police Complaints Board, the consideration of the evidence brought by the hon. Member or the complainee

  1209
  and the prospect of adjudication by the tribunal.
  If the House wishes to have an independent element, so be it, but it cannot be right for the civil police officer to be subject to those procedures—and, incidentally, those embarrassments—while the AEA officer, working, armed, alongside him, is not. That is unjust as between one police officer and another, it is confusing to the public and it will simply create friction in an area where above all it is undesirable.
  I am sure that the Minister is sympathetic to this point, and I hope that he will take it on board and do something about it. But if his Department had taken the trouble to consult the police properly before bringing in the Bill, these matters would have been dealt with, and dealt with properly.
  I am sorry to say that, in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:
  "… there was extensive consultation with the … Chief Police Officers, both in England and Wales and in Scotland. It was against that background that the Police Federation was, I am sure, made aware of the implications of the Bill".—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee B; 27th April 1976, c. 17–18.]
  I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there was no consultation whatsoever with the federation, which, I remind the House, is not a voluntary body. It is a statutory body, set up by Parliament, to which every policeman belongs. This statutory body was not consulted in any way.
  The Minister should apologise for that statement. He should recognise that the many detailed points which will fall to be dealt with tonight would have been settled, and settled much more effectively, if the Home Office and the Department of Energy had taken the trouble to consult the body of men, the trade union, if one likes, who have to carry out most of the work.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Do the Atomic Energy Authority constables belong to the Police Federation?
  Mr. Griffiths: No, they do not. But this whole matter pertains precisely to the work of the police and, as the Minister will surely make clear, the AEA constables, when carrying out their duties under the Bill, will fall under the ulti-
  1210
  mate command and responsibility of the chief police officer of each force in whose area they operate. The point is that we are seeking here to make the civil police and the Atomic Energy Authority police work effectively together. In order to do that it is very important that where complaints against their conduct arise, matters should be equal for both forces and cases should he proceeded with in the same way.
  Mr. Hector Monro: I support the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) in the new clause and amendment.
  I hope that in his reply the Minister will bear in mind an important point. It is important particularly for those of us who were involved in the Second Reading and who, therefore, have not come to the Bill out of the blue but have been interested in it from the start. For those who were not members of the Committee, it is somewhat disquieting to read the replies to the various debates on clauses in Committee. On several occasions the Minister, particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, said that he would write to Members in answer to points that they had raised. Those of us who were not members of the Committee do not have a clue what the answers are. That is a very important point in relation to what we are dealing with now.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Official Report of the proceedings in Standing Committee most carefully. As to members of the Committee who raised points. I think that his hon. Friends will confirm that I carried out precisely what I said I would do. I wrote personally to hon. Members who raised points in Committee. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the points I have tried to make.
  Mr. Monro: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would have known that I was not complaining about that. I said that hon. Members who were not members of the Committee have no idea about the answers that have been given. The hon. Gentleman has written to certain hon. Members. As far as I am

  1211
  aware, that is confidential. Those of us who are interested in this subject have not been informed of the answers to questions put in Committee to the Ministers. It is not that Ministers did not do what they said they would do but that the procedure was wrong in relation to Parliament. That is the point I am making —nothing more or less than that. The House has not been informed of the answers to points raised in Committee because the Government did not reply in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds have put the matter very clearly. The two constabularies— if we may refer to them thus—should be on an exactly equal footing. This matter concerns my constituents as it concerns those of other hon. Members. I hope that eventually there will be parity in the complaints procedure. I hope that the Government will accept that what has been put forward is perfectly clear and fair, and that the Minister will accept this valid amendment.
  Mr. John Hannam: I should like to express some support for the new clause and amendment, but I should like first to put on record a view as a member of the Committee dealing with the Bill. When the new clause that we are discussing was presented on the Notice Paper in Committee, in the names of Liberal Members, it was not called because no Liberal Member attended the Committee, despite the fact that the Liberals divided the House on Second Reading. The tragic debate last night highlighted the need for fair representation of minority parties, but if their Members do not turn up in Committees at the appointed time they have no excuse for not incurring the abuse of the House.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman's colleagues, the hon. Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) and Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), did not attend the Committee, no doubt for good reasons. When a party has only one Member on a Standing Committee, this can be even more difficult.
  Mr. Hannam: Surely the debate last night was to ensure that minorities have places in Committee. If they put down
  1212
  amendments to divide the House on Second Reading, surely it is their responsibility to attend the Committee. No reasonable excuse has been given for the absence of the Liberal Member who was supposed to have attended the Committee.
  10.45 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has specialised knowledge of police matters. I hope that the complaints procedure which he has proposed will automatically be applied to the authority's special constables.
  In Committee, the Minister intimated that there was no need for -Arch an amendment. We await his reassurance on that matter. We could not be happy if the same complaints procedure, whichever procedure is finally arrived at, were not apply to the civil police. If it is not to be applied to the civil police, we shall feel compelled to support the amendment.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I should like, first, to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) concerning the Committee. I join the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) in taking the strongest possible exception to criticism of a Standing Committee of this House having only one sitting and therefore depriving the Liberal Party of an opportunity to make its points. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Committees ought to be kept going until the Liberal Party finds it convenient to attend, I assure him that no one on either side of the House will support that point of view.
  There is no point in the hon. Gentleman professing innocent injury. The hon. Gentleman made a critical statement about the Committee having had only one sitting and that the Liberal Party was therefore deprived of making its points. If he would care to check tomorrow—or probably the day after as it is now after 10 o'clock—he will see that that is what he said.
  Mr. Beith: I hope that the Minister will also read in Hansard what has been said. The reason I criticised the Committee for having only one sitting was that some of his hon. Friends and the official Opposition might have had more

  1213
  to say and more criticism to make about the Bill than was, in fact, the case.
  Mr. Ewing: It may be that Labour Members—I cannot speak for the Opposition—can say what they have to say in a constructive way and in a shorter time than the Liberal Party, who speak in a destructive way and for a longer time.
  There is absolutely nothing between the Government and the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), Exeter, and Dumfries (Mr. Monro). The Government are, if anything, more anxious than they are to ensure that the complaints procedures which apply to civilian police forces should apply to the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has already given an assurance that Clause 6 of the Police Bill will be extended to cover the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, and that constabulary has accepted that it will be covered by that clause. In this respect, the complaints procedure which will in future apply to civilian police forces—the Police Bill will include this provision, because my hon. Friend has given this undertaking—will also apply to the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. If there is a difference between both sides of the House, it is probably only as to the legislation which should contain that provision.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: How will the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary operating in Scotland be covered by the Police Bill which at the moment applies only to England and Wales?
  Mr. Ewing: I expected that point to be made. The procedure for complaints against the police in Scotland is different from the procedure in England and Wales. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is an independent element in complaints against the police in Scotland, because the procurator fiscal decides on prosecutions and various other aspects of complaints. That is not the position in England and Wales.
  Therefore, the Government's intention, as the former Secretary of State intimated in the House recently, is to introduce an independent element into procedures for complaints against the police in Scotland
  1214
  as well, albeit in a slightly different form from that for England and Wales, primarily because we hove this different system whereby the procurator fiscal is involved.
  Mr. Monro: The Minister is misleading the House. The procurator fiscal comes in only if a complaint is substantiated. Is not the normal procedure in Scotland that the chief constable deals with a complaint in the initial stages?
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Member for Dumfries is being unusually lax and does not appear to have done his homework. The procurator fiscal merely decides whether there is a case to take to court, and the court makes a decision.
  If a complaint against a police officer in Scotland requires a reference to the courts, it is not made by the police, as it is in England and Wales, but by the procurator fiscal, who can also decide not to refer the matter to the court. An independent element exists in that respect. We intend to introduce an independent lay element into the complaints procedure and this will become clearer as the legislation is introduced. The only difference remaining between us concerns the particular legislation in which that provision should be contained. I am sure—
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful for that assurance. But the Police Bill has not yet reached Third Reading. It is a complex bill and could be altered. There is no certainty that Clause 6 will remain as it is. it is not proper for the House to dispose of matters affecting the Atomic Energy Authority Police, as it will tonight, by the Minister simply saying that it will be subject to the same complaints procedure, without that being inserted into the Bill we are now discussing.
  The Minister said that there were different procedures in Scotland and England. But all the Atomic Energy Police, whether at Dounreay or Winfrith, must be subject to the same procedure. If the Minister is correct, there will be three different procedures—the Scottish procedure for civil police, the English procedure for civil police and another for the Atomic Energy Police. The Minister cannot mean that.
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is over-complicating a relatively simple matter. As junior Minister

  1215
  responsible for police matters in Scotland, I understand that the Police Federation will be far happier if provisions covering complaints against the Atomic Energy Police are contained in the Police Bill rather than in this measure. I accept the possibility that the House may change the Police Bill. We would then have to come back to the matter. But we are entitled to anticipate that the Bill will be successful in its progress. I therefore suggest that the provision for dealing with complaints against the Atomic Energy Police should be contained in the Police Bill. If there is a difference between us it is only relatively minor against the background of the major issue of the whole matter of complaints against the police.
  I want briefly to define the situation in Scotland and in England and Wales. The Atomic Energy Authority constabulary would be not only under a different system working in Scotland but under a different legal system. That is one of the historic differences between the countries. We continue the requirement of corroboration. A policeman on his own cannot charge someone. The evidence must be corroborated. Anyone working in Scotland, whether an authority constable or not, would be subject to that totally different legal system. There is no point in denying that in this respect there would be a slight difference.
  The easiest way for the House to deal with the question of complaints against the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary is to accept the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that Clause 6 of the Police Bill would be extended—
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Not to Scotland.
  Mr. Ewing: We shall deal with the Scottish position as it arises.
  My hon. Friend gave the assurance that the Police Bill would be extended to deal with complaints against the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. I am convinced that the Police Federation will be much happier with that than if the provision were included in this Bill.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: When does the hon. Gentleman expect a police Bill dealing with Scotland to be brought before Parliament? The question
  1216
  of timing is involved in the argument tonight, and is of the essence. The Minister has spoken of the Police Bill covering England and Wales, and Clause 6, amended or unamended, which is likely to cover the position of the Atomic Energy Authority police. We do not know when there is likely to be a similar Bill before Parliament for Scotland. In the meantime, from the passage of this Bill, the authority police will be armed and they will come into contact with the public—we hope not in an emergency. Complaints could arise particularly as they may not have—
  HON. Members: Too long.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: This is very important for Scotland.
  Mr. Wilson: They will not be accustomed to dealing with members of the public in the same way as are the members of the regular police.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The House should see the whole matter in its proper perspective. In the past 10 years there has been only one complaint against an Atomic Energy Authority police officer. We are not dealing with something that happens every week.
  I repeat the point that I made to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) on Second Reading. Atomic Energy Authority constables have always escorted these loads. There is an important difference, in that the escorts will now be armed, but they have always come into contact with the public in Scotland and England. I grant that the major difference now is that they will still come into contact with the public but that they will be armed. That is a major difference. But it does not mean that that will give rise to public complaint whereas in the past there has been no cause for public complaint about the conduct of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary or about the manner in which those men have gone about their duties. These are highly professional and well-trained men. They are trained by a regular police force, the Dorset Constabulary. They are not novices. The House should understand that we are not dealing with a new situation apart from the fact—albeit the important fact—that the men are to be armed.
  I come back to the principal point of my argument—
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: My hon. Friend's argument, that there have not been occasions for complaint, is not a valid argument for saying that there will not be grounds for complaint. The amount of material transported is increasing and there is increasing public concern about the extent to which the police may be performing their duties.
  I am concerned that when we were discussing Clause 6 we had a response from the Minister to the proposal that the Bill should extend to special constables, transport police, and so on. If it is to be dealt with in that Bill, fine, but we have no amendments and I am not satisfied about what is being said about the determination to ensure that there is an effective procedure for complaints concerning the police. My hon. Friend is saying that this will not happen and that it is not important, but that is not good enough.
  Mr. Ewing: I am not saying that it is not likely to happen. I am merely putting the record straight about what has happened in the last 10 years. It is a fair point that in the last 10 years there has been only one complaint against the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. I am not drawing conclusions and saying that the next 10 years will not produce more than one complaint.
  All I am saying is that we are not dealing with a situation in which complaints are raised on anything like the same scale as with the civilian police. By the nature of the duties of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, and by the nature of their work and the restricted area in which they move, it is bound to be a different situation. We are not dealing with a situation where Atomic Energy Authority constables will be involved to the same extent with the public as are the civilian police. The House must surely accept that.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I take the Minister's point that there is nothing like the same problem, but the record of the last 10 years is totally irrelevant to the Bill, which creates new powers—the right of the Atomic Energy Authority police, previously confined to 15 miles outside the installations, to act on suspicion, to go to any place in the country and for the
  1218
  first time to pursue on suspicion, arrest on suspicion and take into detention on suspicion. That is an entirely new situation. The second new power is that they are to be armed with pistols and, if need be, with sub-machine guns. The volume of matter to be transported and requiring to be guarded is also much greater.
  We are with the Minister in his purpose, but he should not say that, because there have been few complaints in the previous 10 years when they were confined in area and not allowed to arrest or detain on suspicion, there will be no future problem. Of course there may be.
  Mr. Ewing: At the risk of tedious repetition, I again say that I am not basing my argument on what happened in the last 10 years but merely pointing out the constabulary's record in respect of complaints by the public against the force in the last 10 years.
  I recognised, in answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Dundee, East, that we arc dealing with major changes. I have recognised that, and the House must accept that I have been exceedingly fair in the manner in which I have recognised the serious nature of the questions with which we are dealing. It is not an unimportant matter. That is why the Government have gone to the trouble of consulting the AEA Constabulary Association to get from it its total agreement to being included in the procedures which will be implemented in the Police Bill, whatever they may be. The Police Bill will make specific reference to the inclusion of the AEA Constabulary in its provisions, whatever they may be at the end of the day.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend has given us some useful assurances about England and Wales, via Clause 6 of the Police Bill. But he showed some concern about the position in Scotland. He indicated that he was thinking of some sort of lay element within the complaints procedure in Scotland, with its different system. Can my hon. Friend enlarge on that? What specific arrangements does he envisage for improving the position in Scotland so that the AEA police in Scotland are brought into line with the parallel situation under Clause 6 of the Police Bill?
  Mr. Ewing: You would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I spoke about prospective legislation coming forward, probably in the next Session. The House has to accept that AEA constables operating in Scotland have always been subjected in the past and will be subjected in the future to a different legal system—
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: They will have guns.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Other people go about Scotland carrying guns. We are all concerned about the free access which people appear to have to guns. We recognise that the AEA constables will be armed. That is why we are anxious—
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There appears to be an innuendo in the remarks of the Minister, and I think that it is disgraceful if there is, because we are all concerned about people eliminating guns, not increasing the number, as the Government are seeking to do.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I did not notice any reference or innuendo which was out of order.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: It was an innuendo, and the Minister should apologise.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), there are certain safeguards. There are more safeguards in Scotland at the moment than exist in England and Wales in respect of complaints—
  Mr. Douglas Crawford: I bet.
  Mr. Ewing: If there are to be continual interruptions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appeal for your protection.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not need the Minister to protect me. I have a gun.
  Mr. Ewing: I was not seeking to protect you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was asking you to protect me.
  There have always been greater safeguards in the Scottish system than in the system employed so far in England and Wales, and the changes which are to be made in the system for dealing with complaints against the police in England
  1220
  and Wales will ensure that there is an independent lay element. That is what the new system is to be all about.
  We have discussed this point with the AEA Constabulary Association, and we have its categorical assurance that it accepts that it will come under the complaints procedure in the Police Bill, however that Bill may emerge from this House.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ewing: No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson rose —
  Mr. Ewing: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I hope that the House will accept that the best way to proceed is to include that provision in the Police Bill. It is on that basis that I ask that the clause be rejected.
  Mr. John Biffen: Although I appreciate that the Under-Secretary does not wish to give way, I hope that he will allow me to make this point in the expectation that he had not finished his speech. As a great deal of the proceedings rest on the difference between England and Wales on the one hand, and Scotland on the other, could he indicate whether he has been in contact with Inspector Donald MacLean, the Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, about the considerable anxiety which was shown at the annual meeting of the federation recently? The House would be reassured if it were felt that consultations were proceeding with the police, taking account of the different status of Scotland relative to other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Ewing: The Secretary of State attended the Police Federation annual meeting at Peebles on Thursday last week, and he heard Inspector MacLean make that speech. My right hon. Friend took note of what was said and went out of his way to reassure the Police Federation that the matter was in hand.
  It has been said before, and I repeat. that the consultations we have had—and certainly I have conducted consultations in Scotland with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland)—have been with the chief constables. There was an exchange of letters between the Police

  1221
  Federation in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Energy, and the reason—and the House will have to accept it—that there have been no consultations with the Police Federation is that the status, duties, and powers of police constables are in no way altered by the legislation.
  It was felt—rightly or wrongly—that the consultations conducted with the Chief Police Officers' Association were sufficient to ensure that the Police Federation was kept informed of the proposals the Government intended to introduce in this legislation. I hope that I have said enough to reassure the House on this matter.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I did not intend to speak, but the Minister refused to allow me to intervene. The Bill gives the Atomic Energy Authority certain powers, and the Minister mentioned that its police force was a professional body which had been trained by the Dorset police force. I am sure the Dorset police force is an entirely professional body, but its knowledge of Scottish law must be minimal, and I cannot see what training it could give that would be worth anything at all in dealing with the public in Scotland.
  Reference has been made to the powers of arrest and placing in custody on suspicion. These are substantial powers which are interpreted differently in Scotland as from England, because there is a different legal system in Scotland with different rules about arrest, and keeping people in custody. These relate to the rights of individuals. There is also the other side of the complaints system which relates to the rights of the public in relation to a body with substantial powers.
  What type of training is given to the Atomic Energy Authority police to enable them to pursue in Scotland the powers and duties given to them by the Bill? Unless they have a training from police officers and lawyers in Scotland about the different aspects of the legal system there, they may well act outside their powers and cause offence to the Scottish public and the Scottish police force.
  As I understand it, the Scottish Police Federation was not consulted in any way about the Bill. I am sure that had it been consulted it would have made the point that I have raised tonight.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I explained that the training of the Atomic Energy Authority police by the Dorset police was in the use of weapons to bring them up to police standards in that respect. They return to the Dorset police at three-monthly intervals to ensure that they maintain those standards. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is a lawyer so perhaps he can confirm that it is not necessary to understand Scots law in order to be able to fire a gun.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful for that explanation and of course I accept what the Minister said. But what sort of training in police procedures is given to the Atomic Energy Authority police to enable them to carry out their duties in Scotland? I take it that most of their training is given according to certain general principles which are more suitable for England than for Scotland.
  Mr. Ewing: The Atomic Energy Authority constabulary will not hold any offender under arrest. Its members will arrest and hand those concerned over to the civilian police who will detain whoever commits an offence. The Atomic Energy Authority police do not possess legalised cells or any such facilities to detain people. The mere fact that someone can be arrested immediately establishes that a crime has been committed or is suspected of being committed, and that becomes a matter for the civilian police.
  There is a clear definition of the powers and duties of both constabulary authorities, and when someone has been arrested he will be handed over to the civilian force. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr Eldon Griffiths) said, there will be a suspicion that a crime has been committed, and that becomes a matter for the civilian force.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Minister has made his point plainly in his concluding remarks. Where people are suspected of having stolen fissionable material or of attacking an installation, it might fall to the Atomic Energy Authority police to arrest on suspicion or to prevent the attack. They would then hand the offenders over to the civilian police to carry on the case from there. But does. that not reinforce—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this an intervention? The hon. Member has already made a speech.
  Mr. Griffiths: I understood that I had leave to speak.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Beith.
  Mr. Beith: We have travelled some way since the Second Reading of this Bill and some assurances have been given—
  Mr. Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that this debate was about new Clause I and my Amendment No. 7. I understood that I was called in order to let the Minister —who had completed his speech—know whether I wished to press my amendment to a Division or to withdraw it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have misunderstood the position. There have been many lengthy interventions tonight and I thought the hon. Member was making another. I was wrong in my judgment. If it were not an intervention, the hon. Member had no right to take any further part in the debate.
  Mr. Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recognise that yours is the authority and that you must decide—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am being guided by the Standing Orders of the House.
  Mr. Griffiths: I understand that you are following our Standing Orders, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is now debating my Amendment No. 7 in conjunction with new Clause 1. The Minister and the House will wish to know whether I intend to press the amendment to a Division or to withdraw it. Surely it is the custom of the House that, before indicating which of these courses I wish to follow, I should have an opportunity of explaining my reasons. I am, of course, subject to your ruling.
  Mr. John Cope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is debating new Clause 1 and discussing with it Amendment No. 7 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). My hon. Friend may require the leave of the House to speak again and I am sure that
  1224
  it would be the wish of the House that he should be given permission [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. I understand, from the reception that my remarks have received, that my hon. Friend would be given leave to speak again in this debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know how the hon. Member has interpreted the wish of the House in this matter. I saw no evidence of it. We are discussing new Clause 1 and taking with it Amendment No. 7 in the name of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who has already taken part in the debate-presumably discussing both his amendment and the new clause. He has made his contribution.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) moved the new clause and he has a right to reply. However, if the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds feels that he has not made his point on the amendment sufficiently, I am prepared to allow him to take part in the debate again, with the leave of the House.
  Mr. Griffiths: I shall make no further comment on this incident because we want to get on.
  I am the least expert person here on the question of Scotland, but if the Bill is passed, AEA special constables in Scotland, England and Wales will have the powers contained in this measure. They will be able, on suspicion, to pursue citizens of any part of Great Britain, arrest them and detain them until the arrival of the civil police.
  When this is done by armed men, there is a risk of complaints. The Minister has told us that those complaints will fall to be dealt with under Clause 6 of a Bill that has yet to be considered by the House after its passage through Committee. That is an entirely different piece of legislation. To put it mildly, there will be a hiatus between the enactment of the Bill and the actions that the new constabulary can take, and the coming into effect of the new Police Bill, as, when and if the House agrees.
  Thirdly, an entirely different system of law will apply in Scotland. The Minister has told us that at some stage the Government will get around to introducing a complaints procedure in Scotland that will be on all fours with the procedure that applies elsewhere. That

  1225
  means that there will be three stages. First, if we enact the Bill, the powers will exist and the complaints can arise. Secondly. if and when the Police Bill is passed, the independent procedure will apply in England and Wales but not in Scotland. Subsequently, if the Government find time, something will be done about the Scottish procedure. To say the least, that is untidy.
  I put it to the Minister, as a matter of simple, practical policing, that the movement of fissionable materials from one part of the country to another, and the risk of its being skijacked or hijacked for nefarious purposes, is not a movement that ceases at the borders of Scotland or Wales. Fissionable materials are picked up in one place—it may be in the South of England—and taken to another that may be in the North of Scotland. Is the Minister suggesting that the Atomic Energy Constabulary, riding shotgun, as it were, on the special conveyances, will climb off at the border of Scotland and that another posse will get on board? Of course not. The total transit of the fissionable material will be seen through by the first group.
  As regards the courts, there must be a single system of law—namely, a complaints procedure that covers the whole transit of the fissionable material from one part of the country to another. That is essential from the point of view of the police.
  I hope that the Minister will accept that to have different groups of police officers responsible for the same ultimate job, but subject to quite different complaints procedures vis-à-vis the public, is untidy and likely to produce friction between one force and another.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose —
  Mr. Griffiths: That is why I ask the Minister to accept Amendment No. 7, if not the new clause.
  Mrs. Ewing: I think the hon. Member will find that that view is strongly supported by a II the police forces concerned.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Member finished?
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Member resumed his seat?
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Beith: I shall be fairly brief in addressing myself, not to the general issues which have been raised, which we now all know about, but to how far the Minister's assurances take us. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a genuine attempt to give certain assurances, but I want to examine precisely what they amount to.
  There has been a considerable improvement in the situation. When we first considered the Bill the Atomic Energy Authority was known to be hostile to the idea of having the same complaints procedure as other forces. The Secretary of State seemed to evince little or no interest in the matter and appeared to have no view on it. We have moved some way since then.
  It seems that various Government Departments have got together. It appears that the Atomic Energy Authority now accepts the desirability of having the same sort of complaints procedure, and that the Secretary of State intends that it should be brought about. None of us would seek to impugn that intention, but that does not in itself represent an argument against including clear provisions in the context of the Bill that the two sorts of procedure shall be the same.
  The new clause seeks to ensure that the complaints procedure is the same as that which is applicable to police forces maintained by local authorities. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has spelt that out in his new clause by saying that the procedure should he the same complaints procedure as that in force "for the time being" in civil police forces. That is implicit in my new clause, and that has particular relevance to Scotland. As regards England and Wales, it would not leave the Bill in any untidy state, or in any way dependent on any other Bill. It would secure, without the passage of any other Bill, that the Authority's police are on exactly the same footing as other forces from the moment of the Bill's enactment, whatever procedures are to be followed under subsequent legislation.

  1227
  It is rather unsatisfactory that we should have to await the passage of another Bill to make this principle clear. It is unsatisfactory for us to have to use the new Police Bill to bring together private police forces and police forces generally, if i may use the shorthand term "private police forces" without a pejorative suggestion.
  11.30 p.m.
  For us to have to use a new Police Bill for that purpose illustrates the gap in the legislation governing these police forces. There is a huge gap to be closed. It is not merely a gap between the new independent police complaints procedure and existing procedures but a gap between the old procedure and the procedure used by these forces. Other police forces have clearly laid down procedures under existing legislation which do not apply to forces such as that of the Atomic Energy Authority. I see no reason why this measure should not have in it a clear statement that the procedures should be the same as those applying to other police forces. I hope that that principle will commend itself to the House and that the House will wish to register its view.
  It seems more important to register a view in the case of Scotland because the situation is far more uncertain. At the moment there is no guarantee that the Atomic Energy Authority police force will have the benefit of any procedure, old or new, which applies to civil police forces in Scotland.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that at the moment, if a person is arrested in Scotland, Scots law immediately gives that person enormous rights? I will not discuss whether they are better than those given to such a person in England, but they are different. If there is a time lag before these new policemen pass an arrested
  person into the custody of the other police, which law, English or Scots, will apply?
  Mr. Beith: I have no doubt that the law will be the law of Scotland if the offence takes place in Scotland. I am not worried about the commission of criminal offences and the procedure for dealing with them.
  Existing Scots law meets that point. What is of more concern are complaints by the public which are not about criminal offences. That is the grey area on which we had to spend a great deal of time in Committee on the Police Bill and which still causes a great deal of uncertainty in Scotland. The Government have recognised that there is a need to improve procedures for Scotland and have announced their intention of doing so. We do not know how long it will take the Government to produce and carry through the House a police complaints system for Scotland.
  The Minister is in no position to give us that information, and we would not expect it from him. It seems that there will be a time when the Atomic Energy Authority police in Scotland will not be subject to any special complaints procedure. They will still be governed by the management type arrangement described earlier. I consider that to be particularly unsatisfactory and to be an added reason why we should make sure that the Bill contains a clear commitment that the same procedure should apply to the Atomic Energy Authority police as is applicable in England, Scotland or Wales to police forces maintained by the local authorities. I ask the House to support me in that proposition.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 17, Noes 150.

  Division No. 120.1

  AYES

  11.34 p, m.

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Thompson, George

  Beith, A. J.

  Kilfedder, James

  Welsh, Andrew

  Crawford, Douglas

  Monro, Hector

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Pardoe, John

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Penhaligon, David

  FELLERS FOR THE AYFS

  Henderson, Douglas

  Reid, George

  Mr Stephen Ross and

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Mr Cyril Smith

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Bates, Alf

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Been, R. E.

  Boardman, H.

  Ashton, Joe

  Benn, Rt Hn Anthony Wedgwood

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bishop, E. S.

  Buchanan, Richard

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prescott, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Hunter, Adam

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cant, R. B.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Radice, Giles

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Carson, John

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Coleman, Donald

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Kerr, Russell

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Kinnock Neil

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lamond, James

  Selby, Harry

  Cryer, Bob

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Litterick, Tom

  Silverman, Julius

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C)

  Luard, Evan

  Small, William

  Deakins, Eric

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Snape, Peter

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  McElhone, Frank

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dempsey, James

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Doig, Peter

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Stott, Roger

  Dormand, J. D.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Strang, Gavin

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dunn, James A.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Tinn, James

  Eadie, Alex

  Madden, Max

  Tomlinson, John

  Edge, Geoff

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  English, Michael

  Marquand, David

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Watkins, David

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Weitzman, David

  Fernyhouyh, Rt Hon E.

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Wellbeloved, James

  Flannery, Martin

  Millan, Bruce

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Forrester, John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton`

  Freeson, Reginald

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  George, Bruce

  Newens, Stanley

  Wise Mrs Audrey

  Golding, John

  Noble, Mike

  Woodall, Alec

  Gourlay, Harry

  Oakes, Gordon

  Woof, Robert

  Graham, Ted

  Ogden, Eric

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Ovenden, John

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Harper, Joseph

  Palmer, Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Park, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hooley, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  Mr John Ellis and

  Horam, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr David Stoddart

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

  EXTENSION OF POWERS OF SPECIAL CONSTABLES AS REGARDS FIREARMS
  11. 45 p.m.
  Mr. Beith: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, page 1, line 18, at end add—
  '(3) The carrying and use of firearms by an Authority constable shall be subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State'.
  The Minister may understand the reason for the amendment. I am anxious to secure some change in the situation in which the Secretary of State has almost no responsibilities in relation to the Atomic Energy Authority police—indeed, so few that it is impossible to call him to account in the House for its activities. There may be alternative ways of dealing with this problem and this may not be the best drafting, but I hope that he understands the concern that hon. Members should be able to find means of question-
  1230
  ing the Secretary of State in this important area of the carrying and potential use of firearms.
  The Secretary of State's statutory responsibilities, which I want to discuss in a little more detail on a later amendment, are very limited indeed. On a previous occasion the Minister said that his right hon. Friend had no specific responsibilities but that the Government took steps to satisfy themselves that the arrangements for safeguarding nuclear installations were adequate in the light of the circumstances prevailing. That was in answer to a specific question about the extent of the Secretary of State's specific responsibilities in relation to the police force of the authority. It is a familiar form of words that we hear in relation to many nationalized industries. It is a familiar form of words that is used when one is trying to avoid day-to-day interference by Minister in the management of commercial undertakings. One can understand why it has found a place in many statutes.

  1231
  However, this cannot be so readily applied to police powers, particularly when they extend to the use of firearms. This is by no means the same as a commercial decision. In the case of the Metropolitan Police constable, we are in a position to ask the Home Secretary, because of his powers, a wide variety of questions in order to call to account the way in which police powers are exercised in the metropolis. Outside London we have a dual relationship provided partly by the responsibilities of the police authority and partly by the more limited powers of the Home Secretary. By two democratic sources it is possible for democratic accountability to be exercised. However, we arc in some difficulty in this matter in relation to the Atomic Energy Authority police.
  The mere tabling of Questions presents difficulties, and there are a number of answers that Ministers are not prepared to give. Therefore, I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can write to me, as he did recently, and say that the Secretary of State
  "would be ready to answer in the House in relation to any incident in which weapons were fired by the AEAC other than for training purposes."
  I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that this is so, but I must point out that it is an extremely limited assurance. Arms might be used without being fired. They might be used in a threatening manner or carried in a way that provoked some complaint from the public. Arms might be a source of difficulty without being fired at all.
  The Secretary of State's expression of willingness to reply to Questions is not the same thing as a Member's ability to get a reply from him. Does it mean that the Secretary of State would be willing to make a statement if a serious row or a particular crisis arose? It does not mean that a Member could go to the Table Office and say "I have a letter from a Minister of the previous Government who said that the Minister would be ready to answer Questions, and may I table a Question?" He would get a polite but negative answer from the officials of the Table Office.
  In the vital area of firearms it is essential that the Secretary of State has, on the face of the statute, powers that
  1232
  enable him to be questioned in the House about the way in which firearms training is given, the way in which firearms might be used, and so on. I understand that there might be circumstances in which it would be quite inappropriate and against the public interest to give to the House details about particular uses of firearms. But that is a familiar feature of civil police and Metropolitan Police arrangements already. The House will understand security situations in which Ministers' replies must be more guarded than they might be if such problems were not part of the question.
  None of that precludes us from having a clear, precise and reliable arrangement under which the powers of the Secretary of State are such as to ensure that he takes responsibility and that he can be called to account for that responsibility. If we lack those features we shall leave the Bill in a state which seriously denies democratic accountability. In the case of a police authority carrying arms and making contact with the public, the absence of such accountability could be regarded as a very dangerous threat to our civil liberties.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that the way in which this proposal is most likely to work is by the Secretary of State discussing and agreeing standing orders with the Atomic Energy Authority. Those standing orders will cover the acquisition, carrying, and circumstances in which weapons may be used. That would be a satisfactory procedure, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that is what he has in mind.
  The issue raised by the amendment is whether the standing orders agreed between the Secretary of State and the Atomic Energy Authority's special constables will be made known to Parliament. This is a difficult problem, because I can conceive of circumstances in which it would be unwise to make known the precise details of standing orders covering matters of this kind. I think that the House is bound to rely largely on assurances, given possibly in more general terms than we might like, by Ministers.
  To what extent should Ministers, who are accountable to this House, be required to answer questions relating to the use by the authority's police of its powers under the legislation, and in particular

  1233
  its use of fire arms outside its own premises? This is a new matter which is being established by the Bill.
  I think that the only way in which a Secretary of State can responsibly exercise his powers and duties under the Bill is more or less in the way in which he exercises similar powers and duties in respect of other nationalised industries. In short, he must be responsible generally to the House and should answer questions on general matters. The Minister ought not to have to come to the House and deal with clay-to-day management problems. That principle ought to apply to members of the Atomic Energy Authority's police and their use of weapons in the same way as it applies to all other forms of technical services provided by our nationalised industries.
  There are several points which I should like the Minister to consider. I hope that he will give precise replies. The first concerns the arrangements by which guns and sub-machine guns will be made available and carried in certain circumstances across the whole range of this country on suspicion. Will the Minister tell us now whether it will be normal for Atomic Energy Authority special constables, going about armed on suspicion, to carry their pistols hidden or visible? This is an important point in the police service. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the carrying of concealed weapons is a more serious matter than the carrying of weapons overtly. Therefore, my first question is whether it is intended that, in the normal course of their duties, the armed special constables of the authority shall carry their weapons visibly or concealed.
  Secondly, will they always wear uniform, so that the regular civil police and the general public will be able to recognise them for what they are? If they are to be in plain clothes, there may be certain advantages. But where they are, in general, guarding fissionable material in transit, in my view they should be seen for what they are by wearing uniforms and having their weapons unconcealed.
  My third question concerns training. Will the Minister tell us that no Atomic Energy Authority special constables will go about the highways and by-ways of this country carrying weapons unless they have already received training at least to the levels required by the Metropolitan
  1234
  police in the use of pistols and by the Army in the use of sub-machine guns? I do not believe that it would be right or acceptable to Parliament that such weapons should be carried, unless there is an assurance that training and proficiency in the use of those weapons has been achieved to those standards.
  My last question concerns the certification of proficiency and of the right to carry weapons about the country. The normal procedure is for a person to obtain a certificate to carry a gun for a specific purpose and under proper lawful authority. That person can be required by any police officer, in the discharge of his duties, to produce that certificate, thereby establishing that he is lawfully in possession of that weapon.
  At a time when this country is threatened by an increase in gun crimes with the numbers of weapons which are in circulation, it is of paramount importance that the police should be able to require of any person carrying a weapon that he has a certificate in his possession which demonstrates why he has the weapon and that he is entitled to use it for the purpose set out in the certificate.
  May we have an assurance that no Atomic Energy Authority special constable will go about the country carrying a weapon unless he has a certificate which can be produced on challenge to any police officer showing that he is entitled to a weapon and that he is proficient in its use?
  Mr. Eadie: I think that I can give some of the assurances sought by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). The whole House shares his desire that firearms in the hands of Atomic Energy Authority constables should be handled with care.
  I shall reply in detail to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He said that the accountability of the Secretary of State was crucial and that there should be clarification about the day-to-day management of nationalised industries and he raised the subject of democratic accountability. He said that he wanted further explanation than that contained in my letter to him. I tried my best to be helpful in that letter. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's difficulty over the tabling of

  1235
  Questions. That is a difficulty experienced by all hon. Members in their political careers, but they sometimes manage to overcome such difficulties. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the public interest aspect, but I must add that the subsection is not necessary to achieve his objective. The Secretary of State already has powers to give particular or general directions to the authority, subject to his being satisfied that there is an overriding national interest which requires his intervention.
  It will be helpful if I clarify the Secretary of State's responsibility for the Atomic Energy Authority police. Members of the Force are sworn in by two justices of the peace under the Special Constables Act 1923. It is not a quasicivil police force but an established authority police force. It is not semi-official, as some hon. Members have suggested. Constables are sworn in on the nomination of the authority and, in accordance with provisions in the 1923 Act, they are under the exclusive control of the Atomic Energy Authority. The Secretary of State has ultimate responsibility to Parliament for the authority and has the power which I have described to give directions to it. That is the aspect of democratic accountability.
  12 midnight
  While it seems right that the basic position should continue, with the AEA police under the control of the AEA and the Secretary of State not responsible or answerable to Parliament for the day-to-day operations of the force, the arming of the constabulary makes it necessary for the Secretary of State to be involved in some measure. The standing orders under which firearms will be stored, carried and if necessary used by the AEA police will be agreed upon by the Secretary of State and will not be changed without his agreement.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember what I said about the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament. The Secretary of State will be ready to answer in Parliament for any incident, apart from training, in which weapons are fired by the AEA police. If necessary, he could use the powers of direction to which I have referred in order to ensure that the orders reflected his view of what should be done.
  Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister for the great care with which he is trying to clarify the position. It is in the interests of the House to have this clarification. I hope that in the form of words the hon. Gentleman chose—that the Secretary of State would be prepared to answer to the House where weapons were fired—he was not seeking to define the absolute limit of the Secretary of State's answerability. It might well be thought right that he should answer when no weapons had been fired but serious public concern had arisen.
  Mr. Eadie: I tried to show as clearly as I could the element of democratic accountability that the Secretary of State has even if no firearms are fired. I think that I met the six main points that I noted in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I hope that my answer has alleviated his fears.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Minister deal with the specific question of the use of the firearm for menacing? Will the Secretary of State expect to answer to Parliament, within his discretion, where a pistol has been used by a member of the AEA constabulary to menace a person subsequently found to be entirely innocent, who should not have been subjected to that?
  Mr. Eadie: This takes us back to the long debate we had on the new clause. The hon. Gentleman is raising the question of the conduct of officers in the constabulary. The House has already reached a decision on that subject. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am wrong he can pursue the matter, but if he reflects he will realise that he is talking about conduct and whether disciplinary action should be taken against the individual.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised some good points about public accountability and democratic interest. It may not be very popular with some people, but I understood his point. I think that he is raising an entirely new issue. It seems to me that this way of proceeding is better than to have regulations made by the Secretary of State.
  I want to deal with the important points raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. He asked for a more general assurance. He had agreed my point about day-to-day management, and

  1237
  conceded the difficulties in that. He also raised the important role of a proper standard of training. I ask him to recollect that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the previous debate mentioned that the training was carried out in Dorset by civil police. The standard of training will be not lower than the standard demanded by the civil police. I can assure him that that point will not be treated lightly.
  On the need for certificates, he will realise that the purpose of the Bill is to do away with certificates. If he looks at the Bill, which I think he has in his hand, he will see that the officers will now be treated as Crown servants and will not require certificates. That is an important power.
  I can understand that the police are concerned. On Second Reading, in his courageous speech, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that he was concerned about civil liberties. He spoke of the kind of world we would like to live in and the kind of world we were living in—I am paraphrasing—and that much as we did not like the powers, Parliament had to give them in the national interest and in the interest of all the people. The issue about certificates is one which he raised on Second Reading.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can the hon. Member try to deal with the specific matters? He will understand that since we agree that the standing orders cannot be a matter for normal parliamentary interrogation, this is the last chance for the Government to say anything on this point in general.
  Will the AEA police normally wear uniform or be in plain clothes? Will they be recognisable to the police and public? Will they carry pistols concealed, or not concealed so that the public are aware that they are worn?
  Mr. Eadie: I want to give as much information as possible. The hon. Member does not have to plead. The police will be in uniform, as I think he knows. Weapons will be visible. People will be able to see them. I said to him on Second Reading that there will be circumstances which will create problems but I am authorised to say, with the Secretary of State who is sitting here, listening carefully—this is an important clause dealing with important principles and the hon.
  1238
  Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has put a principle to which a great part of the House is sympathetic—that the Secretary of State will try to interpret the general tenor of the debate in his conduct of the responsibilities which Parliament has laid upon him under this Bill. I trust that I have done the best I can to reply to that question.
  Mr. Beith: The Under-Secretary has been courteous and careful in seeking to clarify the extent of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. The difference between us is not one of doubt about the assurances that he has given. I do not doubt his good faith in saying how he and his right hon. Friend wish to interpret this legislation. But we are dealing with legislation, and the significance of what we do tonight may last for a very long time, through many future Governments. The authority attaching to the hon. Gentleman's assurances does not extend that far. I am always ready to accept assurances given about what Ministers will do at later stages of a Bill, but assurances which extend beyond their competence, power and even lifetime, are quite different.
  The principal difficulty in my view is that in this legislation the Secretary of State does not have sufficient powers. That is an argument which might not appeal to some hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. But it is very important, because Ministers exercise a great deal of influence and power in a matter of this kind, and that should be made clear in the Bill.
  From all that the Under-Secretary said, it is clear that the Secretary of State will be closely involved in the preparation of the standing orders and will exercise a power beyond any provision contained in the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman is given only one responsibility in the Bill, and that is concerned with the making of regulations defining "fissile material". The Bill gives a great deal of power and responsibility to the authority, but very little to the Secretary of State. The authority is not answerable to this House. The Secretary of State is—and that is the crucial issue.
  It is not satisfactory to leave the Bill with so little clear responsibility in it for the Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary's assurance goes some way to set out the circumstances in which his

  1239
  right hon. Friend would be willing to answer questions, and I suspect that, if serious problems arose, he would answer questions. But that does not appear in the legislation in a form which guarantees this right in the future. This House should be concerned about that and
  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

  EXTENSION OF PLACES WHERE SPECIAL CONSTABLES MAY EXERCISE THEIR POWERS
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 33 at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection 2'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we may also discuss Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
  '(2) Where an authority constable acts in pursuance of subsection (1) above he shall—
  1240
  should seek to include provisions of this kind in the Bill. It is for that reason that I press my amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 118.

  Division No.121

  AYES

  [12.13 a. m.

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Mac Cormick, Iain

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Penhaligon, David

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Reid, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Henderson, Douglas

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. Cyril Smith and

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Thompson, George

  Mr. A. J. Beith

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Welsh, Andrew

  NOES

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Radice, Giles

  Ashton, Joe

  Forrester, John

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Atkinson, Norman

  George, Bruce

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Bates, Alf

  Golding, John

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Bean, R. E.

  Graham, Ted

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hunter, Adam

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sandelson, Neville

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  John, Brynmor

  Selby, Harry

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silverman, Julius

  Buchanan, Richard

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Small, William

  Campbell, Ian

  Kerr, Russell

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cant, R. B.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Snape, Peter

  Carmichael, Neil

  Lomond, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Carson, John

  Litterick, Tom

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stoddart, David

  Cohen, Stanley

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Stott, Roger

  Coleman, Donald

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Strang, Gavin

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  McElhone, Frank

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Macfarquhar, Roderick

  Tinn, James

  Crawshaw, Richard

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Cryer,Bob

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Weitzman, David

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Deakins, Eric

  Madden, Max

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Dempsey, James

  Marks, Kenneth

  White, James (Pollok)

  Doig, Peter

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Millan, Bruce

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Dunn, James A.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Eadie, Alex

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Woodall, Alec

  Edge, Geoff

  Noble, Mike

  Woof, Robert

  English, Michael

  Oakes, Gordon

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Ovenden, John

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. James. Hamilton and

  Flannery, Martin

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  (a ) at all times be subject to the authority of the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which he performs these duties;

  (b ) inform the Chief of Police for any area through which fissionable material is to be transported or in which it is to be stored of the authority's intentions in this respect:

  (c ) insofar as it is practicable to do so, advise the relevant local Chief Police Officer of any unlawful removal of fissionable material and of the authority's plans for recovering it;

  (d ) so far as it is practicable to do so, advise the local police of his intention to pursue and arrest any person he suspects of committing an offence under this Act;

  1241

  (e ) produce an identification card issued by the authority and a valid firearms certificate in the event that he is armed when any police officer requires him to do so.'

  Mr. Griffiths: Amendment No. 2 is purely a paving amendment for Amendment No. 4. The object is to avoid clashes between Atomic Energy Authority police and the civil police. It is essential that they work together, as I believe they intend to do. It must be made clear that every effort is made to avoid confusion and friction between the civil police and the Atomic Energy Authority police.
  The amendments seek to cover five circumstances. The first is that the authority constable shall at all times be subject to the authority of the chief officer of police for the area in which he performs his duties. The Minister will appreciate the point here. Let us assume that an Atomic Energy Authority policeman chases a suspect into Suffolk without advising the local police what he is up to. To avoid any clash it must be made clear who has the ultimate authority, and I take it for granted that this will be the chief officer of the civil police.
  The second circumstance is where the Atomic Energy Authority proposes to store fissionable material in or transport it through any area. In that case the local police should be informed in advance.
  Thirdly, where there is reason to believe that there has been a theft of fissionable material, it should be the duty of the authority police to advise the local police and to inform them of steps taken to recover the material.
  Fourthly, where an armed AEA policeman pursues a suspect and seeks to arrest and detain him, the officer should, as far as practicable—and I understand the possible difficulties here—tell the local police so that he can get their co-operation and avoid any collision with them.
  Lastly, where an AEA policeman is seeking, for example, to arrest and detain a suspect, he should be able to identify himself to the local police. I am sure the Minister will accept this suggestion. He need not deal with the point about valid firearms certificates because that was covered by his hon. Friend in the previous debate.
  1242
  The sole purpose of these important amendments is to ensure that there will be effective co-operation between the authority and the civil police and that friction between them will be avoided.
  Mr. Munro: I support the amendments and would like to elicit a little more information from the Minister. I know we have to be careful about what we say, but I hope the Minister can tell me more about Chapelcross in my constituency. I asked on Second Reading whether the plant at Chapelcross would be included in the Bill. I did not get a reply, but I presumed that it would not be covered. However, since Second Reading there has been an important statement by the Secretary of State for Defence about the new tritium plant at Chapelcross. Tritium is a very radioactive substance connected with nuclear weapons and this new development surely puts Chapelcross in the same position as the four plants covered by the Bill, particularly in relation to the possibility of materials or weapons being hijacked while in transit to or from Chapelcross. This is a crucial question and, as it is so topical, the Government must have an answer ready.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) raised in Committee the question of the chain of command while materials were en route. The Minister said that dozens of police forces might be involved and that the issue might be very complicated. There are eight forces in Scotland.
  Perhaps the Minister will also bear in mind that it is common for wide loads and difficult vehicles to move about in all areas of the United Kingdom. The police forces have no difficulty in informing each other when they are passing through certain areas and handing over at various stages.
  12.30 a.m.
  The issue of who is in overall command has been raised on Second Reading, in Committee and in the course of discussion on the amendment. Who is in command if an incident takes place somewhere in Central Scotland when material is being moved between Dounreay and Windscale, between Chapelcross and Winfrith or between Chapelcross and a depot where nuclear weapons may be stored?

  1243
  As reported in column 29, on Second Reading on 26th February, the Minister replied to a question relating to this matter. He said that a chief constable will be in charge of his own men. But the Chief Constable of the AEA constabulary is in control of his men. I presume that he will be stationed at a specific point in the United Kingdom and will not be moving around with the vehicles that carry these dangerous materials. I appreciate that there is bound to be a senior officer in charge of the operation, but surely that officer cannot take precedence over the chief constable of the area concerned in any incident. It is most important that we establish the right chain of command.
  In this context, and within the spirit of co-operation lying behind the amendment, is the issue of radio communication. I know that the Minister has had consultations with the Chief Constable and others, but I am not quite sure whether he has obtained an agreement as to who is to be in charge of radio procedure. Is it to be carried out through a police car with its normal radio equipment, are there to be special radio facilities for the Atomic Energy Authority police? I appreciate that these are matters of detail, but we must know the answers before the Bill leaves this place.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend accept that a difficulty might arise if a police force is dealing with a complicated matter in its own area—for example, a cup final or a civil liberties demonstration—when a convoy of vehicles carrying fisile material moves through its midst? If a police force's radio networks are fully committed and not able to deal with the convoy, it is all the more important that advance notice is given for operational reasons.
  Mr. Monro: That reinforces what I have been saying. My hon. Friend has extended my argument and brought home to the Minister the importance of clarification of the problems involved in using radio networks. Let us remember that there are not all that many radio networks available in this country for day-to-day use. As my hon. Friend says, they may already be entirely committed for a specific purpose and unavailable for emergency use when we are dealing with the transporting of this material.
  1244
  After all, the whole objective of the setting up the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary is so that we may be on the ball in an emergency. If the necessary procedures are not available when that happens, all our work in setting up the force might well come to nought.
  I hope that the Minister will answer some of these most important matters within the limits imposed by security. At present there is so much left unsaid and unclarified that we are gravely concerned. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that I supported the Bill on Second Reading. I believe in the principle of the Bill, but I am concerned about the details. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give us more information.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: This is an important amendment. I certainly appreciate the reasonable terms in which it has been moved. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is trying to establish a number of points about the relationship between the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary and the regular police. He is right to think that that relationship is very important and I am happy to be able to tell the House that many of the ideas which obviously underlie his thinking are fully acceptable to the Government.
  In the first place, for instance, there is a clear need for there to be effective liaison between the AEA constabulary and the regular police. I fully accept that. Secondly—and this is one of the points which the hon. Member clearly has in mind—there is a need for that general idea of liaison to be translated into severely practical terms in relation to such matters as providing information about the plans for the movement of vulnerable material and the use of radio communications.
  Then thought is needed for the situation when an incident occurs, which in practice means that a crime will have been committed. I do not disagree with the thought in the hon. Member's mind that we need to consider the situation after such an incident. Since a crime will have been committed, it will in the normal way fall to the regular police to organise the response, and the precise protection role of the AEA constabulary will lapse at that point. It is also right to bear in mind—and this is what paragraph (d )of

  1245
  the hon. Member's amendment is aimed at—that the activities of the AEA police in pursuit or attempted arrest of persons who have committed offences have to be understood in the context, as the Bill already indicates, that the custody into which the arrested persons will be delivered will be the custody of the regular police. As regards paragraph (e ), I do not doubt that the indications that have been given about the arming of the AEA constabulary strengthen the case for ensuring that these constables can readily identify themselves to the regular police.
  On all these points that I have mentioned the basic thinking of the hon. Member is entirely acceptable to us and there is no difference of approach between the two sides of the House.
  When the honourable Member comes to translate his ideas into material for including in statute he runs into a number of difficulties. I believe that he has not succeeded in overcoming these difficulties—for reasons which I shall explain —and I accordingly have to advise the House that the amendment should be rejected. I shall deal with the hon. Member's points in turn.
  In relation to paragraph (a )of his amendment, it would simply not be workable to cut across the existing chain of responsibility for the actions of AEA constables by writing in a provision of this kind. The AEA constables are already responsible through their Chief Constable to the Atomic Energy Authority, which employs them. The Authority, in its turn, is responsible to my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Energy who has power to give both general and particular directives to it. He, of course, is accountable to this House. It would not be possible to provide for this kind of veto by local chief constables without destroying the chain of command to which the AEA constables are accustomed, being a chain of command which provides, as I have indicated, its own form of accountability to this House.
  To help the House I will explain the exact position for the two basic situations which are likely to arise. The first situation is the normal position when a convoy is in transit, and the second is what would happen in the event of a terrorist or criminal attack on the convoy. Dealing with the first situation, convoys will be
  1246
  escorted by the AEA constables and will have radio communications for contact with a control centre of the regular police. Local police forces will, of course, be notified of the passage of convoys through their areas. This clears up the point of information being conveyed to the chief constables and the knowledge that the chief constables will have of all the movements of that material through their particular police area.
  Secondly, and probably more importantly, is the question of what happens in the event of a terrorist or criminal attack. Here I must be careful to define exactly what would happen, because I know that it is important to both the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary and to the civilian police force. It would be the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Authority police to summon help from the local police immediately by radio. Their duty would then be to contain the attackers until the regular police reached the scene. As soon as the regular police became involved, responsibility for control of the incident would rest with the local chief constable, as it does in any criminal or terrorist incident of this kind.
  The command structure would be absolutely clear. The local chief constable would be in charge. This is clearly understood and appropriate instructions have been given to the Atomic Energy Authority constables by their chief constable that the Atomic Energy Authority police on the spot would be at the disposal of the local chief constable and would follow his instructions. In practice, they would probably work alongside the regular police officers, but if the chief constable did not require their services he would tell them so and they would, at once. withdraw.
  The position is well understood by both the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary and the regular police force. The command structure, in the event of an attack, is quite clear and I am certain that, against the background of what I have said, there can be no cause for confusion.
  As regards paragraph (b )of the amendment it is, of course, desirable and necessary that information should be exchanged between the AEA constabulary and the police force of any area through which vulnerable material is to be transported but it is not possible to define in

  1247
  statute precisely the amounts of information that have to be passed and the amendment would not have a clear effect in relation, for instance, to the word "stored" or in relation to the word "intention". I think the House will accept that there ought to be co-operation. If, in the event, any measure of cooperation was thought by anyone to be lacking, I do not believe that a statutory provision of this kind would be any real help in achieving the fullest measure of co-operation.
  Paragraph (c )is not, as a matter of drafting, satisfactory. It is hard to see who is to judge what the effect of the proviso in the first few words would be and, since the situation with which this paragraph is trying to deal is the situation where a crime has been committed, there is no doubt about the responsibilities of the regular police for responding, and it is most undesirable that we should try to put specific words in statute to cover this particular kind of crime. To do so would cast doubt on the role of the police in relation to all the other kinds of crime in relation to which the statutes are silent.
  In relation to paragraph (d ), it is already clear from the drafting of the clause that the powers of the AEA constabulary have to take account of the need to look forward to the delivery of any person arrested into the custody of the police. In many cases the AEA constables, I have no doubt, will at the point with which this paragraph tries to deal, be informing the local police. But again there is difficulty as to the practical effect of the proviso. There is doubtful value in actually specifying the point in statute and to do so might cast doubt on the co-operation that the AEA constabulary would provide in the large range of circumstances with which this paragraph does not happen to deal.
  12.45 a.m.
  As for paragraph (e ), AEA constables are all issued with warrant cards. They would certainly show them to constables of the regular police in all appropriate circumstances on request and it would be misleading if specific statutory requirements were introduced in this respect. There would also be drafting difficulties about requirements for a firearms certifi-
  1248
  cate, since Clause 1 dispenses with the need for such certificates.
  I have tried to explain that difficulties arise which the hon. Member has not succeeded in overcoming. In advising the House not to accept the amendment, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing it against the background of the clear indication that I have given of the defined responsibilities of the AEA constabulary, as distinct from the civilian police.
  On the constituency points raised by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), I am advised that Chapelcross may need armed guards, provided either by the Ministry of Defence police or by the AEA police. It is a site for which both British Nuclear Fuels and the Ministry of Defence have responsibility. There are no armed AEA police on the site at present and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to answer for the Ministry of Defence.
  However, the hon. Gentleman raised important points in a fair manner. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will note what he said and will certainly consider it.
  Mr. Biffen: I am interested that the Under-Secretary should say that Chapel-cross may be included. He will recollect that, on Second Reading, as reported in column 701, the Secretary of State referred specifically to Harwell, Dounreay, Winfrith and Windscale. The House is bound to be left wondering what circumstances have changed. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) mentioned the possibility of the production of tritium, it would be helpful if the Minister could say whether that was one of the factors which caused what is seemingly a revised judgment.
  Mr. Ewing: It would be less than honest not to admit that one of the factors which has caused consideration to be given recently to the position of Chapelcross is the factor that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I was deliberately not specific about the future of Chapel-cross. What I said was that there was a possibility that the Secretary of State for Energy would no doubt consider the position of Chapelcross and that, against the background of his own judgment, the House would no doubt be advised of the

  1249
  future requirements in respect of Chapelcross. If the hon. Member would permit me, I should like to leave it at that for the time being.
  I hope that I have convinced the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that the responsibilities are clearly defined and that he will withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to the Minister and his civil servants, who have evidently taken this matter seriously and produced a full reply, which I shall study carefully in Hansard. I am sorry—this is in no sense a criticism of the Minister—that the matter which he has now put before the House was not made available to the Committee. I did not serve on the Committee, though I read its proceedings with interest. I believe that it would have been right and would have made for a more effective Committee stage if what the Minister has said now had been said then, so that the Committee could have probed him, as is the duty of Committees.
  The second point I put to the Minister is that I hope that he will understand that I feel no sense of embarrassment if my amendments are not precisely drafted in a fashion that would admit them at once to legislation. It is not the duty of Opposition or Back Benchers to do that. It is their duty to bring forward, as clearly as they can, suggestions for the improvement of legislation. It is for the Government and parliamentary draftsmen to translate those thoughts, if they commend themselves, into the precise language required. Therefore, I feel no sense of chagrin if my amendments are not precisely drawn. I have had the doubtful pleasure, on all sorts of occasions, of reading the sort of brief that the Minister has just read.
  However, I hope that in all their operations, and in the spirit of what the Minister has said, the Atomic Energy Authority police will go out of their way to work with the civil police. For example, if they have reason to suspect that there has been a theft of fissionable material and on suspicion they pursue and arrest, I hope that if they get it wrong there will be, to put it plainly, hell to pay. Equally, if they get in touch with the civil police, they will find help from the intelligence network of the civil police about the kind of places in which things may be hidden and about the kind
  1250
  of people who may engage in theft. There is a network of information and good will within the police service that I am sure it would be the wish of Ministers and the Atomic Energy Authority to tap. They can do this only if they get into a habit, right from the start, of working together in the common interest. I know that that is the spirit behind what the Minister has said.
  In conclusion, I can only carp a little bit. Things would have got off to a very much better start if there had been consultation in the first instance—which there was not—with the Police Federation and, secondly, if the points that the Minister has fairly made tonight had been brought out in Committee, so that we should not have come right up to the finishing gate and first heard about them only at that point.
  In the circumstances, I am happy to say that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  12.53 a.m.
  Mr. Eadie: The Bill arises directly from the growing threat posed by acts of terrorists and other violent criminals both in this country and elsewhere in the world. Conscious of this threat, the Government have kept questions of security under continual review, and last year we examined the security of fissile materials used in the civil nuclear programme. We did this because plutonium and other fissile materials, notably highly enriched uranium, are toxic and potentially dangerous substances. If they fell into terrorist or criminal hands in significant quantities, they could be used to cause grave danger to the community.
  Hon. Members will not expect me to go into details, but apart from the possibility that such materials might be used to make a primitive explosive device, the dispersal of plutonium in particular into the environment can create a serious radiological and toxic hazard over a wide area. Equally, terrorists who had seized fissile materials could hold a Government to ransom by threatening to create hazards of this kind. Such a threat would be of much greater proportions than any we have experienced so far, threatening not

  1251
  a few but perhaps many hundreds of innocent lives.
  This risk is not merely a domestic one. It has international dimensions. Material stolen in this country might be in a readily portable form and could be used as the basis of a threat to cause damage in the United States, Europe, the Middle East or, indeed, anywhere in the world. Nuclear materials might, therefore, be subject to attack by international terrorists as well as by those operating in the United Kingdom.
  In the light of this threat, the Government concluded that the security of fissile materials should be strengthened. In practice, these materials are at present held in significant quantities at only four sites—the Atomic Energy Authority establishments at Harwell, Dounreay and Winfrith and the British Nuclear Fuels Limited site at Windscale. Fissile materials are also moved about the country at intervals in the ordinary course of AEA and BNFL business.
  In considering the security of fissile materials we had to take account of two kinds of risk. The first is straightforward theft, against which there has always been stringent precautions. Secondly, we must now face the possibility of a terrorist attack of the kind that I have spoken about.
  Of course, armed guards are only part of improved security. The physical security of sites holding fissile materials has been heavily strengthened. Some £2 million is being spent on this. Again, the House will not expect me to go into detail, but the measures include arrangements for the strengthening of perimeter fences and of the buildings in which these materials are held; the improvement of alarm and detection systems; the use of guard dogs; and the improvement of communications. Measures are also being taken to increase the security of materials in transit. These include the provision of much stronger vehicles and better communications.
  But these measures are not enough. Unhappily, the background to this problem is one of possible violence. A terrorist attack directed at taking possession of these materials is likely to be a heavily armed attack. After the most careful consideration the Government were forced to
  1252
  conclude that physical improvements alone would not meet the situation. We saw the need for a measure of armed protection and we decided that it was necessary to provide armed guards where such materials are stored or when they are in transit.
  It has been suggested that the armed guards—which I think we all agree are needed—might be provided by the regular police or the military. I hope it is clear that neither regular police nor military guards could appropriately be stationed full-time on nuclear sites.
  So far as the safeguarding of nuclear materials in transit is concerned, I hope it is now clear that the regular police and, if necessary, the military do have a rôle in the event of an attack on a convoy. I mentioned this matter in some detail on Second Reading and in Committee. I am now trying to do it in shorthand, as it were.
  I repeat that this is a Bill which the Government have introduced with reluctance, but in the circumstances of the time we have no doubt that its provisions are essential. Fissile material is a source of danger if it falls into ill-intentioned hands. That must not be allowed to happen. We would be failing in our duty to the country if we did not make provision for armed protection.
  12.59 a.m.
  Mr. Hannam: The Opposition obviously do not like this Bill. The arming of a special police force, however well intentioned, is a step which we would have liked to avoid. However, the reality of modern-day terrorism, as the Minister pointed out, has necessitated that these unpleasant defensive measures should be taken. In that context, we reluctantly support the Bill.
  The limitation of police powers to the four nuclear power stations at Harwell, Winfrith, Windscale and Dounreay is probably wise, although the threat of a takeover—a hijack—of other nuclear power stations in future might require an extension of these powers relating to armed guards. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has already suggested the arming of guards at Chapel-cross, which implies an extension of this measure in its early stages.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) raised some

  1253
  vitally important questions and I join in his regret at the lack of consultation with the Police Federation. I find it odd that a Government who make such a fetish of consultation with the unions should fail to consult the body which will be affected by the legislation. I also regret the lack of detail available earlier in proceedings. Questions were asked on Second Reading but we had the answers only in the last two days. If answers had been given earlier much of today's debate would have been unnecessary.
  I hope that the new civil armed police force will not be permanent because we hope for a reduction in world terrorism as people come to their senses. In the meantime, we reluctantly support the Bill.
  1.2 a.m.
  Mr. Beith: Those of us who have reservations about the form of the Bill do not question the need to provide for terrorist threats. That is bound to involve the use of armed police and I do not question that. The difficulty is that we are considering a Bill which entrusts that rôle to a police force which is different from our regular police forces; it is unusual in that no other force of its kind carries arms, although it is relevant that the force already has some experience of using arms.
  In giving the Bill a Third Reading we have carried the discussion further and obtained more information from the Government. We have had indications about the willingness of Ministers and the the Atomic Energy Authority to recognise some of the concern expressed. I would have wished to take a different course, to use the civil police forces or have a new form of accountability for the authority's police. However, the Bill in its present form, despite its shortcomings, must be interpreted and acted upon by all those concerned in the light of anxieties which have been raised. There is reason to suppose and hope that that will be done.
  We have a right to expect the Atomic Energy Authority police force to behave as closely as possible to the way in which the regular forces behave and to be subject to the same restraints, controls and conditions as the regular forces, that they should co-operate with the civil police
  1254
  and that they should be answerable to the House on important questions. We have been reassured on some of those matters and perhaps our further consideration at this late hour has been of value in getting those assurances on record. I am not happy about taking this course, but we have gone so far that I think we must accept it.
  1.4 a.m.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: My party and I objected to the Bill on Second Reading because we did not like the principle of an Atomic Energy Authority police force able to bear arms while escorting materials in transit. The objections remain, and we still see many weaknesses in the Bill. We think it a retrograde step that the problem succinctly outlined by the Minister has been tackled in this way.
  But the question of the principle of the Bill was decided on Second Reading, and in view of the hour and the attendance we should keep to that decision. It is to be hoped, however, that this will be the only example of arms and an armoury being kept with a national remit.
  1.5 a.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Bill results from the convergence of two awesome facts in our national life—our increasing dependence on nuclear power for civil and military purposes and the arrival of terror as a political instrument. Those developments have made the Bill unpleasantly necessary.
  I supported the Bill on Second Reading and I support its Third Reading, but, like the Secretary of State, I do so with no satisfaction. I support it because it is unavoidable in all the circumstances.
  The police service does not like the Bill, for specific reasons. It does not like the proliferation of special police forces. We already have transport police, docks police, railway police and airports police, and now we shall have armed Atomic Energy Authority police. The right answer is to strengthen the regular civil police and make sure that they have the men, equipment and resources, and the backing of Parliament, to do the entire job. Unfortunately, for various reasons, they do not have the resources. Therefore, we are driven to make the best job we can of special forces.

  1255
  In particular, the police do not like anything that adds to the numbers of weapons outside their control and spread around the country. One reason is that many civil policemen have been killed and wounded by guns in the course of their duties. The numbers rise year by year. The police also have to deal in the first instance with increasing numbers of our fellow citizens who are gunned down. Therefore, it is understandable and right that the police should look with grave doubts on any legislation that brings about a greater spread of weapons, no matter in whose hands they may be. Nevertheless, we face the fact that if nuclear power stations and fissile material in transit are to be adequately protected the only way is to arm the special police with the necessary weapons.
  I am glad that the debate has at least elicited from the Minister some information that was not known before. It is valuable to know that the AEA police on duty will be in uniform, and therefore identifiable. This has some drawbacks from their point of view, but it is right for the public. Secondly, we have learned that the weapons will not be concealed when carried. That is an important undertaking. Thirdly, I accept both the letter and the spirit of the Minister's assurances that the Government intend that the civil police and the AEA police shall work together in the same general duty of protecting our country and its people from the dangers that can arise. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of the AEA police working with and through the civil police, advising them in advance of what they are doing, co-operating with them, making use of their intelligence and, above all, learning the job. There will be a learning curve here.
  I do not welcome the Bill any more than any other hon. Member does, but I regret that I have to accept that it is necessary.
  1.10 a.m.
  Mr. Eadie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. Without exception, they have said that they believe we have to have this Bill, whatever reservations they have about it.
  I make it clear, once and for all, that the Bill is not setting up an Atomic
  1256
  Energy Authority police force. That was established by the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 and it has functioned effectively in safeguarding several nuclear sites and materials for 20 years. It has worked in easy co-operation with the regular police forces. It has a good record in its relations with the public and with authority employees. As was brought out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, there has been only one complaint against the AEA Constabulary in 10 years.
  I raise the issue of consultation because it was raised in the debate, when it was regretted that there had been no consultation with the Police Federation. They are not the only body to be consulted. People who work within the sites are entitled to be consulted, and we consulted them. We also consulted the AEA Constabulary. This is not a semi-official force; it is an official one, as I have said. I was in correspondence with the Secretary of the Police Federation. On the question of consultation, the House must accept that there was consultation with the bodies involved. It makes no difference to the powers of the police.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The House has arrived at a harmonious conclusion and the Minister would be wise to leave it at that. If he insists on raising this matter I must tell him plainly that there was no consultation whatever with the Police Federation, and the federation resents it.
  Let me tell the Minister only one other thing. On second thoughts, perhaps I should not go further. We want to come to a conclusion.
  Mr. Eadie: The time of morning is beginning to irritate the hon. Member, but he must learn that if he wants to make points it is legitimate for me to make points in return. I am not trying to irritate him, and I do not want him to start threatening me. I am making valid and fair points. I have corresepondence from the Secretary of the Police Federation.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have the whole lot here. Does the Minister deny it?
  Mr. Eadie: I am telling the hon. Gentleman what I have got. He raised the issue of consultation, and I put a fair point to him.

  1257
  There are other people to be consulted. I explained to the hon. Member that no powers have been taken away from the Police Federation. I leave it at that, because obviously he does not want me to reply with factual knowledge when I reply on consultation. It was his hon. Friend who dealt with consultation. I am entitled to tell the House that there was consultation in relation to this Bill and there were other bodies which had a legitimate right to be consulted. We will leave it at that.
  Mr. Biffen: We will not. I do not want to raise the temperature of the House, but we should have on record the question whether it is the Under-Secretary's judgment that consultation took place before publication of the Bill.
  Mr. Eadie: If the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) is putting it in that sense, there was no consultation with the Police Federation, as such, but there was communication between me and the Secretary of the Police Federation. In my reply to the letter, which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has, I outlined what was happening on this Bill and the other bodies that were being consulted. I am replying to the assertion that consultation had not taken place. I am saying that there was consultation with bodies involved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
  I should not like the House to gain the impression that the Government are happy about the Bill. As a whole, it is designed to improve the security of dangerous nuclear materials, and thus to improve the protection of the community against their hostile use. The most significant provision is giving the AEA Constabulary the same access to firearms as other police forces have.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that it is a sad comment on the state of the world that this Bill should be necessary, but we must recognise the existence of terrorism and take whatever steps we can to safeguard the community against it. It would be an irresponsible Government and an irresponsible Parliament that did not note the potential threat to nuclear materials and do all that they humanly could to resist it. This is the purpose of the Bill.
  1258
  I hope that no member of the AEA police will ever be called on to use firearms except on a range, for his own training, but in the present security conditions it is clear that the constabulary must have the power to bear firearms when necessary, and the other complementary powers provided in this Bill. The fact that they have such powers should be, in itself, a serious deterrent to the would-be terrorist.
  As has been said, we have brought this Bill forward with some reluctance. but, after the most exhaustive considerations, we are convinced that it is necessary. It is better for the AEA police to possess the power to use firearms and —hopefully—never have to use it than not to have it and find themselves one day, unarmed, in the face of a terrorist or criminal attack.
  I trust that the Bill will now be read the Third time.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  LAND DRAINAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered
New Clause

  OBLIGATION TO MAKE AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE LAND DRAINAGE ACT 1961
  It shall be the duty of the rating authority for any area wholly or partly included in an internal drainage district and the drainage board of that district to make and operate an agreement as provided by subsection (2) of section 25 of the Land Drainage Act 1961. —[Dr. Edmund Marshall.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  1.17 a.m.
  Dr. Edmund Marshall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The House will be aware that in various parts of the country there are about 300 internal drainage boards which have the power to execute works to improve land drainage arrangements in their districts, and each board has a district very clearly defined within precise boundaries.

  1259
  To finance their operations, the internal drainage boards are able to levy drainage rates on the owners and occupiers of hereditaments within the drainage districts. For non-agricultural hereditaments, these rates are levied as rates in the sense of so much in the pound per rateable value of the hereditament, and the basic means of collection of these rates from non-agricultural ratepayers is for individual drainage rate demands to be sent out by the clerks of internal drainage boards to non-agricultural ratepayers.
  I submit that there are three disadvantages of this system of sending out individual drainage rate demands in this way. In the first place, the general sending out of rate demands like this is somewhat inefficient administratively, because many drainage rate demands have to go out to large numbers of drainage ratepayers for small amounts, many amounts being less than £1 per year.
  Secondly, this system has the disadvantage for the non-agricultural ratepayers who pay drainage rates in that they have the impression that they are being asked to pay twice over for the drainage of their areas, first, through the general rates which now include the water service charges, and then they find also that they are confronted with the demand for an additional drainage rate levied by the internal drainage board.
  What makes matters worce for these ratepayers is the strange system of boundaries that has been drawn up for the internal drainage districts. These boundaries relate to known flood levels, and they were drawn up under what was known as the Medway Letter. The boundaries are very difficult to understand, and there are cases of adjacent properties where one is within the internal drainage district and the other is not. This leads to many anomalies. Where individual drainage rate demands are sent out, the ratepayer cannot understand why he should have to pay the rate when the man next door does not.
  Because of the difficulties in the system of individual drainage rate demands a provision was made—first in Section 25 of the Land Drainage Act 1930, as far as urban districts were concerned, and extended in Section 25 of the Land Drain-
  1260
  age Act 196I—to enable local rating authorities, which are now the district councils of England, to make payments to internal drainage boards in lieu of drainage rates otherwise levied on nonagricultural ratepayers.
  This provision, which is permissive and not obligatory, enables a district council and an internal drainage board to draw up an agreement to end the levying of internal drainage rate demands on nonagricultural ratepayers in their common area. In place of these the council pays directly to the drainage board a sum of money each year equal to the total that the board would have levied on nonagricultural ratepayers by means of individual demands. It is then up to the council, which is the rating authority, to collect the amount to make up this sum through the general rates, either generally throughout its district or in some way confined to some parishes which relate to the internal drainage district concerned.
  This system, using these powers, is obviously much more simple to operate administratively, and it removes the necessity for the internal drainage board to send out individual demands to nonagricultural ratepayers. It also has an advantage in that it can enable the burden on non-agricultural drainage rates to be spread over all the general ratepayers throughout the local council district.
  Since reorganisation, these districts have covered much wider areas. This helps to get over many of the anomalies arising from the very closely defined boundaries of the internal drainage districts.
  Whenever a Section 25 agreement is in operation, it produces a much more satisfactory situation than before. In my constituency, which five years ago had 23 internal drainage districts, many of which were sending out individual rate demands, there was considerable controversy, and different views were held as to the justice of that system. Nearly all of the drainage boards still existing have now entered agreements under Section 25 of the 1961 Act. I do not know how many Section 25 agreements are in operation throughout the country, or what percentage of internal drainage boards is covered by such agreements, but I am sufficiently convinced, from experience of my part of the country, of the immense value of

  1261
  these agreements to believe that the provision should now be made obligatory on all the internal drainage boards and the district councils which overlap their areas.
  Mr. Cohn Shepherd: At present Section 25(2) allows the drainage board and the rating authority to reach an agreement by which the rating authority pays over the money that the board needs and makes the necessary alteration to its precept to allow for its collection from the rates. The hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has introduced a new clause seeking to make it an obligation to come to an agreement rather than leaving it open to the discretion of the rating authority and the drainage board to tackle the matter together.
  I should like to consider the pros and cons of the proposal. The first of the pros is that it would allow for greater equity in drainage rating and overcome the problems of deciding who does or does not pay. The second advantage is that it overcomes the problems of boundaries running in odd and curious ways. The 8 ft contour line above the highest known flood level is no respecter of property lines, and there are instances of boundaries passing through semi-detached houses and creating other such anomalies.
  The third pro is that the rates paid in this way by rating authorities under a Section 25 agreement qualify for rate support grant. Although I understand from officers of internal drainage boards that Government proposals are in the pipeline to stop this, I should like clarification on the point. The last important pro for the internal drainage boards is the saving administrative of having one large bill or payment staggered over the whole year.
  Against the proposal is the fact that an obligation to come to an agreement would remove the freedom of rating authorities to see for themselves how the needs of their authority would be best served and to decide accordingly. That would deprive them of flexibility.
  Section 26 of the 1961 Act allows for differential rating by some drainage boards, which enables them to get the fairest possible results from the financing of their operations. To make the agreement mandatory would remove the ability to apply differential ratings.
  1262
  Section 25(4) allows for the alteration of the constitution of the internal drainage boards to enable a rating authority to appoint members to it. Some officers and board members see this as a potential threat to their independence, which would be increased if there were no option about whether a Section 25 agreement was entered into. It has been claimed that this fear is a red herring, because it has not happened so far, but the possibility would be greatly increased if compulsion were included in the Bill.
  1.30 a.m.
  Every rating authority area is different in size, geography and geology. Every district council has different ideas of priorities and needs. Some have jumped at the opportunity of making agreements, others have felt that agreements would create more problems than they solved, especially with vigilante groups looking after the sectional interests of ratepayers, and others have not found it necessary even to discuss agreements.
  The district council of an East Coast town not far from Goole covers about 220,000 hectares, of which 83,000 hectares—about 37 per cent. of the total area—is covered by five drainage boards. There would have to be five separate agreements covering different sets of circumstances. If there were to be agreements, the boards would want £255,000. The penny rate product of the district is —according to the 1975–76 figures, which are the latest available—about £95,000. The precept would have to be 2·7p in the pound or, if rate support grant were taken into account, 1·54p in the pound.
  On a typical domestic property with a rateable value of £200, the highest internal drainage board, precept is £9·50 and the lowest is £7·20—payable direct to the board. With a Section 25 agreement, the precept would be £3·08 or, if rate support grant is withdrawn, £5·40. We are not talking about big money.
  In such circumstances, I can understand the reluctance of the district council to seek a Section 25 agreement and the reluctance of inland councillors to support the business interests of a recreational coastline. It is also possible for these circumstances to apply in reverse.
  District councils are also worried about the uncertainty over the report of the Lay field Committee.

  1263
  I understand that this is a paving Bill to clear the anomalies of previous legislation. For the new clause to make sense, it would have to be inserted as a substitution. For the change to be effected properly, Section 25 would have to be rewritten. The purpose of the new clause could have been achieved by the substitution of "shall" for "may" in line 3 of Section 25(2) of the Act. That would have introduced the element of compulsion.
  The correct time to discuss such a fundamental change would be on the consolidation measure, which I understand is to follow this Bill. We can tackle it when it comes here from another place.
  In view of some district councils' reluctance it would be wrong to pre-empt the report of the Layfield Committee, but I hope that the Committee will have reported to the House by the time that the consolidation measure is with us. I understand that that Bill will provide the appropriate opportunity for us to discuss the land drainage implications of the Layfield Report. It may well alter the opinion of rating authorities and internal drainage boards as regards the relevance of Section 25 agreements.
  I suggest to the Minister that as an interim measure it might be advantageous if his Department issued a circular to rating authorities and internal drainage boards reminding them of the provisions of the 1961 Act with respect to Section 25 agreements and setting out the pros and cons for their consideration, so that they might exercise the discretion that is now open to them.
  For the reasons I have outlined, we do not support the new clause. We believe that the cons of the considerations outweigh the balance of the benefits that might accrue from the creation of an obligation to form Section 25 agreements. We concur with outside opinion that the measure before us is to be welcomed. Indeed, it has been welcomed by all those with whom I have discussed it, especially as it sets out to sort out the anomalies of half a century of legislation in this important but unsung area of both agricultural and urban infrastructure.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Representing
  1264
  as he does a constituency that either wholly or partly embraces no fewer than 19 internal drainage districts, I can appreciate the reasons that have prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) to table the new clause.
  My hon. Friend has explained the purpose of Section 25 of the Land Drainage Act 1961, and as he knows, increasing use has been made of Section 25 agreements in recent years, not least in my hon. Friend's constituency. Because we see clear advantages in them to both local authorities and internal drainage boards, we, like him, welcome this trend. For this reason we support the intention on which his amendment is based, but I am sure that he will understand that we could not suddenly impose this obligation on local authorities without consulting them.
  There is the additional difficulty that in this case we would be imposing this new duty in a Bill that has previously been presented as one solely designed to secure minor, and mainly technical, amendments to existing land drainage legislation in order to pave the way for its consolidation.
  For these reasons alone I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his new clause.
  There is a further aspect to this problem that I ask my hon. Friend to consider—namely, the imminent publication of the Layfield Committee's Report. Without anticipating its findings, I think it is clearly understood that the law affecting drainage rates will have to be reviewed in the light of the Government's decision on the report.
  I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we shall extend any review of drainage rates to the question of Section 25 agreements. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and for the remarks of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). We have considerable sympathy with the spirit of the new clause, but I hope that in the light of the arguments I have advanced and the assurance I have given my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw it.
  Dr. Edmund Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I am pleased to know that consultations will begin on these matters. In the light of

  1265
  that fact, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  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.

  HOSPITAL SERVICES (WALSALL)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Snape.]
  1.40 a.m.
  Mr. Bruce George: This is the third time in less than three months that I have had the opportunity of raising, on the Adjournment, some of the numerous and fundamental problems concerning Walsall. I have raised the issues of Walsall's housing need and its industrial decline, and now I wish to expose the serious defects of our hospital services and the need for a new general hospital to be constructed on the site of the Manor Hospital.
  As in so many facets of life, Walsall has not had its share of national funds. I wish to show that the inadequate hospital service in our town is the product of the accumulated neglect of decades. The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security spoke recently on hospital building and said:
  "There was hardly a town of any size or city in the country that was not encouraged to believe that a new district hospital was soon to be built."
  However, many of these hopes have yet to be fulfilled, and perhaps will never be fulfilled. Hospital planning in Walsall was never "bedevilled by optimism", to use the Minister of State's phrase. Indeed, until recently, it was widely held that it would be 10 or 20 years before our much-desired and much-needed hospital would be constructed.
  One must be realistic to appreciate the financial constraints under which the Government are working. We must be aware too, of the changing philosophies of hospital construction, the move away from the concept of large district hospitals
  1266
  to nucleus and community hospitals, about which we have heard a lot lately. I wholeheartedly welcome the provision being made by the Government to eliminate the wide disparities between the regions in expenditure on health.
  Of even greater interest is the complex question of sub-regional allocations, where there have been enormous variations in expenditure. The West Midlands, despite the myth of prosperity, has been identified as a middle-ranking region by the Resources Allocation Working Party of the DHSS, with Walsall occupying about the bottom rung of the ladder within the region. I go further, and say that until last year the allocation of public funds to general hospitals and community health was the lowest in England. I refer the Minister to an article by Mr. J. H. Rickard, of the Department of Health and Social Security, entitled Per capita expenditure of the English area health authorities", published by the British Medical Journal on 31st January 1976.
  In this article Mr. Rickard shows that in 1973 expenditure per head on general hospitals in Walsall was £11·06, while the average for England as a whole was £19·03 per head. Only Leicestershire had less expenditure per head than Walsall. Expenditure on community health in Walsall was £3·04 per head, hardly compensating for low expenditure on hospitals. The average for England as a whole was £3·74. There is no doubt which town is bottom of the list in community health provision—Walsall.
  If the Minister were to analyse the figures in the decade before 1973 he would realise why the condition of hospitals in Walsall is so critical. I urge him to study the table in a document produced by the West Midlands Regional Health Authority called "Consideration of major capital building strategy: 1976– 77/1985–86". He will see the gross under-provision of medical and hospital facilities in the area. He will see the high standardised mortality rate, despite our relatively young population.
  A contributory factor, I suggest, is the shortage of acute medical and surgical beds which causes excessively long waiting times for in-patient treatment. The tables in this booklet reveal that in terms of bed availability and patient access we

  1267
  in Walsall are classified by the region as "very poor". Of the 22 areas in the region, in terms of acute beds we are eighteenth, in terms of geriatric beds, seventeenth, and in terms of maternity beds, fifteenth. There are no mental illness facilities. This report by the regional authority is a damning indictment of the allocation to Walsall over the past decade and longer. I am pleased that this is changing.
  There is a shortfall of beds, on the basis of the population of the town being 283,000. The deficiency in acute beds is 187; for geriatric beds it is 129; for mental illness beds it is 142; and for maternity beds it is 48. A revenue deprivation exercise by the regional health authority shows that Walsall falls short of the calculated norms by £92,000 in the sphere of primary care and £2,207,000 in the sphere of secondary care. This deficiency in revenue terms makes Walsall the most deprived area in the West Midlands, falling short of its target allocation by 22 per cent. The next, in order of deprivation, is Staffordshire, at 15 per cent. The consequence of this neglect is evident. The waiting lists are enormous and the time that people have to wait to see a consultant, or to be operated upon, is quite appalling. In answer to a Parliamentary Question last December the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security pointed out that
  "The waiting time for surgical admissions varied between 18 to 30 months, according to the kind of operation required."—[Official Report, 4th December 1975, Vol. 901, c. 726.]
  The consequence of industrial action over the last 12 months has, in my opinion, exacerbated the problem of those long waiting lists. In my surgery each week I see constituents who feel frustration and anger at the long waiting time to see a consultant. In some cases it can be over a year. Another consequence is that the fabric of our hospital is generally antiquated. Indeed, the division of facilities between two hospitals—the Manor and the General—one and a half miles apart is causing considerable problems in itself. The Manor Hospital was originally built as a workhouse to provide for the destitute in 1838, and many of the Victorian buildings remain. The General, or Sister Dora Hospital, is rather more modern, having been built in 1867! However, most of this mid-
  1268
  Victorian edifice is remaining and still in use, albeit unsatisfactorily.
  We have a famous figure in Walsall, namely, Sister Dora, a 19th century matron. If she could return she would find little changed in the hospital named after her. The buildings are old, despite some additions. Without being too alarmist, I can say that the operating theatres are officially described as "deplorable" in the General and "poor" in the Manor. The out-patient facilities for the accident and emergency department are, in the General, housed in what was a converted laundry. The demand for maintenance work is causing a great deal of concern.
  A further result of the deficiency and neglect is the enormous difficulty in attracting and retaining staff. I pay tribute to the dedication of the staff in our hospitals—medical, para-medical and other staff. Indeed, to work in Walsall hospitals one must have sense of missionary zeal, because of the difficulties and because of the much better hospitals situated on the periphery of the town, in Birmingham, West Bromwich, Sutton Coldfield and Wolverhampton. In Walsall there are few facilities for attracting staff, and first-class facilities attract first-class staff. I believe that the staff in our hospitals provide as good a service as we can expect, indeed, better than we have a right to expect under the circumstances in which they are operating.
  I have no time to elaborate on the number of bodies, like the British Medical Association and the General Nursing Council, which have inspected our facilities and found them wanting. I could go on indefinitely, but the late hour and the time available prevents me from doing so.
  In the two years for which I have been a Member of Parliament I have been campaigning to have our hospital facilities improved and I have been working alongside the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Edge), but the campaign to get improved facilities is not just an official campaign by ourselves, by the area health authority and the community health council. It is very much a grass roots campaign. I emphasise that many members of the public are showing frustration at the defects of the system. One of our newspapers, the Walsall Observer, started,

  1269
  with two members of the public—Mrs. Hirtenstein and Mrs. Benton—what it called the Sister Dora Fund, which raised a lot of money and resulted in a large petition, which I presented to the Minister of State. I have been on two delegations to the Minister of State and will soon go on another to see Mr. Perris, the chairman of the regional health authority, together with representatives of the area health authority and the community health council.
  In Walsall we are all delighted that at long last a district general hospital is in sight. A recent report by the regional health authority put it in the "middle of programme phase"; it said that phase I would start in from five to seven years and would cost £5 million. We are told that the plans are not ready to start immediately. The area health authority has stated its intention to speed up the planning as much as possible so that a start can be made as soon as the go-ahead is given.
  The replacement of the general hospital by phase I will save over £1,200,000, which will be made available as a contribution towards the annual maintenance costs of the new hospital, but even with phase I implemented the number of beds available will probably be no different, although they will probably be used more efficiently.
  I have extended an invitation to the Secretary of State to visit the hospitals in Walsall. He is a Walsall man, and clearly knows the problem at first hand. I hope that he will be able to come to our town to inspect the hospitals and see at first hand the situation that we face.
  I again urge the regional health authority and the Department to recognise that the case for a substantial capital investment in the form of a district general hospital to alleviate the deprivation and the deterioration of the health care services in Walsall is overwhelming.
  I know that the Government have already taken some steps to remedy the situation. It is the view of the area health authority, the community health council, myself and, most important, the general public in Walsall, that it is absolutely essential that a start should be made as soon as possible. I shall not
  1270
  stop campaigning until we in Walsall have a hospital service adequate for the needs of our citizens.
  1.52 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I must begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on securing this Adjournment debate and on the care with which he has presented his case. His deep concern about the deprived state of the health service in Walsall and his determined efforts to bring his concern before the House are well known.
  I have not had the good fortune to visit Walsall, although my officials have visited the area on several occasions and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose personal connections with Walsall are well known, intends to visit the town later this year. Nevertheless, let me say straight away that I entirely accept my hon. Friend's case that Walsall is a deprived area in health service terms.
  My hon. Friend referred to the accumulated neglect of decades and quoted comparative figures to show its extent. There is no single definition of deprivation against which the circumstances of particular areas can be measured, but whatever criteria of deprivation one looks to, Walsall comes out as deprived. In terms of the numbers of beds available against those needed on crude national planning norms, Walsall has a shortfall of about 140 acute, 40 maternity, 40 geriatric and 140 mental illness beds. Within the West Midlands region only Sandwell and two districts of Staffordshire are more deprived of acute, maternity and geriatric beds. Studies by the West Midlands Regional Health Authority have shown that, of 22 health districts in the region, the population of Walsall has the second lowest level of access to hospital facilities, and that, with Staffordshire, it is the most deprived area in terms of revenue funding.
  Whilst the statistics about waiting lists that my hon. Friend has quoted show very long waiting lists indeed for many forms of treatment, they are not good indicators of deprivation. The way in which waiting lists are maintained differs between hospitals, and, as he said, at

  1271
  present many lists are inflated as a result of recent industrial action by medical staff. It is, therefore, virtually impossible to establish the relative deprivation of various health districts simply by a comparison of waiting lists.
  As my hon. Friend has made clear, though, Walsall's problems do not stop at a shortage of facilities. A substantial part of the existing hospital provision is unsatisfactory. Acute services are provided mainly at the Manor and General, or Sister Dora, Hospitals. Conditions at the General, in particular, leave a great deal to be desired. Many wards have no day rooms attached to them; essential supporting facilities such as sluice rooms, bathrooms, lavatories and store rooms are cramped and rather primitive; the operating theatres have no air conditioning, and in summer they become unbearably hot; and the out-patient department is a source of major concern.
  As my hon. Friend said, despite the major shortcomings of the general hospital as a building, the staff achieve a very high standard of service, and I would like to associate myself with the tribute my hon. Friend has paid to them.
  The fact that Walsall is deprived in health service terms, both by a lack of facilities and the poor quality of some of the existing facilities, is beyond dispute. What, then, is being done to remedy the situation?
  The regional and area health authorities and ourselves all agree that the key to improving the standard of health service facilities in Walsall is the provision of new acute beds at the Manor Hospital. For many years it has been the intention to develop the Manor site, and indeed some development there has already been completed. This includes an important scheme to provide a boiler-house and laundry to support the new acute beds; the provision of geriatric wards and a day hospital, and an outpatients department. As a result of decisions taken by the regional health authority on 17th March, planning of the next phase of development—about 180 acute beds and an accident and emergency department, which will enable the General Hospital to be closed—is now beginning in earnest. This is the key scheme for
  1272
  Walsall. The important question is timing.
  Last July the regional health authority issued a consultative document, "Strategy for Health 1976–86", which, among other matters, set out for public scrutiny the authority's preliminary views on major capital developments for the decade. On 17th March the authority considered comments on its consultative document, analyses of deprivation in the region, and such information about likely future resources as we were able to give it. The authority decided that immediate priority should be given to two schemes—Stafford and Dudley—which were already well advanced in planning, and both of which are badly needed. The development of the Manor Hospital, Walsall, was, however, included with two other schemes—Telford and Nuneaton or Rugby—as having the next highest priority. It will take three years or so to plan the Walsall scheme, and the probability is that building will start around 1980.
  I must emphasise that I am not giving a firm commitment for a start in 1980. The exact starting date will depend on the level of capital available to the regional health authority in the late 1970s and early 1980s; the progress made in planning the Walsall development; and, possibly, the relative priority of Walsall against Telford and Nuneaton or Rugby. The broad intention is, however, that the Walsall development would start around 1980, in other words almost as soon as it is fully planned.
  It may be asked why, given the acknowledged need for new facilities, plans are not already advanced, as they are for Stafford and Dudley. The answer is that the priorities of the regional health authority, as set out on 17th March, do represent a shift of emphasis from those of its predecessor, the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board. The authority regards it as important that areas should have adequate acute beds for their population, rather than have to look to facilities in regional centres, such as Birmingham. This means greater priority is being given to developments in relatively deprived areas such as Walsall and Solihull, and lower priority to further developments in
  While the major acute development at the Manor Hospital is clearly the key Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Stoke.

  1273
  scheme in improving facilities in Walsall, I have no doubt that in due course the regional health authority will be considering further developments at the Manor Hospital, and the provision of a community hospital at Aldridge—a scheme that I know is dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Edge). These other major developments seem certain to come after the acute development at the Manor Hospital, however.
  In addition to the major development at the Manor Hospital, Walsall will, of course, have the benefit of many smaller building schemes. Some are already in progress and others will start in the current financial year. Among those expected to start in the current year are substantial additions to the intensive therapy unit and the out-patient department at the Manor Hospital. Further, in following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's policy of beginning to redress the inequalities of health provision, the West Midlands Regional Health Authority has allocated a substantial part of its revenue development addition for the current year on the basis of relative deprivation. Walsall and Staffordshire
  1274
  were by far the main beneficiaries. The addition was relatively small in the context of the total revenue allocation to Walsall—£278,000 out of a total of £11·4 million. Nevertheless, basing revenue allocations partly on relative deprivation is an important step forward, which I am sure will be continued in future years.
  To sum up, my hon. Friend has demonstrated clearly that Walsall is a deprived area in health service terms. This is fully accepted by the regional health authority and the Department. Walsall is clearly going to benefit by the distribution of revenue, partly on the basis of relative deprivation, by the major capital development planned for the Manor site, and by other smaller capital schemes. I hope that this will give those who work in the National Health Service in Walsall, who have put up with inadequate and second-rate facilities for so long, and to whom my hon. Friend paid tribute, as I do, the encouragement to maintain the standard of service already provided until the new development is in operation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Two o'clock.

  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  PRESIDENT MAKARIOS
  PRESIDENT MAKARIOS
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  BUDGET (CHANCELLOR'S BROADCAST)
  BUDGET (CHANCELLOR'S BROADCAST)
  TELEPHONE TAPPING
  TELEPHONE TAPPING
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  IMPORTS (DUMPING)
  IMPORTS (DUMPING)
  OIL INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION)
  OIL INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Traffic Wardens (London)
  Traffic Wardens (London)
  South African Security Agencies
  South African Security Agencies
  Court of Appeal (Referrals)
  Court of Appeal (Referrals)
  Court of Appeal (Regina v. Melville)
  Court of Appeal (Regina v. Melville)
  Mr. Dennis Warren
  Mr. Dennis Warren
  Train Robbers (Remission of Sentences)
  Train Robbers (Remission of Sentences)
  Age of Consent
  Age of Consent
  Fingerprints
  Fingerprints
  Licensed Premises
  Licensed Premises
  Remands in Custody
  Remands in Custody
  Battered Wives (Refuges)
  Battered Wives (Refuges)
  Drunken Driving
  Drunken Driving
  Traffic Wardens (Wales)
  Traffic Wardens (Wales)
ENERGY
  Foreign Nuclear Missions
  Foreign Nuclear Missions
  USSR Nuclear Missions
  USSR Nuclear Missions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  World Heritage Convention
  World Heritage Convention
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
CIVIL SERVICE
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Expenditure
  Aid Expenditure
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
DEFENCE
  Territorial Army ("Column 88")
  Territorial Army ("Column 88")
  Woolwich Arsenal (ManualWorkers)
  Woolwich Arsenal (ManualWorkers)
  Ordnance Stores Issues
  Ordnance Stores Issues
  Housing
  Housing
  West Country (Firing Ranges)
  West Country (Firing Ranges)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Scottish Universities
  Scottish Universities
  Vice-Chancellors and Principals (Committee)
  Vice-Chancellors and Principals (Committee)
  Schools (Charitable Status)
  Schools (Charitable Status)
  The Arts (Business Sponsorship)
  The Arts (Business Sponsorship)
  Taylor Committee
  Taylor Committee
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Teaching Methods
  Teaching Methods
  Theatre Museum
  Theatre Museum
  Capitation Grants
  Capitation Grants
  Subnormal Children
  Subnormal Children
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Geological Survey
  Geological Survey
  School Transport
  School Transport
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Exchange Cover
  Exchange Cover
  Overseas Loans
  Overseas Loans
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Overseas Assets
  Overseas Assets
  Housing Insulation (Rating Valuation)
  Housing Insulation (Rating Valuation)
  Value Added Tax Officials (Searches)
  Value Added Tax Officials (Searches)
  War Widows' Pensions
  War Widows' Pensions
  Public Sector Borrowing (International Comparisons)
  Public Sector Borrowing (International Comparisons)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Statutory Rules (Examiner's Fifth Report)
  Statutory Rules (Examiner's Fifth Report)
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training Executive
  Industrial Training Executive
  Matrimonial Causes
  Matrimonial Causes
  Cattle (Variable Premiums)
  Cattle (Variable Premiums)
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
ENVIRONMENT
  Council Tenancies (Exchanges)
  Council Tenancies (Exchanges)
  Houses (Owner-Occupation)
  Houses (Owner-Occupation)
  Private Railway Sidings
  Private Railway Sidings
  Housing (Rural Areas)
  Housing (Rural Areas)
  Road Accidents (Blood Alcohol Levels)
  Road Accidents (Blood Alcohol Levels)
  Ports
  Ports
  Private Tenancies and Service Changes
  Private Tenancies and Service Changes
  Rent Rebates and Allowances (Disregards)
  Rent Rebates and Allowances (Disregards)
  Vehicle and Driving Licences (Wales)
  Vehicle and Driving Licences (Wales)
  Rate Precept (Cleveland)
  Rate Precept (Cleveland)
  Road Safety (Research Institute)
  Road Safety (Research Institute)
  House Purchase (Local Authorities)
  House Purchase (Local Authorities)
  Planning Application (Maidstone)
  Planning Application (Maidstone)
  Form P11
  Form P11
  Municipal Housing
  Municipal Housing
  Railway-Road Conversions (Report)
  Railway-Road Conversions (Report)
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Creation Programme
  Job Creation Programme
  Training Courses
  Training Courses
  Wage Rates
  Wage Rates
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Kirkby
  Kirkby
  Worker Participation
  Worker Participation
  Employed Population
  Employed Population
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Gosport
  Gosport
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
SCOTLAND
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Job Dispersal
  Job Dispersal
  Community Councils
  Community Councils
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Heart Disease
  Heart Disease
  Council House Building (Direct Labour)
  Council House Building (Direct Labour)
  Hill and Upland Compensatory Allowances
  Hill and Upland Compensatory Allowances
  Census
  Census
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Handicapped Persons (Dental Treatment)
  Handicapped Persons (Dental Treatment)
  Convalescent Homes
  Convalescent Homes
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Unemployment Benefit (Theatrical Profession)
  Unemployment Benefit (Theatrical Profession)
  Fuel Disconnections
  Fuel Disconnections
  Reserve Pension Board (Chairman)
  Reserve Pension Board (Chairman)
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Child Interim Benefit
  Child Interim Benefit
  Medicines (Disposal)
  Medicines (Disposal)
  Drugs (Prescriptions)
  Drugs (Prescriptions)
  School Leavers (Work Experience)
  School Leavers (Work Experience)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animals (Importation)
  Animals (Importation)
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Animals (Quarantine)
  Animals (Quarantine)
  Paté de Fois Gras
  Paté de Fois Gras
  Cattle Exports (Italy)
  Cattle Exports (Italy)
INDUSTRY
  Paper
  Paper
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Metrication
  Metrication
WALES
  Companies (Capital Allowances)
  Companies (Capital Allowances)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
TRADE
  Export Intelligence Service Gazette
  Export Intelligence Service Gazette
  South Africa (Export Licences)
  South Africa (Export Licences)
  USSR
  USSR
  Companies House
  Companies House
  Chilean Debts
  Chilean Debts
  Wapping Pier Head Properties Ltd.
  Wapping Pier Head Properties Ltd.
  Capital Annuities Limited
  Capital Annuities Limited
  Anti-Dumping Measures
  Anti-Dumping Measures
  Chile (Military Equipment)
  Chile (Military Equipment)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.
The Viscount Knutsford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

RHODESIA: SANCTIONS AND AFFRETAIR
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have drawn the attention of the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council to the facilities given by a number of countries to the air service Affretair which is transporting goods to and from Rhodesia.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts):Yes, my Lords. A Note about Affretair was submitted to the Sanctions Committee by Her Majesty's Government on 9th April this year.
Lord BROCKWAY: My lords, is it the case that this company is a subsidiary of the Rhodesian Trans African Line and is subsidised by the Rhodesian Government; that it ferries exports and gives foreign currency through charter service to Rhodesia? In view of these facts is it not breaking all our sanction laws?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend's information is substantially correct, and his conclusion is entirely correct.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is the case
348
that a number of European Governments are giving landing facilities to this Rhodesian company, reconditioning its planes, training its crews, and giving employment to charter service in Europe? And is it the case that only Greece and the United Kingdom have refused the facilities?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not confirm that it is only the last two named countries that have refused facilities to this company, but the countries which are named in the representations we have made to the United Nations are nine in number and do include two, I think three, European countries.
Lora BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would draw the attention of the Organisation of African Unity to the fact that there are also African countries which are giving facilities to this airline, which is breaking sanctions against the illegal Government in Southern Rhodesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the terms of our representations to the Sanctions Committee will, of course, be circulated among all members of the United Nations, all of which are bound by Resolution 253 of 1968; and that includes all the countries of the OAU in Africa. As my noble friend has said, two African countries are involved in the terms of the representations we have made.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is the Government's representation confidential or can it be placed in the Library?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think it is confidential in that sense. I believe it could be placed in the Library. Since 1973 we have made three representations of this kind about this company to the United Nations. I will look into this to see whether the texts of the three representations can be made available. I rather think they could, and should be.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT PENSIONS
2.40 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, in asking leave of your Lordships to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I must declare a personal interest.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the decision not to grant a pension to Members of the House of Commons who have had over 12 years of service prior to the year 1964; and whether they are aware that the number of such Members is rapidly diminishing.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): Not for the first time, my Lords. The Top Salaries Review Body is conducting an Inquiry into pensions of Members of the House of Commons and the position of those former Members referred to in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will doubtless be looked at as part of the Inquiry. Nevertheless, noble Lords will appreciate the well-recognised superannuation principle that an employer cannot reasonably be expected to apply a new pension scheme to all those who have left his service at the time of its introduction. This principle, which was endorsed by the Lawrence Committee in 1964 and by the Top Salaries Review Body in 1971, is not altered by the fact that the number of potential beneficiaries has diminished.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that I sat in another place for 34 unbroken years; that I have now sat in Parliament for over half a century and that I receive no pension of any kind? There is a small and rapidly dwindling number of people who occupy a similar position. Does he really think that is fair?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, whether or not it is fair, when one has to deal with the question of pensions for the public service as a whole, one always comes across anomalies and degrees of unfairness. But there is a cardinal principle that one does not, and cannot be expected to, pay pensions to those persons who have left the employment or the service before the
350
introduction of the pensions scheme. As I say, this is a matter which the Top Salaries Review Body can look at again, because I understand representations have been made to it.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, in asking this supplementary question, may I say that I am not one of those affected by this Question, as I retired from the Commons after 1964. But will the noble Lord put this to the Government in any investigation which takes place? Those who retired before 1964 were Members of the House of Commons when the salary was extremely low; when there was no payment for any secretarial assistance; when Members had to pay for their own postage and their own telephone calls, and had no allowance for living in London. Is there not here a special case because of that?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, again in matters of pensions there are always special cases. I am pleased that some steps have been taken to see that the House of Commons is not only properly paid but has the services available to it as a House of Parliament. But I come back to the basic problem of the Government; that is, the principle on which superannuation and pension funds have been based. If we were to make a special concession, admittedly for a small group of people, how then should we be able to draw the line within the public service as a whole? Frankly, the expense would be very great—or could be very great— and this would have repercussions on those pensioners who already receive benefit.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that many employers make provision for what is called, "back service", and that this should be looked at from that point of view?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will show me an example in which employers are paying pensions for servants who left their service prior to the introduction of the pension scheme.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Leader of the House accept that too, must declare a personal interest, not in relation to my service in the House of

351
Commons but as an ex-Regular soldier? Is he not aware that there is also a dwindling number of survivors from both wars who, like myself, had considerable other rank service, were subsequently commissioned, but who—because we were born too early—receive other ranks' pension? If the noble Lord is to look at the principle in relation to the House of Commons—and I hope very much that he will—will he also bear in mind this unsquealing, ungrumbling crowd, the ex-Regular soldiers, who take all that comes yet get nothing for it
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, we appreciate what my noble friend has to say with regard to the principle of payment of pensions. With regard to what my noble friend Lady Bacon said about the grossly underpaid and overworked Members of Parliament who were on that very small salary of £600, with none of the facilities which are now granted to Members of Parliament, will my noble friend give the House an assurance that this matter will be referred to the Boyle Committee, which is considering pensions? With the development which has taken place, these people who retired before 1964—and I am not included; I retired after 1964 and receive a pension—suffer a growing hardship. It does not reflect well on Parliament that people who were so long Members of Parliament receive nothing at all.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think I need raise this matter with the Top Salaries Review Body because, as I have said, representations have already been made to them. That is quite sufficient for the Top Salaries Review Body to reconsider this matter, and then we shall have to consider what they propose in their report. I must not try to defend myself on a very difficult matter on which I know the House has a great deal of sympathy. But this matter is now being considered and instead of making representations to me on the Floor of the House, the best thing is that noble Lords should ensure that those representations are made to the Top Salaries Review Body.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I am one of the dwindling few. We shall all be gone quite soon, and if we keep on
352
like this the Government will be rid of the lot of us. Apart from that, it is very unfair. Is it not a fact that the Top Salaries Review Body looked at this matter, made a recommendation and the Government turned it down?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my understanding is that the Top Salaries Review Body supported the earlier conclusions of the Lawrence Committee that these pensions should not be available to those Members of the House of Commons who had left prior to the operation of the pension scheme.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there were no regular pensions from the House of Commons until the Labour Government came into power in 1964, and they pre-dated the service by 10 years? It has always seemed to me that that Act could be amended to pre-date previous service on proper percentages up to that time. I do not think that it is the present Government who stand to be indicted on this question. Having read all that happened before, one knows that Members of Parliament in Conservative days had merely to rely on charity; that is, the charitable funds from the House.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Pannell has illustrated some of the difficulties of the Government in this matter. I say again that this is a matter best referred to the body that Governments of all Parties have set up to review, and to advise on, these difficult matters. I suggest that these representations should now be made to the Top Salaries Review Body.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, my heart is bleeding, but we have had two Questions in 12 minutes.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have been doing my best to get a move on, but, as I often say to a certain friend, my best is not good enough. I say to my noble friend Lord Brockway—who I know has been trying to get in—that this is a difficult matter. It is a matter in which the House has a great interest. There is a

353
body which can most adequately deal with it. Representations have already been made and I suggest that we leave it to them.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have to declare an interest. I am one of the Members involved. I have never before intervened on this issue because I am not concerned about myself. However, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that we have had many representations to Committees which have been considering this subject and, therefore, we are not satisfied when he asks that another Committee should consider this subject? Is he aware that I had 15 years in the House of Commons, but because I was defeated in 1964 I have no pension for that discontinued service? I am concerned not so much about myself but about others who are in greater difficulty.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can only say that the Government and Parliament have accepted the Top Salaries Review Body as the proper body to consider these matters, and I suggest that we leave it at that.

CROWN AGENTS
2.50 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTHTYNESIDE: 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 when the Report of the Fay Committee on the Crown Agents will be published; and when the proposed legislation on the future of the Crown Agents is likely to be introduced.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Fay Committee has not yet completed its inquiries and I cannot at present say when it will report. My right honourable friend intends to publish the report as soon as he receives it. As regards the second part of the Question, I cannot anticipate the Government's future legislative programme, but the Bill to incorporate the Crown Agents will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time is available.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I just say—
Several noble Lords: No!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I just ask, my Lords, whether the Minister is aware that I have no criticism of the Crown Agents? Is it not a fact, however, that it is in the national interest that action should be taken as quickly as possible, and may I please have an assurance?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords; the noble Baroness can have that assurance. I understand her anxiety that legislation should be proceeded with in this important matter. She has, no doubt, studied the White Paper and understands the wisdom and farsightedness of the Government's proposals in this matter. She will, I am sure, also recognise the great pressure on Parliamentary time under this as under preceding Governments.

THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY: EXPORT CREDIT
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 why the Treasury refused to give extended credit to the aerospace industry, as a result of which an export order in excess of £300 million to Egypt has been lost to France.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I take this Question to refer to a recent newspaper report that the Egyptian Government are to purchase various military aircraft from France. It has been the practice of successive United Kingdom Governments not to disclose details of arms sales, but I can say that no request for credit support has been received from the Egyptian Government for aerospace equipment.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that rather satisfactory reply, may I ask him to give an assurance that if India, which I believe

355
is very much in the same boat as Egypt, required long-term credit to purchase Jaguar fighters, the Treasury would be sympathetic?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, that is a different country and therefore a different question, but in principle the answer is, Yes. Of course, this kind of question can be examined only in the light of the facts as they exist at the relevant time and I am sure that the noble Earl appreciates that.
Lord CARRINGTON: My, Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that no request had come from the Egyptian Government. Had any request come from the British aerospace industry?
Lord ORAM: Not to my knowledge, my Lords. As I understand it, there has been no request for export guarantees from any source.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the Government have shown their determination to create an effective and viable aerospace industry by the proposals which they have already put forward to create a strong national industry?

CONGENITAL DISABILITIES (CIVIL LIABILITY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

CROFTING REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL,
2.55 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [New rights of crofters and cottars to acquire their subject s]:
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, after (" may ") insert (" within twelve years of the passing of this Act ").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, the intention of this Amendment is that the right of a crofter to purchase his croft should be limited to a 12-year period after
356
which there could be some reconsideration. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said in Committee that with his energy, which he derived from coining from the North-East, he would resist "with some vigour" a somewhat similar Amendment which I tabled at that stage. After carefully examining the noble Lord's reply, I came to the conclusion—and I trust that other noble Lords have done likewise—that whatever vigour was there, it was done entirely on principle and not on logic. The noble Lord spoke about removing restraints on developing crofters' land, but I am afraid I cannot see how my proposals would place any restriction on development.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy appreciated the difficulty of the landowner in planning his estate with a Sword of Damocles hanging over him. This is where the restraint on development I will take place: not on the crofter but on the landowner. He suggested that at least there should be adequate warning from the crofter of his intention to the landowner. There should be some provision in the Bill for such a warning to be given, and indeed Lord Kirkhill gave an assurance that a reasonable time would be allotted, although no Amendment has appeared from the Government to cover this. It was partly on account of that assurance that the earlier Amendment was withdrawn. I feel that we should not miss this opportunity to cut out unremunerative administration should crofts be wound up—a smaller administration will be required to administer them—and to reduce the number of civil servants who administer crofting, which would, I am sure, be the wish of most noble Lords. However, being a generous person, I have slightly increased the length of time which I proposed at Committee, from 10 to 12 years, and noble Lords will note that the Amendment applies to croft ground generally and not to the house site, which the crofter would be able to continue to buy throughout the ages as and when he required. It would apply, therefore, only to the croft land.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, who I hope has received a letter which I wrote to him, might be able to accept that I have given a full explanation of the Government's position. In that letter I reiterated

357
what I said in Committee and I can only repeat what I said then, following an Amendment which the noble Lord tabled at that stage in very similar terms. As I said on 6th April—reported in Hansard at cols. 1577–78—our intention is to give the crofters continuing rights and it would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill to remove these after a relatively short period. I am in full agreement with the statement made then by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the crofting system should be allowed to change in its own time. There is really nothing further that I can add. I gave as full an explanation as I possibly could of the Government's view.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord said that a reasonable time should be allotted, but I do not think there is anything written in the Bill to say that reasonable notice should be given by the crofter to the landowner that he intends to buy the land. One objection to the Bill as drafted is that a landowner could compulsorily lose his land without any prior warning, which makes economic planning of his estate totally unrealistic. I had hoped that by tabling this Amendment the Minister would give a further indication of Government thinking on this matter. Indeed, I had hoped that the Government might themselves have tabled an Amendment saying that there should be a reasonable time.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I have explained the Government position at length and I cannot move further forward to meet the position of the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I rest the Government's case on the clear exposition which I made at the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.1 p.m.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, together with this Amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which apply to the same subject. The Amendment deals with the suggestion
358
that there should be an incontestable right to the crofter to buy his home only. I have reintroduced this group of Amendments because it appeared from what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said on Committee stage that he had not fully understood what I had intended to imply by my Amendment.
It seems that the Government are still not able to understand that suggestions which come from this side of the House are not always for our own benefit but are frequently for the benefit of the community at large. In this case, the Amendments were entirely in equity to the good working crofter and in no circumstances intended to imply any benefits to the landowner, as the noble Lord appears to think. I cannot see why the idle and absentee should have equal privileges with the good and hardworking. I appreciate that this may be Socialist doctrine, but I suggest that we should have none of it. Therefore, I am again putting forward the Amendment and suggesting that the hardworking crofter should have more privileges than the absentee crofter and the crofter who does not work his croft. I therefore suggest that, instead of being allowed to buy any house with an incontestable right—they will have a right to buy it as part of the croft ground—only those who are living in the house should have the incontestable right. There is not a great deal in this but it makes a slight gesture towards the good working crofter who is living on his croft.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, when this matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Burton at Committee stage, I do not feel that on the Government side it was made clear what the Government intended in the Bill. Indeed, the wording of the Bill seems ambiguous and we should be grateful if, when the Minister replies, he could indicate whether the wording as it is at present would enable a crofter to dispose of more than one croft house. With the singular "croft" (there is no plural "s") tenanted by him, would it be possible for a crofter to have more than one croft dealt with by the Bill in the way proposed?
I am seeking information about plurality. The Minister may know of cases where there are several crofts which are nominally in the name of one individual,

359
where the crofter is one person. Clearly, he cannot be living in all the croft houses at the same time. That is the point which my noble friend raised at Committee stage and to which I do not feel there has yet been a proper answer. Is it the intention of the Bill that only one croft should be dealt with for each individual, and that that should be the one which he inhabits, or would it be possible for a crofter to have several crofts in his name dealt with under the Bill? If the latter were in theory possible under the Bill, there could be unfairness between crofters. An individual crofter, who is a working crofter working his croft, might well have a grievance that someone else was using the Bill three or four times and, in some cases, was not really a crofter living in the croft. We should therefore be grateful for an interpretation of the intention of the Bill as it stands as well as an answer to the point raised by my noble friend in his Amendment.
Lord KIRK HILL: My Lords, for my part, I must confess to some degree of incredulity at the noble Lord, Lord Burton, casting himself in the role of the progressive crofters' champion by reintroducing this series of Amendments. The Amendments purport to secure that a crofter whose working unit comprises several crofts held on separate tenancies is not in a more favourable position in relation to the acquisition of house sites than a crofter with an amalgamated croft. I dealt at some length in Committee with the reasons why the Government were unable to accept the noble Lord's proposition and the passage of time has not weakened our resolve to resist it. In the first place, it would run counter to the principle of the Bill that a crofter is to have an incontestable right to acquire the site of the dwellinghouse on a croft of which he is tenant. If a crofter holds several crofts on individual tenancies, then he is in the fortunate position of having an incontestable right to acquire the site of the croft house on each croft, and I see no logic in the argument that his rights should be restricted so that he may not be in a more privileged position than his neighbour who is tenant of a number of crofts, amalgamated in his tenancy but historically forming a number of separate crofts.
The privilege is in any event more apparent than real since, as I explained
360
previously, the crofter with the amalgamated unit can acquire the sites of additional houses as part of the croft land. In any event, we are dealing here with a mere handful of crofts where a formal amalgamation has taken place under the Farm Structure Scheme. In the vast majority of cases where a crofter runs a number of crofts together as a working unit, these are held on separate tenancies, even if nominally entered as one unit in the Register of Crofts, and the crofter therefore has an incontestable acquisition right in relation to a house on each of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked me for an elucidation. The position seems to be that generally a number of crofters leave their croft for lengthy periods because they are seamen or employed in one of the oil-related developments or have other employment which demands that they should absent themselves from their homes. These crofters arrange to sub-let their land to a relative or a neighbour so that it can be utilised for raising stock or growing crops. As I understand it, it is a fact of crofting life that crofters have to find work away from the croft. In the Government's view it would be wrong to penalise them by denying them the right given to other crofters to acquire their house site and so become owner occupiers of the dwelling-house which they or their forebears have provided. That seems to me to be the Government position. I hope that that explanation will be of some help to the noble Lord.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that this Amendment has more apparent than real effect, since any crofter will have a right to acquire his croft. It is simply the question of the incontestable right which worried me. I am sorry that it appears that, on this occasion, I am trying to champion the good crofter more than the Government. However, as this is a very small point and as the Government have twice been given a chance to reconsider, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Authorisation by Land Court of acquisition of croft land.]:
3.10 p.m.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out line 44.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, what is proposed here is worthy of consideration. The Land Court must take into consideration the extent of land owned by the landowner quite regardless of the area of land which the crofter wants to take over, and this seems to be a very bad principle. The Government have consistently refused to amend the general principle of the iniquitous, bad legislation proposed in this clause. Therefore I feel that I must take out of the Bill at least this short sentence which, while it does not materially alter the whole Bill, at least removes a small amount of the iniquity. Can anyone advocate that the land should be allowed to suffer substantial detriment? That is what the Bill says, and, furthermore, in the case of large estates, such as those owned by the Secretary of State, and land already nationalised, there must be substantial damage before the Land Court can consider whether or not the crofter should be allowed to acquire his land.
In Committee the Minister put it to me that at no stage had there been representation on this point from the Scottish Landowners' Federation. I took up the matter with the Federation. It apologised for not making representation and it feels that this question should certainly have been brought before the officials; but the position is that there has been so much bad legislation from this Government, affecting so many matters, that despite taking on extra staff, the Federation has been completely swamped. It is not surprising that legislation such as that on development land tax, forestry taxation, and the like, which has nationwide application, should have received more attention than the contents of this Bill, which has a limited application.
The Minister further tried to clear the Government in their inserting this clause in the Bill by saying that what is proposed had been included in the Bill put forward by the Conservative Government. It was in that Bill, but I do not think that that Bill ever went through this House, and I am very doubtful whether any
362
Conservative Minister would have been allowed to leave this clause in the Bill. It is a very bad clause and I hope that the Minister will be able to give way on something here. I feel that we cannot allow a clause permitting substantial detriment to the land; land which I have taken much trouble to look after. To permit a clause, which would allow substantial damage, to go through without dividing the House would be wrong.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, first, I was sorry that on an earlier Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, should have expressed surprise that my noble friend Lord Burton was raising a point which was a matter of benefit to the crofters, because he has always seen this subject—which is a highly technical one, on which he is an expert—from the point of view of both the crofters and the landowners. Looking at this Part of the Bill we can all be excused if we find it rather difficult to follow. But my interpretation of it is rather different from that of my noble friend, and I shall be glad to have the Government's official interpretation of it now.
I was the Secretary of State for Scotland who introduced in another place the earlier Bill, which was in almost identical wording throughout, and I spoke on it during the Second Reading which it obtained in another place before it fell prior to the February 1974 General Election. I was always ready to consider improvements and changes to the Bill when it was going through. But the words, which my noble friend suggests should be taken out, can, I believe, be read in different ways. Paragraph (a) starts:
"… in all the circumstances pertaining to the landlord …".
That would appear to cover everything, including the extent of the land owned by him, in any case; so is it really necessary to have these words at all? If it is necessary to have these words, then it could be to his advantage that the extent of the land owned by him is taken into consideration; that is, he may have problems in crofts which are owned by him in another part of Scotland, or nearby, which need to be taken into account in considering the case.
The taking into account of the "extent of land owned by him" could well be a

363
consideration. As my noble friend has read it, this would mean that matters which were advantageous to the landowner's case would be taken into account as well as merely whether he was a large or small landowner. But we must also go a little further, because, unless the Government deny it, there are some further words which qualify the words which my noble friend seeks to remove. The subsection reads:
"… having regard to the extent of land owned by him to which the Act of 1955 applies …",
There is a comma after the word "applies". My understanding is that to remove the words which my noble friend suggests should be removed, without also removing the words,
"to which the Act of 1955 applies";
would not he to take out a complete sentence. That would leave paragraph (a) almost meaningless because it would not read on and make sense. Those qualifying words,
… to which the Act of 1955 applies "
presumably are to show that this is to take into account the extent of the land which comes under the crofting Acts. Like my noble friend, I should like to hear from the Government why it is necessary to have this written in, considering that just above we already have the words:
"… in all the circumstances pertaining to the landlord …".
I do not think that my noble friend need consider that these words will necessarily be detrimental to the landlord. Certainly the consideration, in so far as it needs to be put in at all, could mean that some particular difficulties which the landowner might have elsewhere in the crofting part of Scotland would be taken into account.
Lord HUGHES: I should like to join in the discussion on this matter before my noble friend replies. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has not left out everything that he intended to leave out, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has pointed out; but like him I think that the wording as it stands could be of advantage to certain crofting landlords and of disadvantage to others. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I accept that if these words were taken out the Land Court would still be able to take into consideration the amount
364
of crofting land which an owner had, because it would be one of the circumstances pertaining to the landlord.
But the inclusion of these words, along with the more general first part of the paragraph, seems to me to indicate that this is a circumstance to which the Land Court must specially apply itself. It could be a special circumstance if, for instance, the amount of land which was to be taken away, or was to be affected, was appreciably a large part of what the owner had. That could be something which would be more likely to cost him a substantial degree of hardship. But, looking at it the other way, if he owned a considerable amount of crofting land and, if what was being affected by this proposal was a relatively small part of his land, then the Land Court would find it easier to determine that there was no substantial degree of hardship involved. So obviously the matter can apply either way, and it seems to me that it would be of advantage to leave the wording exactly as it is
Lord K1RKHILL: My Lords, I must ask the House to resist this Amendment which I am advised is defective in its drafting and ineffective for its apparent purpose. I shall try to explain both the real intention behind the inclusion in the Bill of the words,
"… having regard to the extent of land owned by him to which the Act of 1955 applies, …".
and why the Government think that these words ought to be retained. Of course, I am mindful of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, because, quite clearly, his interpretation is very much in accord with the Government's view, as is the interpretation just enunciated by my noble friend Lord Hughes.
My Lords, if I could be of some help, the Government's position about some of the misunderstandings which appear to be emerging about Clause 2(2)(a) is that the subsection provides that the Land Court, in assessing substantial hardship to a landlord, is required to have regard to
"the extent of land owned by him to which the Act of 1955 applies,"—
in other words, to the landlord's holding of croft land, not his overall holding—and this is the important point. This requirement is included in the Bill as a

365
specific safeguard of the interests of landlords, especially small landowners owning one or perhaps two crofts, for whom a requirement to sell would create hardship by depriving them of the whole or the major part of their interest in croft land. However, even if this specific requirement were removed from the Bill the Government would expect that the Land Court would still have regard to the relation which the particular croft bore to the landlord's holding of croft land. This would be a relevant factor in the Land Court's assessment of substantial hardship to a landlord, and would be part of the court's assessment of "all the circumstances pertaining to the landlord", which is of course another requirement of Clause 2(2)(a). The purpose of including the specific requirement on the court to look at the landlord's holding of croft land is to ensure that the court considers this in all cases where it is asked to assess substantial hardship.
I would also point out to your Lordships that, as has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, these same words were included in the Conservative Bill in the other place before the Bill fell in early 1974. In the light of my explanation, I think the noble Lord, Lord Burton, might not wish to press this Amendment.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for the clear explanations which have been given. It is quite obvious that my drafting is defective, and I must therefore obviously ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment. I think the explanations which I have been given will be very welcome, as I think they have cleared the air very substantially on this. I am still not entirely happy myself that the Secretary of State, for instance, who owns more crofts than anyone else, or the Stornoway Trust, which is perhaps the second biggest landowner, might well be at an advantage in relation to someone who owns only a few crofts. But, having drawn your Lordships' attention to this matter, I must beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.23 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 13, leave out (" granted subject to such ") and insert (" at such nominal annual rent, for such period of not less than 20 years and subject to such other ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be of help to your Lordships if Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 were discussed with this Amendment. They are in the names of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye and my noble friend Lord Burton. If they are in agreement, I think it would help, because all these Amendments are on the same subject. At the Committee stage we had a discussion about the question of sporting rights on inbye land, and it was recognised that, although this problem would not occur frequently, none the less there are valuable sporting rights on certain inbye land.
The Amendment which I now beg to move, No. 6, has a similar effect to one which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye tabled at the Committee stage and which he has now retabled, if not in the same words then in very similar words, as Amendment No. 7. The Government appeared to give a sympathetic response to considering this matter further. One or two of us pointed out that in the case of the Forestry Commission there was a parallel, because leases were agreed for 21 years or so, and that was a Government agency. As a result of the discussion which has continued since the Committee stage among those concerned and with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, I believe that the wording of my Amendment will go a long way to meet the anxiety of noble Lords expressed in the Committee when this was being considered, and would at the same time not cause any difficulties or complications for the Government as regards their Bill.
There is another point, and that is the question of continuity; for example, if a crofter dies. The Government made it clear that they did not want to write into the Bill provisions to deal with that situation, but I understand from the consultations which I have just mentioned, which have taken place since the Committee stage, that there is nothing to stop the Land Court from arranging as a condition that an ex-landlord has the right of pre-emption for this purpose: that is to say, in connection with sporting rights. I trust that the Land Court will note this and also the tenor of these debates, and will exercise this option in

367
appropriate cases. If I may remind your Lordships of what was said in Committee at that time it was indicated that, for example, one part of a shoot being taken out could very much devalue the shooting rights. As my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye pointed out at that earlier stage, a situation of this kind is likely to arise infrequently as it applies to the inbye land, but that is not a reason for injustice. It is not a reason why injustice should be suffered that it is going to be suffered by only a few. I beg to move.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that we should take Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together. I suppose it is not often that a Minister has the succulent dish put in front of him of three Amendments, all on the same point, from which he can make his selection; but the point is a very valid one, which I hope will gain his sympathy. Indeed, in the letter which he was good enough to send to those noble Lords who have taken an interest in this matter he indicated that the Government would not be enthusiastic for such an Amendment but, nevertheless, would not be resistant to an Amendment in this sense. I think it is very important, because at the Committee stage and also on Second Reading I challenged the Government as to whether the Land Court had or had not got jurisdiction to take into account sporting rights when arriving at a price for a croft. The Minister gave me the impression, and I think perhaps gave the impression to your Lordships, on Second Reading and later in Committee, that indeed the Land Court had such power. But now the Minister has been good enough to make it clear to us that
"the discretion does not however extend to taking account of sporting rights in fixing the crofting value which a crofter pays for his croft, since this is derived from capitalisation of the rent and the value of sporting rights is not taken into account in fixing a fair rent".
Therefore, although I hate to say it, I think we were right and perhaps the Minister was not on absolutely sound ground at that time. Nevertheless, let that be so; we are grateful now to the Minister for his reconsideration of the matter.
As regards the limitation in this Amendment, which gives no continuity, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy,
368
said, continuity could be obtained, if a croft changes hands, if the Land Court would give authority and direction that a conveyance was to be in the form of a feu writ or otherwise subject to a condition giving the ex-landlord the right of pre-emption over the croft land. So we have gained two things for which I think we must be grateful: first, a general willingness to look at this pleasant dish of Amendments that we have placed before the Minister; secondly, to know that there is a way round the right of succession if the Land Court feel able so to direct. I hope that the point we raised in Committee and on Second Reading is going to end happily with the Government acceding to one of the three beautiful Amendments, all on the same point, which have been placed before them.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for sending the letter which, unfortunately, since I was not at home, did not reach me until Question Time today. It appears that he has been most helpful on these points and I think we should be grateful to him. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy appears to satisfy him and to meet all the points. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give us a further satisfactory reply when he answers.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, once again this particular point has brought forth interesting contributions from a number of noble Lords. The Government are sensitive to the fact that this particular issue has been the subject of considerable and prolonged debate and I indicated as much in my letter. In passing I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the Minister was on sound ground but perhaps did not express himself with his usual impeccable clarity. That said, I should certainly like to assure your Lordships that in the Government's view it would be undesirable to place any restrictions on the powers of the Land Court in considering the terms and conditions under which a crofter should grant a lease to the landlord. The Land Court considerations will take account of the submissions made to them and, as I have explained, it is expected that the Court would, in appropriate cases, include a condition that the rent should be at a nominal value.

369
As I have been reminded, I promised to look further at this particular point, and I can say that the Government are still of the opinion that it would be best to leave the question of the amount of rent to be paid and the duration of a sporting lease to the full discretion of the Land Court. It is clear from the discussions today and from the concern expressed in previous debates and to me personally from time to time between these two stages of the Bill, that these are matters on which noble Lords opposite feel deeply. In view of this, the Government would not oppose the Amendment if it is the wish of this House that it should be accepted.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I must rise to my feet to thank the noble Lord because it sounds as though it is my Amendment, Amendment No. 6, which he prefers of those offered.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if I may intervene, I should have stated very clearly at the outset that, indeed, I prefer the Amendment in the name of Lord Campbell of Croy, before the others.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I hope that my noble friends will feel that Amendment No. 6, as the one the Government prefer, meets the points which they have raised. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the trouble he has taken since Committee stage to go into this question with my noble friends and myself and for the fact that we have now reached agreement on a redrafting of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("and also the value of any timber growing on the croft land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, made any reference to this in his letter to us but I think there is a considerable point here. It is the question of timber on any crofting ground. I think that one of the problems here has been the diverse nature of crofting ground spread throughout the Highlands. I think that those crofts already nationalised and
370
belonging to the Secretary of State—and they amount to about one-eighth of the crofts—do not perhaps have any, or many, of the circumstances to which this Amendment applies. But there are a number of cases. For instance, my noble friend Lord Lovat has just cut some fine mature Scotch firs off land adjoining some belonging to me. As these trees adjoined a croft and the crofter had acquired the right of grazing in the wood, the land on which the wood was situated could have been compulsorily acquired by the crofter who then could have sold the timber for many times what he paid for the land.
I can think of a number of similar situations and if we do not alter the Bill to make provision for the value of timber on the crofting ground, then, as soon as there is a threat of a crofter buying his croft any prudent landowner will feel bound to fell any timber standing on the croft. It may be that this timber is not mature; it may be that it is good birch wood providing shelter for grazing; and there may be many reasons why the timber should not be felled. It might be just amenity timber which it would be a pity to cut off. Therefore, I feel it essential that somewhere there is written into the Bill that when the Land Court value croft land, they not only take 15 times the actual rental but also take into account the value of the timber standing on any croft ground at the time.
There is one other problem which arises —and I hope the noble Lord will see his way to being able to accept this Amendment—and that is that probably the Land Court themselves are not competent to value timber. I think that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy brought up this matter on Committee saying that it would be necessary for them to bring in valuers. Where timber was concerned, I think this would be very necessary because most of the Land Court members are more of a farming type. Indeed, some time in the past I had some problem over birch wood which the Land Court appeared to think was entirely valueless; so that it is important, if we accept something on this basis, that something be written into the Bill about the valuing of the timber also. I beg to move.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, I would support what my noble friend Lord Burton

371
has said. Speaking as an interested party, I should like to draw the Government's attention to the fact that they overlooked in the drafting of the Bill the aspect of timber growing on a croft. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and the Government have been at a disadvantage in framing the proposals. What constitutes a croft? Of course, the answer is: "How long is a piece of string?" because no two crofts are alike. On the West coast there is no timber and there are very few sporting amenities. On the East coast, there are river valleys, sporting assets, and very valuable timber.
Again, speaking as an interested party, the value of timber on outruns on the estate that I know best is very much more valuable than the agricultural land which runs below them. Some of these trees are natural regeneration, usually conifers; and crofters have always had free right to cut their birch wood for fire. Birch wood and peat before the introduction of hydroelectricity had been the fuel supply required at the higher levels to keep the croft warm. The timber is of very great value and no crofter considers that to be his on either an outrun or inbye land where trees have been planted in many cases for amenity or shelter. This is an oversight in the drafting of the proposals and I support my noble friend Lord Burton. I am speaking with some knowledge and complete conviction that the timber rights are different from a crofter having the rights to his house or to his arable land. I hope that this will be borne in mind by the Government.
3.40 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said, this was a point on which several noble Lords expressed views at Committee stage. If I may assure the noble Lord, of course professional advice reflecting a number of disciplines will be available to the Land Court, and professional valuation advice is certainly included in that comprehensive concept. In response to a request from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, at the Committee stage, I set out at some length the Government's views on how a landlord could retain or obtain the value of any timber growing on croft land. My statement then remains the Government's view on how the problem of timber
372
should be dealt with and, accordingly, I ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
First, the problem of valuable timber will affect only a very small number of the conveyances of land under the Bill. This was a point which the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Lovat, recognised at Committee stage. The Government hope that in those few cases where a landlord does have valuable trees on croft land an agreement on the lines suggested at Committee stage could be reached between landlord and crofter. As the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has just said, the crofter does not think he owns these trees, and I for one have sufficient faith in the fairness of crofters to believe that the crofter would not harbour unreasonable expectations on the subject.
It would therefore be wrong, in the Government's view, to deal with the matter in the sweeping manner of the Amendment, which would impose a requirement on all crofters who wish to acquire their land to have to pay for any timber that happens to be growing on that land. The effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, would be to require the crofter to pay for an asset which, in many cases, might never be marketable. Furthermore, although the crofter does not own the timber on his croft, neither does the landlord have an unrestricted claim to it. The landlord has the right, as laid down in Schedule 2, paragraph 10(d) to the 1955 Act, to enter a croft to cut or take timber,
"excepting timber and other trees planted by the crofter or any of his predecessors in the tenancy, or which may be necessary for ornament or shelter".
It would be wrong for the landlord to receive a payment from a crofter for such timber as the landlord could never have used as long as the croft remained on tenancy, or indeed to lay claim to timber planted by the crofter or one of his predecessors in the tenancy.
I therefore ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment. In the Government's view, its effect is too sweeping for what is admitted to be a minor point, which the Government feel can be dealt with more properly by agreement between the parties concerned.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to intervene at this

373
stage because in response to an inquiry by me, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, made a statement about this at the Committee stage. I agree with him straightaway that I think none of us want to insert into this Bill unnecessary machinery which would automatically come into action when there was a single or two or three trees of little value on the croft land in question. But we are concerned in the few cases where there is valuable timber. There seems to be nothing in the Bill to deal with those cases. The Government recognised on a previous occasion such cases can arise. My noble friend Lord Lovat has confirmed it again today. The noble Lord told us—and I do not dissent from this—that agreement between the crofter and the land owner is to be encouraged. One hopes that this will be arrived at in all cases. Again, we cannot assume it will; and the question therefore still is: how is this matter to be dealt with if there is disagreement between the land owner and the crofter?
On a previous Amendment my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye pointed out that one cannot just dismiss injustice or unfairness because it is going to happen in only a few cases to a few people. That is why we should like to know whether the Government can say what is to be done if there is disagreement, and whether they think something should be put in the Bill. For my part, if the noble Lord can indicate how this can be dealt with satisfactorily and give us an assurance about that without it needing to be written into the Bill, I should be satisfied. We have still not been told what happens when there is disagreement on this matter in the few cases which will arise where there is valuable timber.
3.47 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Minister in suggesting that, for some of the reasons which he stated, it would not be right that this Amendment should be accepted. As my noble friend pointed out, if there is timber on the croft, the effect of the Amendment would be to require the crofter to buy that timber, or pay a price reflecting its value, even although he or his predecessor as a crofter had been responsible for putting it in. Obviously, the intention of the Amendment is that timber for which the land owner has been responsible and where
374
in the normal circumstances he could have been expected in due course to recover the value, should not be transferred at no value. If the only consideration which the Land Court can take into account is the crofting value of the land—and that is laid down as being 15 times the annual rental—that in effect means the timber is not being valued at all. So it is perfectly obvious that the remedy is the one which my noble friend has suggested: in the circumstances it should be a matter of agreement.
But the Bill as it stands does not provide for that; it lays down specifically that if there is no agreement between the landlord and the crofter, then only the crofting value shall be paid, and it will not be possible, so far as I can see, for the Land Court to do other than fix the compensation at 15 times the crofting rental. My noble friend has clearly set out his reasons for not accepting the Amendment, because in certain circumstances it could be grossly unfair to certain crofters. Accepting the fact that there are in the Bill circumstances in which the crofting landlord should be entitled to payment, I do not think the Government can rest on the wording as it is at the present time. It may be the solution here is one which Secretaries of State for Scotland in the past have found helpful, in being able to rest on the administrative guidance which may be given. I suggest to my noble friend—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as a former Secretary of State for Scotland might find this a possible solution to the matter—that something of this kind might be undertaken.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, if I may intervene before the noble Lord sits down—because I have spoken once and I can only intervene now as this is Report stage—the noble Lord should take note of the point, which is a good one, which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. It should not be the value of any timber growing on the croft land, but the value of any timber which belongs to the land owner and which is not the crofter's because he has planted it himself.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, on this intricate matter the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made the point clear, and the only comment I would make is

375
upon the Minister's argument against this Amendment that only a few people will be involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, reminded the House, it is our duty, as Parliament, to correct an unfairness to one or two people just as much as it is to correct an unfairness to a large number of people. I deplore the Government's using the argument in support of a case that "there will be only a few of them". I think that is clearly immoral and wrong, and I cannot resist saying so.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I am placed in something of a difficulty here because it seems that there is indeed a flaw in my Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for having put the case in a nutshell. The position at the moment is not satisfactory and obviously we must return to this on Third Reading. I would hope that the Government might produce a satisfactory Amendment on Third Reading. I know, for instance, of a case where the croft rental is only £5; 15 times that would be £75, which would be the value of the croft. On the outrun there is timber worth £5,000, and it is quite wrong that the croft should be bought for £75 when there is £5,000 worth of timber on it. The obvious answer is that as soon as there is a question of selling it, the landlord is going to stall any sale and cut the timber, whether or not it is fit. What would have to be cut may be a very nice piece of amenity timber, as I mentioned, or it may be used as a shelter for grazing. But obviously the landlord is not going to leave £5,000 minus £75 to the crofter, and I think it would be the greatest pity if something was not done. The noble Lord said that crofters might lose the value of timber if my Amendment were accepted. I can think of one or two small cases where this would be so. Accordingly, although my Amendment is not quite satisfactory, could the Minister perhaps speak again?
Lord KIRKHILL: Perhaps I might just intervene at this moment in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, to assure him that if he reads what I said at Committee stage he will get a perfect explanation of where the minority can seek redress. At that time I expressly mentioned the position of the Land Court in those several but peculiar circumstances.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I think most of us probably read through what the noble Lord said on Committee stage, but I put this Amendment down because I was afraid that, despite the fact that he gave us a very lengthy commentary and made some very valid points on the matter, the point still has not been met, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has just said. I think, therefore, something more must be done; but as there is a flaw in this Amendment I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.54 p.m.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("and also the value of any sporting rights pertaining to the croft.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am in a slight difficulty here because if we are to get a nominal rent for sporting rights, as has now been accepted as a result of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, then it would be unreasonable to ask for a capital value on which the crofter would be getting no return.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I should think "not moved" would be the solution here.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said "not moved", but I am not sure about that because unfortunately the noble Lord the Minister qualified his comment by saying that it would be at the discretion of the Land Court as to whether or not the rent should be a nominal one. If the Land Court decided that there should be no lease and there was still a capital value for sportings, as there could well be, then it is not right for it to be taken away from the landowner for nothing. Consequently, there is some difficulty here which I hope the Government may be able to resolve between now and Third Reading. I am sure there are cases where there should be a sporting value put on but where there is to be a long lease to be granted at a nominal rent it is not reasonable that those sporting values should be of any consequence.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, we have had some discussion on this issue previously and I think we have talked about the landlords' interest in the sporting rights pertaining to croft land. There is a broad measure of agreement on both sides that in general there is little sporting value on inbye land. However, the Government recognise that there are some crofts, particularly on the East Coast and in the Uists, where sporting rights over croft land are of value to landlords.
Clause 2(3) of the Bill contains safeguards for the landlord's sporting interests by providing that landlords should be entitled to a lease of sportings in those cases where they can prove that the loss of the rights would materially affect their interests. The Government have accepted the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, specifying that any such lease should be at a nominal rent and for a period of not less than 20 years. In the Government's view, it would be unfair on crofters to require them to pay the value of sporting rights over their land and then to require them by Statute to lease the rights to their former landlord at a nominal rent. If the crofter were to pay for the sportings, he should be entitled to expect a realistic rental for them from the tenant of his choice, who would not necessarily be his former landlord. On this account alone, I would ask your Lordships to resist the Amendment.
Moreover, I think we should also bear in mind the points made at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who spoke with some authority on the valuation of sporting rights. The noble Lord quite rightly said that the value of sporting rights below a certain acreage is limited and that it is difficult to value sporting rights since they are based entirely on supply and demand. Therefore this Amendment would impose on the Land Court the onerous task of assessing the sporting value in all conveyances of land under the Bill, whether or not the rights were of any real value to the landlord and whether or not he made regular use of those rights. Furthermore, this valuation might not fully recompense the landlord for the loss of his rights, since the rights might be much less valuable as an individual sporting interest related to the particular croft than as part of the larger sporting estate in the landlord's ownership.
378
But I am opposed to this Amendment on grounds of principle. The purpose of this Bill—and I have said this on several previous occasions—is to enable crofters to obtain rights of ownership over those elements which they enjoy as tenants. It is not the Bill's primary purpose to provide for the transfer of sporting rights, although the Government have done something to accommodate representations from the Opposition on that latter point. Where sporting rights are of value to landlords, the proper course, as the Bill recognises, is for special arrangements to be made for the landlord to retain these rights. Sporting rights can be an emotive issue in the Highlands, and in the Government's view it is in the landlord's interests to rest on the safeguards contained in Clause 2(3). I hope, therefore, that in the light of my remarks the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will not feel that he need press this Amendment.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will find it possible to withdraw, because after all if this were to go into the Bill, having regard to the Amendment which my noble friend has already accepted, a ridiculously anomalous position could occur. There could be the situation that in determining the compensation account had to be taken of the value of the sporting rights which went with the land, and the crofter would then be required to pay on that basis. Having acquired them on that basis, he is then obliged, because of the Amendment which has just been passed, to turn them over at a nominal value. Obviously there is no need to have it both ways. The landlord's ownership of the sporting rights is now adequately covered by the Amendment already accepted by my noble friend; in other words, he will retain these rights for a period of not less than 20 years on payment of a purely nominal rent. I think in these circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Burton, should feel satisfied that he has accomplished a lot more and received more out of the Government on a matter of this kind than has been his normal fortune; and he should not press his luck too hard.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I am afraid that we have heard a number of inaccuracies. At every stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said that the

379
majority of the sporting rights are on common grazing, and at every stage I have stood up and said that that is not the case. I must again hasten to disillusion him. The low ground shootings can indeed be of very much greater consequence than any sporting rights on open ground. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, who said that much of the open ground, particularly on the West Coast, is so devastated by hooded crows that there is not much to shoot on it, and that is probably the case. But there are some very good low ground shootings which can be completely devastated.
There was some mention of maps in Committee, and when they were found they were sent to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, instead of to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I hope that they will eventually find their way to those concerned, because they show that there could be very considerable damage here. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, there is some difficulty. But he was not quite right, because there is no compulsion on the landlord to make any lease and therefore sporting rights can well be acquired by the crofter for a nil value, because he is paying only £15 for his rental which does not include the sporting. If there was compulsion where the landlord required sporting rights to be leased back at a nominal rent, that would be a different matter but it is left entirely to his discretion. Therefore, the crofter could well acquire sporting rights for nothing.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the noble Lord may find it helpful if I say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced in the other place that he will set up an inquiry into the whole question of common grazings. So that in the rather longer term his point can at least be yet again elucidated.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I am not quite sure about that. This may well meet part of the situation. I was a little worried when the Minister said that there was some difficulty about valuations because, after all, the assessor for rating purposes is constantly valuing sporting rights. Furthermore, whenever there is a transfer of land the district valuer values it. So there is no difficulty about it. It is
380
inaccurate to say that there is some difficulty in assessing sporting rights. If one reads the report in Hansard of what happened in the other place, one finds most awful ignorance and total misconceptions on this matter. For instance, even a Scottish Nationalist farmer, who I should have thought would know better, talked complete nonsense about rights to shoot deer on crofting ground. This has nothing whatsoever to do with it. But there is a valuable asset here which could be lost if something is not done, though I agree that in view of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, my Amendment may not be valid today. But something ought to be done before we let the Bill leave us. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.3 p.m.
Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert—
("(7) The landlord or his successors shall have the right of pre-emption over the relevant land.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is perhaps one of the most important Amendments before us today. Your Lordships will remember that in Committee there were very strong feelings about this point. Indeed, having asked your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment, I received considerable stick afterwards for doing so. I think I should be right in saying that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was entirely one of principle. I thought that the principle was not very strong, not very valid. But surely we should not govern the country by principle; we must use logic and decide what is good for the country and what is bad for it. Certain people think it unreasonable that anyone should own anything, which does not seem logical, but that is what it amounts to.
In dealing with this Amendment earlier, we heard about the problem of the possible sale of crofts for holiday homes and for undesirable developments. But if this Amendment were accepted it would get over a good many of the problems which we discussed earlier about sporting rights, because where they are not transferable through successors we should be able, if we had this power in the Bill, to buy back

381
any crofting ground if it came up for sale again and the sporting rights could be safeguarded. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will get over his worry about pre-emption. I cannot understand the Government's worry about this. I think it came up on the feudal reform Bill. It seems to be felt that if the right of pre-emption is written in, the crofter will lose something. The noble Lord said that there might be some delay and he might lose a good sale. But the delay is minimal, and I have never heard of a sale being lost because there was a preemption clause in a feudal transaction. There is really no difference between writing a pre-emption into this Bill and writing it into a feudal transaction. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I indicated in Committee that the Government were opposed to this Amendment in principle, and I hasten to assure the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that I do not think the Government's stand on principle is necessarily illogical. Indeed, I consider that the Government's principle in this case is perfectly logical. That remains our position today. It would be contrary to the Government's commitment to land tenure reform to include a provision in this Bill which would be inconsistent with their intention on that point. That is not to say, however, that a pre-emption right could not be written into a conveyance by feu writ or otherwise, which would secure for the landlord an option to purchase the croft land which he was conveying to the crofter if the latter wished to resell; and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, made this last point earlier this afternoon.
The landlord could include a preemption condition in a conveyance by agreement with the crofter, and I have no doubt that there will be many crofters who would respect the landlord's wish that the land should not go to a third party. Failing agreement, it would be open to the landlord to seek to have the Land Court impose a pre-emption right as part of the conditions of sale. Alternatively, there is, as I said in Committee, nothing at all to prevent a landlord from buying back croft land if it is put on the market. These possibilities which I have outlined are available as the Bill stands, and, in the Government's view afford a reasonable opportunity to the landlord to get back his
382
land in the event of sale in order, for instance, to protect his sporting interests. For the reasons which I have constantly stated during our many discussions, the Government cannot agree to a pre-emption provision being written into the Bill and I ask your Lordships to resist the Amendment.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, I am a little at a loss to follow the noble Lord's stand this afternoon. I thought that on the last occasion when we discussed this matter he said that the Government were opposed to the feudal principle, implying that landlords were, without exception, bad and extortionist in their approach; and therefore they should not have the chance, even although the crofter is completely protected, of inroads of large acquisition. I got the impression, as I am sure did most noble Lords, that the pre-emption was opposed because it smacked of feudalism. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, could put me right on that point.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government's view is that, in the light of our policy of reviewing the whole question of the law as it pertains to land tenure, they will not continue to give active support to the feudal system by writing into the Bill the kind of provision which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, seems to think is necessary. What I have explained this afternoon is that under existing Scots law feu writs can be constructed in a number of different ways. It is not the purpose of this Bill in any way to amend Scots law in this respect.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer, but possibly in the Government's mind there is a hostile attitude towards the landowner versus the crofter. In my experience this is very seldom the case, except when estates change hands frequently; then landowners and crofters are often at loggerheads, particularly in the West where one reads of the development of unfortunate relationships. If again I may add a personal note —and I do so without trying to appear to be a benevolent despot I know of many estates which have not put up the rents of crofters for 40 years. As the crofter is the interested party in selling his land to the highest bidder, I suggest that there is no

383
reason why the landlord should pay just as much for the purchase of that croft as would a total stranger who comes from far away and who has no understanding of and no knowledge of the traditions which go with the feudal system. On the estate I know best, crofters have carried on from father to son for generations and would prefer to see somebody they knew than a total stranger from the South. Many of the points contained in this Bill will bring about the destruction of the crofting system. The crofters are the yeomen of Scotland, the backbone of the country. If everybody sells their crofts and moves into council houses, it will be the end of a very fine section of the community. I add that as an afterthought.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I am in some difficulty because I do not think that the noble Lord has answered the problem. I stand to be corrected on this point, but I do not believe that the Land Court are empowered to grant a feu. They are bound to give to the crofter an outright disposition at a price of 15 times the annual rental. Indeed, we have asked that sporting rights and timber should be added.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and reiterate that the Land Court will have the power to impose a pre-emption right as one of the conditions of sale.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, this is welcome news. Previously we had not been able to read this in the Bill, but if the noble Lord is able to give us that assurance, I am sure that we shall all be very grateful. There is no point in pursuing the Amendment, and therefore I ask for your Lordships' leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Determination by Land Court of terms and conditions for conveyance of the site of the dwelling-house]:
4.12 p.m.
Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 12, at end insert ("and in no circumstances will the landlord's expenses be greater than the amount received for the sale of the site:").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again we are in some difficulty, because I do not think it has been appreciated how great will be the expense of transferring some of this croft land. It is not only the cost of the actual conveyance; many crofts have very ill-defined boundaries. While talking about this Amendment, I believe that it would be in order if I were to deal with the other Amendment regarding the expense of purchasing the croft land as well as the croft house site, to which reference has been made. During the Committee stage we did not put down an Amendment on this subject but there were several expressions of concern about what might happen over the expense of conveying croft ground. Possibly many people have not appreciated how ill-defined the croft boundaries are. This has not mattered in the past; a few yards here and there of let ground were of no consequence. However, if the land is to be sold and proper titles prepared, obviously there must be complete accuracy regarding the croft boundaries.
I have a case that is to come shortly before the Land Court; it is being brought by the crofter. In 1927, the Land Court gave a ruling about what was the area of the croft and laid down that it was a certain acreage. When one looks now at the Ordnance Survey map and considers the acreage of the croft, one finds that there is a discrepancy of about an acre. Instead of the croft being eight-point something acres, the Ordnance Survey map shows that it amounts to nine-point something acres. In addition, there is one ill-defined boundary. In the past, the crofter has been slack. The result is that there are no proper fences and the crofter is claiming even further ground, despite the fact that in 1958 the Land Court laid down what they considered to be the acreage. This may well involve a good deal of argument. Lawyers and court expenses would be involved. There is little doubt that the expense of trying to decide the area of the land will be considerably in excess of the value of the land itself. In this case, about two acres are involved, but there will be many cases where only a few yards here and there will be in dispute; but the cost of trying to assess what the correct croft boundary is could be very considerable.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned the question

385
of valuers. There will be considerable complications regarding the valuation of housing, for which all the materials have perhaps been supplied by the landowner. The site will become the property of the crofter. Considerable difficulties, expense and complications will arise which have drifted on in the past because there has been a lease and the point has been of no consequence. However, as soon as a purchase is made, expense will be involved. As the Bill stands at the moment, the crofting landowner could be landed with substantial expense in excess of any purchase price that he will receive. Therefore, my suggestion is that in any particular case where a transaction is taking place and the expenses will exceed the purchase price, these should be borne by the crofter who is asking for the right to purchase his croft. As all the benefit will fall on the crofter, there seems to be no reason why the landlord should be out of pocket. Therefore, I move this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, may I add to what my noble friend has said. I feel sure that one ought to avoid a situation where the sale will amount to less than the expenses to which the seller will be put so that he comes out of the sale with a minus quantity. I am not sure whether it needs to be written into the Bill, but I am certain that it was right of my noble friend to raise this matter so that it may be clarified and so that we may have on the record the attitude of the Government.
Turning to the drafting of the Amendment, I think that the word "such" ought to appear after the first word "Any". Again it must be made clear that these are expenses which are all necessarily incurred. One would not want to have a situation where there could be any chance of one side or the other running up unnecessary expenses and the crofter then having to bear more expense than he ought to bear. In this kind of transaction both sides would want the expense to be at a minimum. At the same time, however, the Land Court may on occasion need the services of expert valuers. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to agree with the spirit of this Amendment, even though the Amendment itself may not be appropriate.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it is
386
somewhat surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, should find it necessary to table this Amendment, in view of the explanation which I gave in Committee of the Government's intentions as regards conveyancing costs, an explanation which I thought satisfied him at the time because he felt at that stage that it was unnecessary to move his Amendment substituting the word "shall" for "may" in line 9. The Government have already said that in the case of the house site, the policy intention to which the drafting gives effect is that the crofter will be expected to bear all the expenses of the landlord arising from the conveyance as well as his own expenses.
I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I can assure him, as, indeed, I can assure your Lordships' House, that in the Government's view the Amendment is superfluous since the intention of the present drafting is that an obligation may be imposed on the crofter to meet all the expenses of the landlord arising from the conveyance of the house site.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I think the Government's intention is quite clear. I remember well what the noble Lord said in Committee, but in spite of assurances given by the Government I am not really sure what the Bill lays down. I tabled the Amendment again because I felt that the point was not fully covered, but if the noble Lord is advised to the contrary, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Crofter's right to share in value of land resumed by landlord]:
4.22 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 11, line 17, leave out from ("Where") to ("according") in line 20 and insert ("the land so resumed forms or forms part of a common grazing, the share of the value of that land payable to the crofters sharing in the common grazing shall be apportioned among such crofters").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to remove from the Land Court the primary duty which the Bill laid upon it in every case to apportion among shareholders in a common grazing the share determined under Clause 9(1) of the Bill of the value of land resumed from that grazing. The

387
Court is at present required by Clause 9(4) to apportion such share among the individual shareholders in accordance with their common grazing rights. The Court has expressed concern that this duty could involve it in a time-consuming exercise in cases where a small sum—perhaps only one or two pounds—was to be apportioned among a large number of shareholders according to a complex pattern of individual grazing rights.
This Amendment, which I hope will find favour with your Lordships, would resolve this difficulty. The subsection so amended will provide that shareholders in a common grazing will have a right to share in the sum determined by the Court, but does not specify who is to be responsible for the apportionment of that sum. This leaves the apportionment to be carried out on the initiative of the landlord with the agreement of the individual crofters. It will not prevent a landlord, such as the Stornoway Trust, agreeing with shareholders in a common grazing that the money should be paid to the common grazing fund. But the Land Court is not excluded from having jurisdiction in the matter if the need arises. If a crofter and landlord fail to agree as to the content of the crofter's individual common grazing right, it will be a question for the Land Court to decide if brought before the Court under Section 4(1) of the 1961 Act.
In effect this arrangement parallels the provisions of Section 12 of the 1955 Act relating to the payment of adequate compensation to shareholders on resumption of grazings land by a landlord. The present arrangement for paying adequate compensation is that the Land Court determines as part of the resumption process the amount of compensation to be paid by the landlord, but does not apportion this compensation among shareholders. It is left to the agreement of the landlord and the shareholders to decide on how the money should be paid, whether it should be to a common grazings fund or whether it should be paid to the individual shareholders in proportion to their rights in the common grazing.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has also tabled an Amendment to this subsection. His Amendment seeks to meet the points raised by the Stornoway
388
Trust by providing that the share in value on resumption of common grazing land shall be paid to the relevant common grazing committee in those cases where a majority of shareholders decide to waive their individual rights. I cannot recommend that Amendment to your Lordships since it would cut across the crofter's right to his individual share in value of common grazing land. In the interests of equity this right must be maintained. However, as I have already explained, the Government Amendment covers the Stornoway Trust's point by leaving the apportionment of value to be carried out by the landlord with the agreement of the shareholders in the same way as adequate compensation under Section 12 of the 1955 Act is paid by the landlord to shareholders. Nothing in Section 12 prevents the Stornoway Trust arranging to pay the compensation to a grazings committee rather than the individual crofters, and Clause 9(4) will not prevent a similar arrangement if the Government Amendment is accepted by your Lordships.
There are two reasons why the Amendment should be supported. First, it is necessary to prevent the Land Court from being required in all cases to apportion the share in value. This would obviously prove a difficulty. Secondly, the Amendment does not put any obstacle in the way of the point raised by the Stornoway Trust, that it should be free to arrange to pay the share in value to the appropriate grazings committee by arrangement rather than to the individual crofters. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated that this Amendment is designed to meet in part my Amendment No. 15. I agree that it does, and therefore I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to discuss my Amendment No. 15 with this present Amendment.
Since the Committee stage, I have been in touch with the Stornoway, Trust, which I said at that time had raised the matter with me. They have given their views on what the Minister said at the Committee stage. The Stornoway Trust hope to be able to retain their system, which they say has worked well and meets with the approval of the crofters concerned. In that case the value is retained by grazings

389
committees and used commonly for purposes generally for the benefit of the shareholder crofters concerned. They wanted to have that written into the Bill. My own view, represented in Amendment No. 15, was that there should be a choice open; that is to say, that the Land Court might apportion the value, or alternatively the practice of the Stornoway Trust would also be open under the Bill. Certainly the Stornoway Trust did not want to see the end of their system; they did not want to be forced to change, for no apparent reason, what had been carried out satisfactorily. Therefore we are glad to hear what the noble Lord said at the end of his speech, which was that the system practised by the Stornoway Trust can be continued under Amendment No. 14.
I think that one of the purposes of the Bill is to enhance the stature and functions of grazings committees. That was spoken about during earlier stages of the Bill and was certainly one of the purposes when the Bill was introduced, over two years ago. When I moved a similar Amendment at Committee stage to my present Amendment No. 15, the Government gave it as their view that the proposal would deprive a crofter shareholder, without his consent, of the right to which he was entitled, because that would apply to the minority of crofters who were in opposition to the majority—over 50 per cent.—who had opted for one choice; namely, that the money should go to the grazings committee.
I recognise that as a possible objection to my earlier Amendment and also to my present Amendment No. 15. There may be no difficulty in the Stornoway area and no objectors to the system as practised there, but elsewhere it could be that crofters in a minority could feel aggrieved. At Committee stage the Minister pointed out that a voluntary arrangement could be worked out in particular cases, and, as I have mentioned, the Stornoway Trust none the less still hope that something can be written into the Bill. One of their arguments which I mentioned at the Committee stage is that in some cases the Land Court would have difficulties in finding an acceptable basis for an apportionment, and the noble Lord the Minister referred to that just now.
Indeed, more than the wisdom of Solomon might be needed to determine
390
proportions in which to divide the value among a large number of shareholder/ crofters with a complex pattern of shares and conflicting opinions as to the weighting that should be applied. Amendment No. 14 would relieve the Land Court of that function, as I understand it, and the Land Court would have to deal only with the difficult matter of apportionment if a dispute was referred to it. If I understand correctly what was said just now by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, the Land Court would not automatically have to do it in every case. The effect of the Government's Amendment No. 14, which I accept, goes some way to meet the case I have put. It would leave the Stornoway Trust free to continue their present practice, so I would advise your Lordships to accept Amendment No. 14. In those circumstances, I will not move Amendment No. 15.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Provision as respects removal of land from crofting tenure]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 14, line 10, leave out (" constitution of new crofts or ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 26, which is linked to Amendment No. 16. The debate during the Committee stage on Amendment No. 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, was particularly useful, in that it drew to the attention of the Government an inappropriate reference in the Bill to the constitution of new crofts. The Amendment of the noble Lord was not acceptable at that time as it was too sweeping and would have removed a necessary safeguard for allowing decrofted land to be reinstated under crofting tenure as an enlargement to a croft. However, following the debate, it was recognised that part of the Amendment was appropriate, since the reference to powers for the constitution of new crofts is no longer apt in view of the repeal in Schedule 3 to the Bill of Section 2(1) of the 1961 Act, under which these powers are given to the Secretary of State. I am indebted to the noble Lord for his perspicacity. Amendment No. 26 excises a similar reference which is

391
contained in the 1955 Act. Accordingly, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 14, line 26, leave out ("the Act of 1955") and insert ("this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. It is to correct an error in the drafting of the new Section 16A of the 1955 Act, which is contained in Clause 13(3) of the Bill. Since, following the enactment of the Bill, the new Section will be incorporated within the 1955 Act, the reference to "the Act of 1955" in line 26 will be inappropriate. The wording should be "this Act", and the Amendment makes the necessary correction. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 14, line 31, leave out ("consisting") and insert ("which consists").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18 and to speak to Amendment No. 19. These are minor Amendments designed to clarify the intention of the provision which is that the right to an automatic decrofting direction for the croft dwellinghouse site should only be available to a crofter who has already become owner of his house site by agreement or otherwise in pursuance of the entitlement given to him under Clause 1(2) of the Bill, or is in a position to exercise this entitlement. The present drafting is insufficiently precise, since it would allow any owner of a croft which is vacant if and when the Bill is enacted, or who later obtains renunciation of a crofting tenancy, to obtain an almost automatic decrofting direction for the house on such croft and to dispose of the house on the open market. This is not what the Bill intended. I have, of course, no reason to think that landlords would seek to exploit this loophole in the Bill by capitalising on the disposal of the houses on crofts which may temporarily become vacant, but in the Government's view, it is undesirable that there should be any risk that the stock of croft houses required for crofters should be diminished
392
in this way were that to happen. The effect of the Amendments will be that decrofting applications by landlords in respect of croft house sites will be considered by the Crofters Commission in the ordinary way, having regard to the general interest of the crofting community and local crofting demand. I commend the Amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 14, line 33, after ("croft") insert ("and in respect of which a crofter is entitled at the time of the application, or has been entitled, to a conveyance by virtue of section 1(2) of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19 formally. I was speaking to it when speaking to Amendment No. 18.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Extension of Section 3 of Act of 1955.]:
4.36 p.m.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 16, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("land") in line 16.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that we are now getting into the realms of a lawyer's glory. Things are getting very complicated. I was grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for remarking just now on a previous Amendment that we were trying to get some of this sorted out. I hope that here it might be possible to reach another small agreement with the Government, because the Amendment is to the benefit of the crofters every bit as much as to the landowner—possibly more so—and it is also in favour of good land use.
My Lords, the point is that, so far as I can see, if a crofter gets a tenancy—even a seasonal tenancy—for any grazing, that land becomes part of his croft. This has been re-enacted in the Bill; it was part of the previous Bill. To all intents and purposes, this means that no one in his right mind will let anything to a crofter. Particularly once this Bill is passed, it means that that land could be acquired by the crofter on 15 years' purchase of the rental. Therefore, it is obviously not very sound practice to put this in the Bill.
For instance, where you had some planting ground, you might want to let it to someone for grazing for a short period—a year or two—until such time as you wanted to plant it; but you dare not let it to a crofter. He might well like to take it from you, and you would never be able to plant it in the future. This just does not make sense. Although my drafting may not be sound, I hope that the Government will be able to put this right, as it has become extremely complicated. I think the principle here is wrong and should be looked at.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has misunderstood the provision in this part of the Bill. Indeed, I can reassure the noble Lord that he is quite wrong in thinking that any land let to a crofter for grazing purposes automatically becomes part of his croft. This is not the case. Non-croft land can only be added as an enlargement to a croft under the terms of Section 2(2) of the 1961 Act with the agreement of the landlord. The landlord has complete control in this respect, and without his agreement an enlargement cannot be effected. A grazing let of non-croft land to a crofter, unless the landlord agreed otherwise, would be effected under an agricultural lease, and would have no relevance to the crofting tenancy.
The purpose of the words which the Amendment seeks to omit is to make it clear that any grazing right within the crofting legislation pertaining to a croft tenancy is an integral part of the croft. In this respect, they do no more than restate the law enacted in Section 3 of the 1955 Act. The effect of the Amendment would be to put the status of such crofting grazing rights in doubt, and in this case I do think that the Amendment is misguided, I would ask your Lordships to reject it.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I think that is a most useful statement by the Minister, and I am very grateful to him for clarifying the position. Your Lordships appreciate how complicated the situation is. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
4.41 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 24:
Page 23, line 24, at end insert—
(" (3A) At the end of section 1(1) (constitution and general functions of the Commission), there shall be added the words "and the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976.".")
line 25, at end insert—
("( ) in subsection (1)(d), after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "and the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976."")
Page 24, line 11, after ("crofts),") insert ("(a)")
line 12, at end insert—
(" (b) at the end there shall be added the words "and the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976." ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 en bloc. These are technical drafting Amendments, the purpose of which is to extend references in the 1955 Act to the Crofters Commission's functions and powers under that Act to include also functions and powers under the 1976 Act. Reference to the Commission's responsibilities under the 1961 Act are imported into the 1955 Act references by paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the 1961 Act, which states that any reference in the Act of 1955 to that Act shall, unless the context otherwise requires, include a reference to the 1961 Act. An Opposition Amendment was accepted in another place to Section 2(4) of the 1955 Act to extend the reference to functions under that Act to include functions under the Bill. These Amendments, therefore, complete the process of making the extensions in relation to other comparable references. I hope that with this somewhat technical explanation noble Lords will be ready to accept the Amendments, which do no more really than tidy up the drafting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Derwent): My Lords, unless any noble Lord objects, I shall put Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 26, line 33, leave out paragraph 19 and insert—
(" 19. Section 12 shall cease to apply.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may be rather confused

395
as to why this Amendment is put down. I may say straight away that it is a probing Amendment. The position here is that it would appear that though the Crofters Commission were given a remit 15 years ago they have never fully implemented it, or very seldom have they done so. In the past, I think under the 1955 Act and previous Acts, where a crofter was not cultivating his croft or looking after it properly it fell upon the landowner to do something about it. That was removed by the 1961 Act, and the Crofters Commission was given powers to sub-let the croft if the crofter was not working it. Your Lordships have only to look around the crofting areas to see innumerable crofts not being worked properly. Indeed there was one which recently came before the Land Court, and it must, therefore, very forcefully have been drawn to the attention of the Crofters Commission, but still they have done nothing about it. If Parliament gives to a Commission like this a remit to execute a job, I think it ought to be done. Therefore, particularly in view of the fact that the Bill gives the Commission substantial extra powers, I put down this Amendment to see what the Government intend to do to see that they do carry out those that they have already. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government of course recognise that this Amendment put down by the noble Lord is a probing Amendment. The Government can explain the reasons why powers given to the Crofters Commission under Section 12 of the 1961 Act to secure the sub-letting of crofts which are inadequately used have never been implemented. Section 12 has in fact never been operative, since it requires the introduction of an order under Section 19(2) of the 1961 Act to bring it into operation, and no such order has been made.
Briefly, the reason the Section 12 powers were brought is as reserve powers and were not made operative on introduction of the 1961 Act was because the concept of compulsory sub-letting met with such opposition in Committee that the Government of the day decided that in the first instance a policy of voluntary sub-letting should be tried and the compulsory power should be held in abeyance, for introduction as the ultimate sanction onlyif that
396
policy failed and after an order confirming the use of such powers had been approved by both Houses of Parliament. Following these guidelines, the Crofters Commission, in seeking to achieve more effective utilisation of croft land, have proceeded by persuasion and have not felt justified in seeking to invoke the compulsory powers.
The Commission have given a good deal of encouragement to crofters to arrange for the voluntary sub-letting to active crofters of land which they themselves were not using, and indeed nearly 2,000 sub-lets have been arranged since 1961. These measures, I am assured, have proved reasonably effective in avoiding sterilisation of croft land, and successive Governments have not considered it expedient to implement the powers for compulsory sub-letting contained in Section 12 of the 1961 Act. Nevertheless, I do not feel that we can say categorically that there will never arise in future a situation in which we would consider it desirable to make use of these powers. In the light of what I think is a fairly full explanation, I hope that your Lordships will resist the Amendment.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for giving such a full explanation. Now that this matter has been drawn to his attention I hope that he will consider giving it further consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Repeal of enactments]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 28, line 19, column 3, at end insert—
(" In section 12(4), the words "the constitution of new crofts or" ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26 formally, having already spoken to it under the heading of Amendment No. 16.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.47 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Increased access to, and protection for, freshwater fishing]:
The DUKE of ATHOLL The DUKE of ATHOLL moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 30, at end insert ("and of persons and clubs who have, or anticipate being granted in the event of the protection order being made the right to fish for freshwater fish in inland waters in Scotland.")
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I think it is only right for me to apologise both to this House and to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, first, for the fact that I was not able to be in my place when this Bill was considered in Committee, and, secondly, for putting down these Amendments somewhat late. As they are all my own composition, I am sure that it will surprise no one if I say straight away that I suspect that they are defective in their drafting, but I have put them down largely as a basis for discussion.
The first Amendment which stands in my name would add to the end of paragraph (b) of Clause 1(3):
"and of persons and clubs who have, or anticipate being granted in the event of the protection order being made, the right to fish for freshwater fish in inland waters in Scotland."
If this Amendment were accepted, it would mean that before the Secretary of State could make a protection order he would not only have to consult with the somewhat nebulous body which is already mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) but would also have to consult with any tenants or potential tenants of the waters over which the protection order was to be made.
I think this is only right, as there could be a case where a tenant, an angling club, for instance, already has the right to fish in waters. The owner of those waters might wish a protection order to be made over them. The body mentioned in paragraph (b) might think this a good idea and raise no objections. Then, as the Bill now stands, the Secretary of State would be able to go ahead and make a protection order. But the members of the angling club who were already lessees of that water might well have some objection to this. For instance, they might consider that the owner was suggesting a rent which was too high, or that he was going to take out the brown trout and put in rainbow trout instead, or something like that, and their members might like fishing for brown trout rather than for rainbow trout. I feel that it is only right that the Secretary of
398
State, before making a protection order, should consult with the existing tenants of the waters over which he is going to make his order.
Of course the owner is covered because the owner has to suggest the protection order in the first place, and so he is in no difficulty. If he does not wish to have a protection order made over his waters he simply will not put forward the proposal. It seems to me that the existing tenant could be in an underprivileged position when protection orders are being considered. Equally, I feel that many owners will, when they apply for a protection order, have already made arrangements for an angling club to take over the administration of the waters over which they propose to obtain a protection order. In this case I should have thought that it was only right that the angling clubs which are going to benefit from a protection order, if it is made, should have the right to be consulted by the Secretary of State before he makes the protection order. It seems to me that they could well add something useful to the representations to which the Secretary of State will listen before he makes a protection order. I beg to move.
4.52 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government would seek to resist this Amendment. The purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) is to ensure that all types of persons wishing to fish for brown trout are given proper representation and full opportunity for their views to be made known to my right honourable friend when he is considering the making of a protection order. The weaknesses in the representative hierarchy in trout angling became obvious during the passage of this Bill through another place. Not only must the Government ensure that those anglers who are organised in clubs and associations have their views fully made known, but there are moreover the views of those many individual anglers—people who often prefer not to be organised in their comings and goings—which must be conveyed to my right honourable friend, if he is fully to appreciate the views of the trout angling community as to whether the benefits to be derived by that community merit, in their eyes, the giving of protection to trout fishing in the area.

399
I am not for one moment suggesting that anglers will be debarred from membership of the group if they happen to hold fishing rights—or even hope to hold them at some future date. But no one section of the angling community could properly be given any special right to selection for the group other than that general right stemming from their wish to fish. It is for that general reason of principle that I have to ask your Lordships to resist the noble Duke's Amendment.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, there seems to me a point here of some importance. It is not clear from what has been said at any stage in the debate on this Bill as to how frequent or how important are the powers of holding a local inquiry before a protection order is made. We ought to seek to find this out from Her Majesty's Government because if, in fact, it is going to be the rule rather than the exception that an inquiry precedes the making of an order, then I do not think that anybody need fear that he is going to have a chance of making any representations he may wish to make before a protection order is made. But if, in fact, a local inquiry, or a public inquiry, is going to be the exception, then it is going to be very important to make sure that people have a right to make their views and their positions known before the Secretary of State considers the matter.
So far as I am concerned, and I think those of us on these Benches, we should like to see the public inquiry the rule rather than the exception, because I do not think that anybody need have anything to hide in this matter. We want to see, when a protection order is being laid down—and this will be a new thing which we shall see happening for the first time after this Bill is passed—the matter properly threshed out in public in every case. I should hope that inquiries would be the rule rather than the exception. It would be most helpful if Her Majesty's Government could let us known how they envisage how this part of the Bill is likely to work.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it is not Her Majesty's Government's intention at this time to proceed overtly and frequently by way of public inquiry. The Secretary of State will consider representations.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, in that case may I ask whether any representations can be made and, if so, will they all be considered, or just those that the Secretary of State is obliged to listen to?
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that may I ask whether, when applications are made for a protection order, they will be publicised fairly extensively so that people will be in a position to make representations?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I should, in perfect equity and fairness, have qualified my initial reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I should explain that of course if objections are made then a public inquiry would be held. I do not think that the Secretary of State would proceed to a discretion if objections were made. I was assuming that if no objections were put to him then of course he would accept and listen to representations from a number of sources.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, could the noble Lord answer the question I asked? How much publicity will be given to the proposed protection orders when they are submitted to the Secretary of State?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I cannot answer that question at this stage, but I am very willing to answer on a future occasion.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, with respect, should not the noble Lord be in a position to answer my noble friend's question? We are now getting to the penultimate stage of the Bill. It has already been through another place. If the noble Lord is not going to answer my noble friend's question now when, may I ask, is he going to answer?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, Schedule 1 makes provisions as to the publication of the various protection orders. The noble Duke asked for a specific detail from me as to the full extent of publicity. I shall look into that matter and reply to him.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord the

401
Minister has said, I think it is only right that I should withdraw this Amendment. I still feel that the existing tenant, or potential tenant, should be given consideration, and of course my Amendment would not have stopped the Secretary of State from consulting with the body set up under subsection (3)(b). I appreciate the noble Lord's difficulties in acceding to my request, and I put down this Amendment very late, for which I. must again apologise. In the circumstances, I should like to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.58 p.m.
The DUKE of ATHOLL The DUKE of ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert ("and").
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if we take Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are purely paving Amendments for Amendment No. 4.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Derwent): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Duke? If he is going to talk about Amendment No. 4, may I say that it is wrongly put down on the Marshalled List. It should read:
"Page 3, line 1, leave out paragraph (h)".
The DUKE of ATHOLL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Amendment No. 4 would leave out the top two lines of page 3:
"(h) any other matters which the Secretary of State considers relevant."
I have put this down not because I particularly object to the Secretary of State's considering any other matters which he might consider relevant, which it seems to me is a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do, but to find out what other matters he might consider relevant. It seems to me that paragraphs (a) to (g) of subsection (5) are so comprehensive that there cannot really be any other matters which could be relevant. I should be interested to know what the Government think might be covered by (h) or whether it is purely a safety net in case they and I have forgotten something. I have always been told that if one is to have a general
402
provision like that, one should particularise beforehand. It seems that we have a lot of particularisation before we get to the general phase at the finish.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I should have thought that the answer to the noble Duke's question was that if the Government had known the other matters which might be relevant they would have proceeded through the alphabet after the letter "g". It is reasonable for the Secretary of State to say, in effect, "Should anything else turn out to be relevant which has not occurred to me up to now, I should have power to take it into account".
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, one matter which must be relevant is the question of proposals for the improvement of fisheries, and I do not see that mentioned. We have references to charges, tackle, the number of fish, rods, the size of fish and so on but nothing relating to the actual improvement of the fisheries, although presumably that is what the Secretary of State might have in mind.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I think that the noble Duke's assessment of his Amendment is quite accurate, and his assessment has had at least a partial confirmation from my noble friend Lord Hughes. The items specified in (e) to (g) are, of course, items to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will require to pay some attention, but other matters will be represented to him, and (h) permits him to give his further and wider consideration in just the manner which has been outlined. The provision (h) is really a saving one and is no more than that. Perhaps I should mention to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that subsection 4(c) covers the point he raised.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, before my noble friend the Duke of Atholl withdraws his Amendment—or does not, according to his inclination—may I ask the Minister a question about which I shall sympathise if he cannot answer immediately because he may not be in a position to do so. I must apologise for not bringing the matter forward in Committee; I was undertaking a certain public duty in Scotland and was prevented from so doing. The considerations to which the Secretary of State must have regard

403
under subsection 5(b) include the permitted methods of fishing or tackle and the maximum number of fish that may be caught. Since this matter came before your Lordships, I have carried out my own personal straw poll, if that is the expression, during the Easter Recess up and down the banks of the Tay. Perhaps I should mention that I have an interest therein, or in certain parts of it, as a trustee. The inquiry which was made of me by persons who were employed as fishermen was: who is to say what the permitted methods of fishing or tackle are to be if a protection order is to be made and, above all, what is to happen if somebody flouts the regulations?
In that part of the Tay—I realise that this is a very subjective view of the situation where I come from—the word is that the large brown trout have already been fished out because those who came, and particularly those who do not know the water very well, use, for example, minnows. The large trout are attracted to them, perhaps more than they should be, as opposed to a fly and they have all been caught and there are no more brown trout of that particular size. If a protection order is made, one assumes that the riparian owner, club or whoever it is who is setting the scene for future angling, is entitled to say, "You must fish with a fly and not with a minnow because that is unfair", and I do not suppose that the noble Lord or his advisers would demur from the proposition in proper instances rules may be made.
Bearing that in mind, I should like to know, first, how the Secretary of State is to interpret that and, secondly, what is to happen if the permitted methods of fishing or tackle are flouted. Can an ephemeral permit be revoked by the riparian owner? Can the wardens enforce the rules which accompany the permit which is issued, and what is to happen if they are broken? I appreciate that I have brought this matter up at a somewhat late stage. If the Minister wishes to raise it as part of the Third Reading debate on this measure, or if he prefers to write to me, I shall understand.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will reply to the noble Earl. These are interesting points—
The EARL of MANSFIELD: And vital ones, my Lords.
Lord KIRKHILL: They are vital and interesting points of arresting detail, my Lords. I can say at this stage that it will be for the owner or occupier to lay down a permanent method or methods. His sanction will, of course, be the withdrawal of the permit in the event of his decision not being adhered to. Perhaps there is a slight misunderstanding in the noble Earl's interpretation of the point he raised. The provision requires the Secretary of State to have regard to certain matters with a view to satisfying himself that an order may be made by him. The protection order, when made, will not specify anything other than a provision against unpermitted fishing; it will not specify anything more than that. However, I will write to the noble Earl further on this point of detail.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, is it the Minister's interpretation, therefore, that by using a method not permitted on the stretch of water, the person holding the permit automatically invalidates the permit and thereby becomes a person fishing in breach of the protection order? Is that the noble Lord's interpretation?
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, my Lords, I think that follows.
The DUKE of ATHOLL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for helping us to clarify this somewhat complicated subject. I am not entirely convinced that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is right in his question about the improvement of fishings because as I read the provision to which he referred, it simply enables the Secretary of State to take account of conditions in areas other than the one to which the proposed protection order will apply. In that case I should have thought that whether and in what ways the areas round about would be improved is not very relevant and therefore it is probably right for it not to be mentioned in this provision. I have no rooted objection to the safety net of "any other matters" which the Secretary of State may consider to be relevant. I tabled the Amendment to try to find out whether the Government had any other matters in mind or whether it was just a safety

405
net. Lord Kirkhill has answered the question at any rate to my satisfaction and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.10 p.m.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
"Access to fishings in protected areas.
On making a protection order the Secretary of State shall make up a list of all owners of land to which pertains a right to fish for freshwater fish in any inland area to which the protection order applies, and any occupier of such right, who did not apply in writing to the Secretary of State, in relation to the improvement of, or the giving or availability of access to, fishings; and may specify for such fishings after consultation with all owners or occupiers so listed the circumstances in which fishing is made available in respect of the matters listed in section 1(5) of this Act."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I would refer again to what I said earlier about the Bill —that I believe it has flaws. The Amendment is designed to remove one flaw which clearly exists in the Bill and which was tacitly recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in the Second Reading debate. It is that, if the Bill is passed as it stands, it would be possible, for persons who in no way contribute to the improvement of the quality or quantity of, or the access to, fishings, to participate in the benefits resulting from having a protection order within an area in which their fisheries lie. For instance, on a particular stretch of river, there may be one riparian owner who makes no move at all when the protection order is mooted, who does not appear at any inquiries and who offers to make no improvements and no increase of access to his fisheries. If all the ninety and nine just persons who own the rest of the river system agree on having a protection order, I assume from the way in which the debates have gone that the Secretary of State would not withhold it if one person had not come forward to take part in the inquiry or offered to take part in anything envisaged in the granting of the protection order. Once the order was granted for the sake of the ninety and nine the hundredth person would, in fact, receive protection. He would be able to regard
406
his fishery as a heritable property. He would be able to sell it and to do so as a piece of property on which there was no obligation to give anybody access. It would become very valuable for those who wanted to be restrictive.
I feel, and I believe that most reasonable people would feel, that it is wrong that anybody should be given such an advantage. It is against the spirit of the Bill that such an advantage should be acquired without the owner having had to contribute in some measure to what is being given to the general fishing public in exchange for the advantages gained under a protection order.
I quite see that there could be people who might simply, through default, absence or the fact that they were not aware of what was going on, miss the opportunity of being heard when the protection order was being considered. We have heard today that it will not in general be the practice, unless there is an objection, for a public inquiry to be held. In such a case, it would clearly be unfair to force such people to accept some form of condition along with a protection order without consulting them in some way. So far as I can see, if a person stays quiet, there is no machinery for actively consulting him.
The Amendment therefore seeks to lay upon the Secretary of State when making a protection order the necessity actively to consult anybody who has not come forward or has not been consulted up to the time when the Secretary of State is to make the order. It provides that the Secretary of State must make a list of such people and include them along with those who have asked for a protection order. Having listed and consulted them, they should be included and the part which they are to play specified in the general scheme which the protection order would envisage.
I do not believe that any reasonable owner of a fishery or any reasonable angler could object to this. If a river system is to have a protection order throughout its length, or if a drainage basin or a section of a river or drainage basin is to have a whole protection order applied to it, I believe that that protection order should apply to every part of it in an equal manner. Unless we specify something in this regard, I do not see how

407
we are to avoid the loophole whereby, simply by keeping his head low, somebody in the system can get away with all the benefits without any contribution to the improvement or increased availability in return for which the protection order is made. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount has greatly helped your Lordships' House and that we should be grateful to him for giving us this opportunity of further discussion of a point which, although it was raised during the earlier stages of the Bill, has not, I believe, been satisfactorily explored. The Amendment also gives the opportunity for the Government to explain how they think the scheme will work in practice.
I must remind the House that, in my White Paper Cmnd. 4821 of November 1971, which set out the proposals of the Government at that time, not only on brown trout but also on the reform of the fishery laws in Scotland as a whole, I described the scheme which was then proposed. There was a major difference from what has been adopted by the present Government in the proposals of that White Paper, in that it was not intended that protection orders should be only for whole catchment areas or large parts of catchment areas. The Government have made it clear that protection orders made under the present Bill must be for the whole or a very large part of a river, not for individual lochs or small stretches of river. That was one of the main differences, because in my proposals it was intended that protection should be extended gradually as conditions were satisfied by owners. As owners contributed by stocking and maintaining brown trout and by meeting other conditions which one would expect in return for protection, they would be granted protection.
I recognise that there could he an objection to such a method. The Government have argued that that would lead to a patchwork and would cause a considerable amount of detail to have to be worked out. However, I believe that there will in any case be a great deal of detail involved in these schemes. Dealing with a very large area through one protection order will not relieve those concerned of having to
408
look into the particular circumstances in different parts of the area. However, because the Government have adopted this difference and have decided that protection orders must be for very large areas, a situation could arise, as was pointed out earlier and as the noble Viscount has again underlined, where there could be owners within an area who had no wish to co-operate, no wish to be protected, and no wish to make any contribution to the stocking and maintenance of brown trout in their waters. They could then find themselves enjoying the benefits of protection without making a contribution, and indeed without even wanting the protection, because they were in the large area which the protection order covered. Those are the loopholes to which the noble Viscount referred.
When we were discussing this at the Committee stage I asked the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, how the process of application for a protection order was started. Under the Bill it needs only one applicant, one landowner, out of perhaps 200 or more in a catchment area to start the process. The noble Lord replied that once that had happened the Government would have the duty of getting in touch with all the other owners in the area, which could be very large. All those other owners would be approached and that would start the consideration of a protection order for the catchment area or river.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to the difficulties about this because it would be a coincidence if every single one of those 200 owners happened to have the same view, and there could be a small number of them who were not interested in making a contribution or who, for some reason, simply were not in a position to do so. They might be in great financial difficulties, due to bereavements or one knows not what, or they may be abroad and not able to cope with the whole business of stocking and maintaining their waters, and simply not be able to co-operate, while others might not wish to co-operate. Under the Government scheme instead of extending gradually, admittedly in a patchwork, protection orders would be granted to a large area all at once and every body in that area would get the protection order whether or not they wanted it and regardless of whether they had applied for it.

409
Besides being a loophole I think that this could be a cause of some grievance among anglers because they could well resent the fact that an owner was doing nothing in a particular part of the area but was, none the less, enjoying protection, even though he had not wished to have protection. That is another aspect of the matter which could be unsatisfactory. But with regard to the new clause which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has just moved, I am not sure what he means by the word "specified". He is suggesting that there should be a list of all the owners in the area of a protection order, and then it is stated that the Secretary of State
"… may specify for such fishings after consultation … the circumstances in which fishing is made available in respect of the matters listed in section 1(5) …".
Section 1(5) is the one we have just been discussing about the amount of charges, the permitted methods of fishing or tackle, the maximum number of fish which may be caught, and so on.
I am not sure whether the noble Viscount is intending that an owner who does not want to make a contribution and does not want to be part of a scheme, and who makes that clear when approached, would then get less protection or, in fact, no protection and so would then be exempted from the scheme. That would seem to be the logical conclusion from drawing up a list. One could tick off the names of all those who wanted to be included in the scheme and who were prepared to make the necessary contribution to the scheme, while those who were not so prepared would have their names crossed off. But it is not clear whether they would then be deprived of protection or whether they would get less protection. I am not precisely clear what the noble Viscount, once he has got the list, is proposing should be done by the Secretary of State, though what his new clause has done is to draw attention to this difficulty when there is a scheme covering a very large area and some unwilling owners, or odd men out, cannot, for one reason or another, join in and contribute.
Lord FORBES: My Lords, I should like to issue a word of warning and a little caution over this matter. I do not believe that all owners of rivers will have the same
410
view over improvement, especially in relation to stocking a river. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will know as well as I do the River Don in Aberdeenshire, and he will probably also know that after the war that river had its poorest trout fishing. The reason for that was that it was not fished during the war and there were far too many small fish. It was not until some years after the war, when the river had been properly fished, that the trout fishing improved immeasurably. Thus, do not let us think that everyone stocking a river will be the answer to improving trout fishing on a river.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, first I should like to make clear that I think the Government are quite right to have what I might call area protection orders rather than individual orders for individual stretches of river, simply because I believe that the latter would have been unenforceable and that it is far more convenient to have, if possible, whole rivers as protected order areas. But I believe that the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, raises difficulties, because there are bound to be many places where, for very good reasons, people do not want access to be available for fishing. For instance, if one has a river at the bottom of one's garden it is not unreasonable to say that one does not want people fishing that part of the river from one's garden. There may be places where rather shy birds nest, and one would not want fishermen going up and down the river bank in such an area. Some provision must be made for what one might loosely describe as the awkward customers who are not prepared to enter an improvement scheme even though the stretch of water they own may be in an area which is to he protected. This is a difficult problem, and I believe that on the whole the Government have come fairly close to getting this part of it about right.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, in responding I should like, initially, to reiterate yet again the Government's general view of this proposition in the Bill, fully appreciating that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and many other people would like to create a new situation in which the Government would be empowered to require access to be given to fisheries when this is not volunteered. I appreciate that there are strong feelings

411
about landlords who may hope to achieve protection without any contribution, and I shall touch upon this aspect of the matter shortly. However, the Government have made it clear that they are not in this Bill seeking compulsory powers over property and fishing rights. We are founding on a principle which I thought might be attractive to the noble Lord; namely, giving the protection of the law in return for voluntary co-operation. With respect to the noble Lord, I think that it would be a mistake at this stage to go for a mixture of the voluntary and the compulsory. In practice it would be a substantial administrative job to go out and identify every owner or occupier of fishing rights in a large catchment area, and it would be an awkward requirement to ensure, before taking action, that every last one of these people had been consulted.
If we were to go to such expensive lengths then there would be an unquestionable argument for making the whole thing compulsory; indeed, a very great many people would approve of that. One of the practical arguments that has held us off that course is that it would involve Government in considerable additional public service manpower commitment. In the first place there would be the work of identifying the owners and occupiers and the processes of creating a register, and after that there would be the processes of up-dating. Unquestionably, if the State were using compulsory powers there would be continuous traffic of appeals and complaints to be dealt with. All in all, the Government have decided that the time is not ripe for bringing the whole of freshwater sport angling facilities—and I suppose this would include salmon as well—under State control.
That is, I think, a restatement of the overall Government position, but a number of points were raised in the course of remarks in your Lordships' Chamber and perhaps I might deal with one of the points which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made initially. While agreeing that he gave a very fair explanation of what the Bill provides and how it stands as it has been debated thus far, I think, if I understood him aright, that he misunderstands the concept of the protection order. I should say to him that
412
the protection order will apply to the whole area which it specifies. Any other effect would, in the Government's view, result in piecemeal application of the law; and it is for that reason that no promise can be given that the benefits of the Bill will be withheld from the non-participatory owner—and, of course, this is the point of which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just spoken. Lord Campbell's own system was supported by provision for fishery boards, and these boards were to cover the whole country. I had already said that this was certainly, in the long term, desirable, but, in the Government's view, at this particular stage public sector commitments of an extent and nature of this character are considered to be too expensive, and they will not take them on board meantime.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke of the notification of non-proposing landowners, and I think he indicated that I had given an intimation that the Government would notify other landowners. If I gave such an indication and left it in bald manner like that, then I require certainly to condition that at this time. The provisions for publication of proposals are in Schedule 1. There is no requirement on the Government to notify individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also quoted me as saying that one applicant can apply, and of course the Government would require to find out about the others. This is not quite accurate. I doubt if I put it exactly in those terms, but so that the Record may be absolutely clear let me say that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a plurality of applicants. The main thing is that at the end of the day the Secretary of State will be satisfied that, over an area to be specified by him, demands for fishing from persons wishing to fish can be met on reasonable terms.
I would of course agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that his scheme was to give protection only when access was offered, but I have already indicated that this Government have set their face firmly against piecemeal protection such as has been mentioned. It would lead to a situation where anglers did not know the state of the law in any one place; nor would wardens always know whether they should act or not. In addition, the administrative effort

413
required would be much heavier than for schemes for area protection, and this, of course, is one of the reasons why area protection finds favour with the Government. It would also require a very large number of orders to deal with the many different pieces of water involved. I freely acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, introduced a White Paper in 1971, but I cannot resist the temptation to say that this Government have introduced a Bill.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I am delighted that my Amendment has at least provoked a good deal of discussion on this important flaw, if I may say so, in the Bill. To take some of the points which have been made, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, suggested a patchwork approach. I must confess that I agree with the Government in the blanket approach. I think this is a better approach. I think the patchwork approach would be difficult to administer and would be a great problem. Certainly I would say that without the area boards it would be impossible to administer. Therefore, if, as we have discovered already in debating this Bill, it is going to be impossible to get any area boards out of the Government, it is obviously hopeless to try to get a patchwork quilt to cover us as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked me what was meant in this Amendment by "specify". I meant and I mean, and I take the works to mean, that the Secretary of State would lay down
"for such fishings after consultation with all owners or occupiers so listed the circumstances in which fishing is made available in respect of the matters listed in section 1(5) of this Act".
In other words, he would seek to make those who had stayed out of the discussions at the earlier stage take part in the final arrangement, whatever the final arrangement was; because if we are to regard a whole drainage basin or a whole river as one for the purposes of protection, we must also consequently regard it as one for improvement and accessibility. You cannot regard it piecemeal for improvement and accessibility purposes and at the same time regard it as one for protection. I think you have to grasp the nettle, and this is a nettle which the Government are firmly refusing to grasp.
414
I really think they ought to grasp it; otherwise, the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will possibly come into disrepute.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way and also for answering the questions I put to him, because what it means is that in the case of those particular owners who, for one reason or another, were not prepared to co-operate in a scheme the Secretary of State would have compulsory powers, but he would be specifying that they must do something, whereas I was asking whether there would also be the alternative, where he would just specify that those owners would not get protection. Because, as I think my noble friend Lord Forbes indicated, there could be places where, for one reason or another, it was just not possible for the owner to do what the Secretary of State was specifying. It would be easier for the Secretary of State to omit protection in that case, although, unfortunately, if there were many of them, one would then get a patchwork.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, as to what the Secretary of State is going to demand of people, I think I am right in assessing that what is in the Government's mind is that it should be fairly simple. The Secretary of State would not turn round and demand highly expensive and complicated schemes out of owners of fisheries; he would simply demand good housekeeping, good management and a reasonable share of access being given to those who might desire to fish upon those waters. I would hope that what would be specified by the Secretary of State in relation to any part of a protection order would be a thing which would be thoroughly acceptable by any reasonable person on any part of the area covered by that order. I am not expecting any unbearable conditions to be placed by the Secretary of State. I do not think his advisers would advise him so to do. I think that anybody wishing to see this Bill work when it becomes an Act is going to start by having conditions that are reasonable, so I do not think anything unreasonable will have been specified. But I think we may well run into difficulties if we cannot in some way coerce people who are going to get benefits to come forward to the table and discuss the position before the benefits are given. This is one thing that would certainly happen if we had this clause in

415
the Bill: that people who were seeking to stay out of the whole thing would be made to come forward and discuss it, and might even be constrained to object and, therefore, call down a public inquiry and have the whole thing aired in public.
Now the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, brought out some points which really might well have been brought out in the discussion on his Amendment, because these surely come under (h). The protection of birds and the protection of privacy are matters which come under paragraph (h), which the Secretary of State will in any case be considering in relation, we hope, to every fishery which has sought protection. I really think that if he is going to be sensible and reasonable about the way in which he specifies for a protection order, we could assume that in relation to somebody who required privacy on his front lawn, he would not enforce busloads of people to come and fish off somebody's front lawn. This would be unreasonable. Nor would he wish to disturb shy species of birds. I do not think that question will arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on behalf of the Government has referred again to the question of area boards and to the question of the expense of Area Boards. I was at some pains to say that I was sure that area boards could be made to exist without expense. Certainly, I hope that if and when we have a protection order on the Thurso we shall be able to produce a voluntary Area Board for him to see in action. We shall try to get something like this going. He also referred again to the question of wardens. Without Area Boards it is going to be difficult to know where the powers of wardens are going to be exercised; because it sounded as though he was envisaging wardens acting all over the protection area whether they acted on the fishing of the person or persons who employed them or not. I should be surprised if that would produce good will and a spirit of voluntary co-operation. What he was most at pains to point out was that this was to be an Act that depended on voluntary co-operation and not on State control. I am not asking, when I ask for Area Boards, for State control. I am asking for voluntary co-operation and for a slight tickle of the whip for those lagging in coming forward to co-operate
416
when the opportunity is given.
I think that the Committee have only to look at the existing position with salmon fishing to see that the district fishery boards do a lot of controlling and helping with management and have wide powers of management, of running hatcheries and so forth, without in any way exercising State control, and doing it entirely by voluntary co-operation.
I think that there is still a point here which ought to be looked at. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to look at this yet again. I do not feel that he has fully answered the problem here and I feel that there could be something done to improve this flaw in the Bill. Therefore, in the hope that he will look into this further, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Appointment of wardens to secure compliance with protection order]:
5.44 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert", and where he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of the contravention is to be found in any vehicle on any private land adjoining any water within the prescribed area, the said warden may search that vehicle."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amenement No. 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mansfield and myself. This deals with the subject of wardens which we discussed in general at the Committee stage, on whether the clause shall stand part?, in order to elicit from the Government their views on how the system would work. The Amendment which I have tabled reads:
"… and where he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of the contravention is to be found in any vehicle on any private land adjoining any water within the prescribed area, the said warden may search that vehicle."
When we had the earlier discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that the Government were aiming for powers to be possessed by the wardens limited to inquiring into the legal right of an angler to fish and to seizing tackle, provided the tackle was visible. There were no powers of search. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I pointed out at the time, that meant that the wardens were powerless if the tackle was invisible.
When this Bill started in the Commons it had powers of search in this clause. It went through five days of Committee in another place and still had powers of search. It was only in the closing hours of the last day in another place that the change was made by Government Amendment which removed those powers. The powers of search which then existed were to search a boat, a basket, pocket or other receptacle. I would point out that to search "pocket" meant being able to search a person. I should like to ask the Government why at the last moment in another place they decided to take those powers of search out of the Bill.
The result has been that problems and anomolies can arise and especially with the functions of the water bailiffs who are already enjoying certain powers under the 1951 Act, including the powers of search. The water bailiffs and the new trout wardens will, no doubt, be operating in the same areas or in overlapping areas or on opposite banks of a river. My Amendment would give the trout warden the same right of search of a vehicle, including the boot of a car, as is possessed by the water bailiff. The noble Lord will notice that I have taken the wording of Section 11(4) of the 1951 Act and adapted it. I suggest that this is the minimum of search that he needs. Your Lordships may think that he ought to have more powers of search; but as I am going to persuade your Lordships, I hope, the minimum power which I think he ought to have is the power to search a vehicle.
I would remind your Lordships that the 1951 Act gives protection to salmon and sea trout. It does not give protection to brown trout if fished for by rod and line; but it makes certain methods of taking brown trout illegal, methods such as netting or poisoning with cyanide. So the 1951 Act protects trout from certain methods of fishing which are thus illegal. Therefore, anomolous situations could arise like this. A water bailiff can at present search a basket, pocket, or vehicle in certain circumstances. He is not concerned with finding only salmon or sea trout. He is also looking for brown trout if he has reason to think that the brown trout were taken illegally, for example, by poisoning, so that trout are mentioned in Section 10 of the 1951 Act as well as salmon and sea trout. If he finds, say, 20 brown trout and a container of poison, he can
418
act. Even if he finds no salmon or sea trout, he can act on brown trout because he has complete evidence that they have been taken by illegal means. That is a power possessed by the water bailiffs at present. If he finds only brown trout in a reasonable number, say three or four, and a rod or line in the boot of a car, at present he takes no action; because trout are not protected provided they are fished for by rod and line.
But once this Bill is enacted, if the person who owned the car was not permitted to fish in that protected area, he would have discovered a contravention of this Bill when it had been enacted. If he were to find these trout and a rod and line and the owner had denied that he had been fishing or that he had caught anything and it was clear he had no legal right or written permission, what does the bailiff do? He is not a warden under this Bill, but he has discovered a contravention of it through using the powers of searching the vehicle, a power which is not possessed by a trout warden under this Bill.
I put this question because it is an example of the anomaly which may arise. Similarly, the bailiff's power of search of a pocket and a basket could produce the same situation. He may find no salmon or sea trout, but clear proof that brown trout have been taken in an area by rod and line but without authority because the person concerned did not have a legal right or written permission. Another anomaly can arise because the wardens are not only controlling whether anglers are fishing with permission with rod and line. If this Bill is to be effective when it has been enacted, the wardens must be equipped with enough powers to deter and detect major poaching raids by gangs, probably during the night, and probably using nets or poison. This can happen to a loch or stretch of river. During the night a gang who know what they are doing can take an enormous amount of fish; they can clean out a stock of trout in a loch.
If a warden arrives at the scene it might be obvious what is happening. If all that is visible by the time he has reached the spot is a vehicle and some men then, under this Bill, there is nothing he can do. Perhaps the men have discarded the net at the bottom of the loch or had time to get it into a vehicle before the warden arrived. If he had the power to look inside the boot

419
of the vehicle, if it is a motor car, he would find ample evidence. He would probably expose sacks of trout and a large net, or perhaps containers of poison.
If he were a bailiff under the 1951 Act he could take action to inspect the vehicle, to search it; but as this Bill is now drafted, the trout warden could not do so. He is helpless in that situation. That is no encouragement to the stocking of lochs and rivers in Scottish waters with trout in the future; that, after all, is what those of us supporting this Bill wish to see happening. Moreover, it is likely to lead to over-dependence on the water bailiffs who already have powers under the 1951 Act. They are the only people who in fact have these powers of search.
So we could find when this Bill is enacted—depending upon the answer we are going to get from the Government to the questions I have put—if the answer is the bailiff can take action that there may be a move for an increase in the number of bailiffs, extending their areas and generally overworking them. Clearly, this is not the intention of the Government otherwise they would not be putting forward proposals for trout wardens. I ask the Government to look again at this matter. This is not a subject in which in principle they have very decided views because they did have the powers of search in the early version of the Bill until the last moment before it came to this House. Unless the Minister can give us an adequate explanation of what is to happen in the circumstances I have described, I hope that before Third Reading they will think again about restoring at least some of the powers of search, particularly the one concerning a vehicle. I beg to move.
5.54 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in their Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was party to a discussion today which illustrated the problem that will arise. The type of problem that will undoubtedly arise is that people will use spinners on fly-only water. This is disturbing to the fly-only angler but is something which undoubtedly will happen. The noble Lord has clearly
420
answered my question and said that in his view if somebody was spinning on fly-only water they would be in breach of their permit and would therefore be in contravention of the law. It would be almost impossible to prove because all that the man has to do is to break off his spinner and put it in his pocket. Nobody will be able to prove a thing against him. The fact he was using a spinning reel could not be held against him because it is perfectly possible to fish a cast of flies off a spinning reel. He can claim he was doing this and say there was nothing on the end of his cast because he had broken his fly.
I have great sympathy with this problem; on the other hand, I find it difficult to see how one is to give greater powers to wardens without having a satisfactory body to supervise them. The great thing about water bailiffs, salmon bailiffs, is they are supervised by a district fishery board and they have probably a river superintendent or head bailiff over them who is responsible for seeing that they behave in a responsible manner. It is clear that although we may not have a patchwork system of protection, we are certainly going to have a patchwork system of wardens, good, bad and indifferent, large and small, all over the place. In these circumstances, it is going to be very difficult to support the powers of search of a vehicle any more than it is going to be possible to support powers of search of the person who is thought to be contravening the Act.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I feel that my noble friends on the Front Bench have asked for the very minimum here. I see two slight difficulties in their Amendment which I hope can be overcome. One is that a warden could be placed in an invidious position. What is "adjoining"? I am not sure that there is a clear definition of what this might be. That presumably could be put right fairly simply. The other difficulty arises with the phrase "any vehicle on private land". Only fairly recently road authorities started acquiring the land on which they were carrying out building work. It may be that a vehicle parked in a lay-by may be on public land or private land, depending on what age the land was and when the roadworks were completed. I feel this ought to he extended further. It seems pointless that if a vehicle is in a

421
lay-by near a loch the warden might not be able to search it. I hope that the principle of the Amendment can be accepted and perhaps on Third Reading we can tidy it up a little.
5.59 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and also the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, are worried about what can be regarded as the somewhat anomalous position of a water bailiff warranted under the 1951 Act who finds, for example, brown trout in the boot of a car and is unable to pursue the owner of the car respecting a suspected offence under Clause 1 of the Bill. Whatever one may think of this—and I do not really think it is the end of the world—the bailiff would nothave been searching the car boot unless he had suspected something far more serious than fishing for trout without permission. He must have suspected that the user of the car—if we are to continue with this example—was guilty of either gang poaching of salmon or taking salmon or trout by certain illegal methods, including, in some cases, the using of explosives, poison or electrical devices; otherwise he had no right to search the car.
So if he found brown trout in the boot he may have found evidence relevant to a charge under Section 3 or Section 4 of the 1951 Act. Whether he suspected that the trout had been taken without permission would seem of little moment in these circumstances. If he was also an appointed warden, in terms of this Bill, he could also produce the trout as evidence of an offence under Clause 1 of this Bill, if he had reason to suspect they had been taken without permission. However, I hope your Lordships will take the point that there is a great difference between poaching with explosives, and so on, and angling without a permit, and I do not think we should contemplate mixing them up. I also understand how it might be easy for a poacher with a motor-car parked conveniently near the spot to hide his tackle and his catch in that car and so frustrate a warden in proving that he had committed an offence under this Bill. But invasion of privacy is most serious and in the Government's view there is enough of it these days
422
without extending it unduly, except where the seriousness of the suspected crime would fully justify it.
No one could seriously argue that the taking of a few trout without permission constituted a sufficiently heinous offence to merit this serious step being taken. I do not think we should be mistaken about the offence to which we are referring. It is not that of taking trout by an illegal method, such as netting, gaffing or the use of explosives or poison. The 1951 Act, as I have just mentioned, already covers that for trout as well as for salmon and I understand that the relevant section is Section 2(2). The Government are not here aiming at the amendment of that legislation without full consideration of all the details, so I think we can forget about that point.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point may I ask him this. If a warden finds a person netting, gaffing or otherwise illegally taking trout, what does he do?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it is of course open to a warden to report the fact to his employer. I was talking here of the angler, the man fishing by a perfectly legal method; that is, by rod and line, but without the permission of the holder of the fishing rights. I think that distinction has to be made.
It was to answer intense and continuous pressure in another place that the less biting powers of searching boats, baskets, pockets, and so on, have been taken out of the Bill. The noble Lord, Campbell of Croy, who is associated with Lord Mansfield in this Amendment, mentioned that the Amendment narrows the provision in Section 11(4) of the 1951 Act. This is true so far as it goes, but I would submit that it misses the significant point that the powers in Section 11(4) are available to the water bailiff only where there is suspicion of poaching by concerted persons, for example, gang poaching or the use of poisons, explosives or noxious substances to take fish. These are substantial offences even in the salmon-fishing world, and in my view they probably argue themselves out of the world of brown trout fishing, which is still generally regarded as a fairly innocent sport.

423
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned the question of action by wardens against gang poaching. This is not a new offence. It is dealt with by the Act of 1951 and is a matter for the police and bailiffs, but not, I would submit, particularly for wardens. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, asked a question regarding fishing with a permit but using a non-permitted method. For the Record, I should say that an angler who has a valid fishing permit and uses a legal method will not be breaking the law—which is not quite what I inferred earlier, and I therefore apologise to the noble Lord. May I just finish this by saying he will not be breaking the law even if, for example, he is spinning when the permit does not allow spinning, but the owner will be entitled to withdraw the permit.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, it seems to me that this cuts right across what the noble Lord has told us at every other previous stage of this Bill. The assurance he gave me on Second Reading concerning this point was that one would be able to prohibit the use of certain implements and methods of fishing which might, in other areas, be considered legal. The noble Lord now tells me that, notwithstanding this, we are back to square one and that one has to catch the man doing the thing before he can be stopped from doing it.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, presumably there was an element of confusion between the noble Viscount and myself. In my own mind, I was not making a distinction between different types of fly and such things, but I have tried to be as specific as I can on this occasion. The noble Viscount also asked: what does a warden do if he comes across a case of illegal fishing? I have to tell him that the warden would do nothing. He can, of course, report the matter to the police and, as I suggested earlier, to his employer as well.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, I hope very much that my noble friends will pursue this Amendment because it is extremely important. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that someone without a permit fishing for brown trout in a large river probably will not do any great harm, and that this does not really
424
matter. I do not think the warden in the normal way would search a vehicle under those circumstances. If however, someone without a permit fishes a fairly small and recently-stocked loch, he can remove anything up to two-thirds or three-quarters of the trout with which the loch has just been stocked. This is extremely discouraging to the owner or to the club which has gone to great trouble to stock the loch and will have stopped members fishing in it for a considerable period afterwards so that the fish may have the chance to become acclimatised. This is normal fishing practice in such cases and it gives the fish more of a chance, which I think is in the best British tradition.
However, we do get people who come along and fish these lochs before they are ready—and of course I mean unauthorised people and not members of the club which has fishing rights on the loch and not people who may have got a day ticket from the club. These are the people we want to get at, and the only possible way to prove they have committed an offence is by having the power to search either their car or any haversack they may be carrying, because once they have caught their fish they do not leave them lying on the bank. They are going to put them in some sort of container and, if they know the law, they will soon transfer the fish to the boot of their car where they cannot possibly be seen. I think this Amendment is extremely important and in many cases the whole Bill will fall down unless this Amendment, or one like it, is incorporated into the Bill.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, since my name appears on this Amendment, perhaps I might contribute a little to this debate, which I have found profoundly depressing and indeed most unsatisfactory. If nothing else, it clearly shows this Bill for what it is becoming—that is to say, a nonsense. I do not want to be over-contentious or over-controversial and I should like to separate, if I can, the feeling which exists, not so far as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is concerned, but so far as some of his friends in another place are concerned, and also those behind them in the Golden Lion and other public houses. There are simply not enough salmon or trout or indeed any other fishable fish in Scotland for everybody who wants to fish at any particular

425
time and by any particular means to hoick them out. That is a law of nature and however enlightened or nationalised the fishing or riparian owners have become, this fact cannot be altered. There has to be some regulation of fishing, as otherwise there will not be any fish. I have already said that by the use of unfair methods over part of the Tay the large brown trout have been reduced to the point of disappearance; they do not exist any more. That is a fact which the noble Lord or any of his advisers cannot gainsay, if they have the faith and the necessary knowledge.
At the same time, one must realise if one is reasonable that there are many folk in Scotland who like to fish, who do not have access to fishing in the ordinary course of events, and who are concerned—and I should be the last to blame them for this—that what they regard as their traditional rights should be preserved in the future. They regarded this Bill as being a possible unjustified fetter or limitation of their rights. One has every sympathy with that point of view, and any enlightened riparian owner or secretary of a fishing club, or anybody who has the management of freshwater fishing for ordinary fish in Scotland, would agree with that point of view. But when one looks at Clause 1(5) and the various paragraphs under it, and at Clause 2 dealing with the powers of the wardens, one sees that because of the political feeling behind the tabling of the Bill, and more especially the Amendments on Report and Third Reading in the other place, the nonsense is revealed.
I want to go into less dramatic examples than my noble friend Lord Campbell, who talked about people with dynamite, poison or huge nets. But as my noble friend and kinsman has said, there will be examples of lochs which have nothing to do with salmon, which do not have bailiffs and will never have them in the ordinary course of events, and which will be stocked with fish for the public to try to catch. In Clause 1(5) we have the maximum of fish that may be caught and the permitted times of fishing. That is not just an archaic condition; in many cases it is vital to the proper preservation of a loch. There will be people who are not the jolly Lincolnshire poacher types who have been painted, and who merely wish to exercise the right of every Highland gentleman to seize a brown trout. They will be people who
426
flout the regulations, who take too many fish, who take them by unfair methods of tackle and—let us not beat about the bush—who take them at the wrong time and in the wrong manner, and by so doing they cheat other people who pay for the privilege of taking those trout. Therefore, this is not a case of some hard-faced riparian landowner preventing proper enjoyment of fishing. We are talking about people who are concerned to organise fishing in a just and, at the same time, efficient manner.
What are the powers of the warden? If he comes upon a crowd of men in the middle of the night and does not catch them in the act of fishing, although they may be fishing beyond the permitted hours, there may be too many fish or they may be using the wrong tackle, what is he to do? One has to ask oneself that question. If the men are in a position to put the offending tackle and the fish in the boot of their car, then according to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, they can laugh, and that is what they will do. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head and I am very grateful to him for having the honesty to admit it. But is a Bill in this unsatisfactory state the kind of Bill that the noble Lord and his friends wish to see go forth upon the Statute Book?
I have no doubt that in all probability, for the purposes of today's debate, my noble friend Lord Campbell will withdraw this Amendment put down in our joint names. But there is still time for the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and his advisers to consider this matter, not in the spirit of vindictive landlords wishing to exercise ancient territorial rights over unfortunate citizens who happen to be out to try to catch a fish, but in the sense that persons who are charged with the management of fisheries to be improved under this new Bill will merely be trying, through the wardens whom they employ, to stop cheating. If the noble Lord views the matter in that light, maybe at the very last stage of this Bill, the Third Reading, we could have an Amendment which would commend itself to the House and also to the Government.
6.15 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I think the debate on this Amendment has brought out the fact that there is a serious lack of powers where wardens

427
are concerned, if there is to be a satisfactory warden system. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has indicated that the reason why the Government changed their minds and took away certain powers just before the Bill reached your Lordships' House was pressure in another place. But it looks as though the wardens will find it very difficult to carry out their job. My noble friend Lord Burton inquired about the wording of the Amendment. I would say straight away that it is not perfectly drafted and I did not expect it to be accepted as such. I indicated that I had taken the language of the 1951 Act, and I took it precisely. Therefore, the words "vehicle on any private land adjoining" are taken from the 1951 Act, and if the principle of the Amendment were accepted by the Government it might need to be redrafted for this Bill, or there might need to be definitions put into it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that it was not the end of the world if someone was caught fishing in a protected area, therefore contravening this Bill when it is enacted. Of course we agree with that, but in so far as the main purpose of the Bill is to protect trout we are now seeking to make sure that it is carried out. This is a conservation measure and I was drawing attention to an anomaly—in fact, to two or three anomalies. So I agree with the noble Lord that it is not nearly so serious as using illegal means to catch salmon. But I pointed out that in the course of his duty in investigating whether some more serious offence had been committed, a water bailiff could discover that there had been a contravention of this Bill, and in painting that picture I reminded your Lordships that only in defined circumstances could a water bailiff use his power to search in the boot of a car. I did not spell out all of them, but if in the course of his duties he suspects that illegal fishing has taken place then he can search a vehicle.
In the course of searching the vehicle, he may find an offence under the Bill. What does he do '? The noble Lord answered that question, and it seems that if he is simply a water bailiff he does nothing officially but he can let the owner of the land know. But if he also has the second capacity of warden, then he can take action under the Bill. So we did get from the noble Lord a clarification for which I am grateful; but all it did
428
was underline the anomoly, and I am sure that those who read the record of this discussion will see that it would be a good thing if water bailiffs were also made wardens, where that could conveniently be done.
However, because my Amendment was taken out of another Bill and not drafted to fit exactly into this Bill, but was tabled in order to draw attention to this matter and in the hope that the Government will look at it again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of ATHOLL The Duke of ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:"Introduction in inland waters of species of freshwater fish not normally resident in such waters

.—(1) Any person who releases in inland waters in Scotland, over which a protection order has been made, a species of freshwater fish not normally resident in those waters shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50, or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above the Secretary of State, after consultation with such bodies as he considers relevant, may issue a licence for the releasing of any species of fish in waters over which a protection order has been made, and no offence shall be committed by so doing."

The noble Duke said: My Lords, perhaps we move now into rather more tranquil waters. The object of my new clause is to prevent people from introducing unsuitable species of fish into waters which have been protected and which are being stocked. If I could take a small example, because this is the easiest way to deal with the point, there is a loch which is partly in my ownership and partly in that of the Forestry Commission. Both of us let the angling in the loch to a local angling club. With the agreement of both proprietors and the angling club, the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory at Pitlochry are doing experiments on this loch, first to reduce the number and try to increase the size of the brown trout by preventing them from spawning in several of the streams which run into the loch, and secondly to introduce a species of fish called American brook trout, which looks as though it has a great future in Scotland as a stocking fish. I will not

429
go into the reasons why this fish appears to have such a great future. It is most interesting that the American brook trout has not been much used until now for stocking Scottish lochs, but it appears to have all the ingredients needed for stocking Scottish waters, including being very tasty when it is caught and put on the table.
By my Amendment the laboratory would have to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State in order to introduce into this loch the American brook trout, but I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty about this. Equally, if suddenly I took a vicious dislike to the angling club, to the Forestry Commission and to the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory and decided to do down their experiment at the moment, there is absolutely no reason why I should not introduce pike into this loch, which would, of course, reduce the experiment to a nonsense.
All I am suggesting in this Amendment is that it should be illegal for me to introduce foreign fish into a loch or, for that matter, into a river to which a protection order applies. I think that this Amendment is essential, because I foresee cases of two people who owned different parts of a river or loch pursuing totally different stocking policies. There is also the danger that too many trout might be introduced into a valuable salmon spawning ground. I admit freely that probably this point would not be covered by my Amendment. I find it difficult to think of a form of words which would cover this circumstance, but it is a danger and I should like to bring it to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I am sure that an Amendment on these lines would be helpful, in that it would prevent people from putting unsuitable fish into lochs and rivers which are situated in protection areas. We have only to look at the grey squirrel to see just how disastrous the introduction of foreign animals can be in the animal kingdom. I think it could be equally disastrous in the fish kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. He is absolutely correct in what he has said about pike. I believe that pike are not indigenous to the North of Scotland and that one can trace the
430
monastic settlements by the areas which were stocked with the pike which they needed for their Friday fish in the winter. They fished in various places as the fish moved up or downstream. It is very important that restrictions should be placed on people to prevent them from putting into rivers or lochs any kind of fish; therefore, I believe that this Amendment is well worth considering.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, may I support the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, in this Amendment. Not only can you do damage by putting the wrong kind of fish into inland waters; you can do damage by carelessly introducing disease into inland waters—disease which might come out of a hatchery bred fish which did not exist in that drainage basin. In certain waters this would be a very important point, and some kind of control over the introduction of fish into inland waters is very desirable, especially if one is to have a protection order.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, with his example my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has raised an important point, and I hope that the Government have taken it on board. It was referred to at earlier stages of the Bill but no proposal as to how it might be dealt with was put before us. At an earlier stage my noble friend the Duke of Atholl said that his Amendments had been drafted by himself, and he has just told us that he has had to wrestle with the words to try to find a way adequately to add to the Bill in order to cover the case which he has described. With his ingenuity, I can see that my noble friend has used the words "fish not normally resident in those waters"; but whether or not these words would apply to pike is difficult to say. From the point of view of interpreting the Bill afterwards, that form of words might be difficult. However, it is quite clear that my noble friend has raised this as a general point which needs attention. As the Government have been given notice of this Amendment, albeit fairly short notice, I hope that they can comment now upon it and consider the matter seriously hereafter.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government are sensitive to the contributions which have been made this

431
afternoon in your Lordships' Chamber on this point and they see the attraction of the ideas underlying the Amendment of the noble Duke. The introduction of exotic species of fish presents hazards and should be done only with circumspection. It is not unreasonable to envisage some form of authoritative control eventually in Scotland, as elsewhere. There is, however, already a form of control on the disease side. The Diseases of Fish Act 1937 both prohibits the import of live salmonid fish and controls the import of live salmonid eggs. Also it regulates the movement of all live fish and eggs of fish within Great Britain.
The most notable disease of cultivated fish is, I am advised, infectious pancreatic necrosis. It is not rampant in Britain. Only seven fish farms in Scotland are known to be infected. In each case the disease situation is under control. The sale of live fish from any of these farms is prohibited by order under the 1937 Act. Such orders will not be lifted until the farm has been free from infection over a period of two years. Similar controls are exercised elsewhere in Britain. I believe that the disease situation is well in hand and I have no reason to suppose that it will get out of hand as a result of the stocking of natural waters.
As to the potential hazard from exotic fish as predators or competitors with native species, again I acknowledge that there is a potential risk, but I do not think it is a severe risk which is at all likely to result in widespread or sudden change in our fish population. If we had been at the stage where it was right to introduce a local administration—the idea we referred to as the Area Boards—then I think we might well have given the boards a power to control by licence the introduction of exotic species of fish, but I would remind your Lordships' House, as I have said on several occasions, that this is a first stage Bill. The Government are making a move in the direction of the protection order and at this time they are not going beyond that point in the Bill. But as I am attempting to indicate, that would have stood to be debated in the course of a more extensive Bill, and would have implied, in the Government's view, the necessity to create an administrative machine. Therefore, it follows from what I have said, and
432
because we are at the stage in the consideration of the Bill when it would not be possible—although the Government are not insensitive to the underlying thought behind the Amendment—that it is impossible for the Government to accept it.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will give further consideration to this. I was greatly impressed by the point made by the noble Duke that the loch which he gave as an example is working in conjunction with the Government Fishery Research Department at Pitlochry. Their work could be completely negatived by the introduction of pike or anything else. It could completely upset the results, which might be and almost certainly would be, of great scientific interest.
A second point along the same lines is that it is greatly to the natural advantage, and also to the advantage of fishers, that lochs should be differently stocked; that is, that they should not come down to one common denominator of the same proportions of fish in the lochs. It is a great advantage that the lochs should show variation of stocking and this Amendment is worthy of much greater consideration than appears to have been given to it.
The DUKE of ATHOLL: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support which I have received for this Amendment, even from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, because although he did not say that he would do anything about it he appeared to show some sympathy towards its intention. I very much hope that he will reconsider this matter before the Third Reading. I appreciate that, having tabled this Amendment comparatively late yesterday afternoon, he has not had sufficient time to consider it fully. It obviously raises some difficulties, although I do not think that the difficulty he instanced—that is, that one needs Area Boards in order to administer this—really applies, because presumably the body which the Secretary of State would normally consult, would be the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory at Pitlochry. They have extensive knowledge of nearly all freshwater and its fish in Scotland and, I think, would easily give the Secretary of State extremely good advice about the

433
introduction of exotic species or, for that matter, any species. I do not think the pike is exotic but certainly the pike or the roach—a predator—could be a great disadvantage in what, until then, had been a loch that contained only trout.
I think this is a matter of some importance. Unlike the last Amendment, I think it is absolutely non-controversial. I agree that there are probably few occasions when people would attempt to introduce totally unsuitable fish into Scottish waters, but I still think that the grey squirrel is an example which we cannot ignore. The grey squirrel was introduced as a lovely little pet by, I believe, a noble Duke—I regret to say in order to improve the appearance of his park, and in my opinion the results of the introduction of the grey squirrel have been quite disastrous.
I appreciate that my Amendment is probably defective. I think no Member of this House or another place can possibly compose an Amendment running to 13 or 14 lines without it being defective. Therefore I have no hesitation in withdrawing it this evening, while at the same time expressing the hope that the Government may come back at Third Reading with an Amendment which does not have the defects of this one. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Penalties for offences against enactments relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries]:
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 11, leave out lines 9 and 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that this matter has been mentioned several times before in another place and also in your Lordships' House but there is still considerable concern about it. Section 23 of the 1868 Act is of course now out of date and we are told that it cannot be amended in this Bill because it is a trout bill and not a salmon one. However, the penalties are being amended and I suggest that we should delete the increased penalties and leave the situation as it is. If we increase the penalties here, we appear to imply to the procurator fiscals that they ought to enforce this Section of the out-of-date Act. I would far rather this was deleted and perhaps some directive given to procurator fiscals that until such time
434
as it is possible to amend the 1868 Act any anomolies which might occur under this should be left in abeyance. I feel that by putting this in and drawing attention to it we are encouraging what could make, particularly net salmon fishing, extremely difficult.
This was discussed at some length during the Committee stage and I do not want to go further into it now, but I should like to hear what guidance the Government intend to give to the procurator fiscals on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I do not know whether I can quite answer the noble Lord in all that he asks of me. Certainly he has made clear his purpose in moving this Amendment and I fully understand his reasoning. Section 23 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 requires proprietors and occupiers of fisheries during the close season to remove all boats and oars, nets, engines and other tackle used in salmon fishing so as to prevent their being used in fishing until the end of the close season. Under the existing law, which of course has remained unchanged since 1868, any person who neglects to do this is required to forfeit anything not so removed. In addition, for every day during which he so neglects he is liable to a penalty of f10. In the Schedule the Government are putting in place of that daily penalty, the single penalty with a maximum of £ 100 for a first offence and £200 for a second offence. I do not think I can add anything to that.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, are we not therefore encouraging procurator fiscals to take action under that? I would point out that the law says that you must remove these things, but there is nothing to say that you cannot put them back 24 hours later, which shows how ridiculous it is. In this position surely we are wrong to increase the penalties.
Lord KIRK HILL: With the permission of the House, the Government's view is that penalties which have remained unchanged since 1868 require revision, and the Government have not been unreasonable in their revision.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I really cannot withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.39 p.m.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL [H.L.]
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Stedman)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MAYBRAY-KING in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Restriction of importation and exportation of certain animals and plants]:
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, after ("being") insert ("not").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' approval, I should like to discuss with this Amendment, 21 other Amendments, namely Nos. 3, 5, 34, 48 to 59 and 61 to 66. As the Committee will realise, this is not a wrecking Amendment, but a constructive one. At present, this Bill tells us in the Schedules what may not be imported. I want to put in some at least of the Schedules what may he imported. As a term of art, this method of showing what may be imported has been referred to as reverse listing, which is a handy term for what we want to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, knows, I put down this Amendment immediately after Second Reading so she could have ample warning that this was in our minds.
My Amendments are approved by the sort of scientific minds that the noble Baroness and the Minister at the time will ask to act as scientific advisers. I suspect it is approved by the Customs and Excise, but I have not asked them. I am going to speak for only a short time, and when I have finished I shall ask the noble Baroness either to accept the Amendments or to accept them in principle, and in any case to ensure that the Bill is so amended that reverse listing can be applied if anything goes wrong before the final stage of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has put down Amendment No. 31, but I am not quite sure whether that applies, or should be applied, to reverse listing.
What is involved? We have to turn to the Schedules of my Amendments. I have done my best; they do not pretend to be either complete or accurate. I would ask the noble Baroness—and we must all thank her for giving us this very long list of scientific names with a commentary—when, as I hope, this Bill finally reaches the Statute Book, even though the scientific name may be the legal name, that the common name at least be also given, as a matter of reference, to help so many who do not understand the scientific names.
To turn to the Schedules, we come first of all to the mammals. In the Bill there are 234 names taking up six pages of what one may not import; in my Schedule are 37 names on one page of the mammals that may be imported. Furthermore, the 234 names are taken from the red data book issued by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. As the noble Baroness and all scientists know, this red data book is not complete, so there is danger in the listing of threatened species. In fact, to such an extent have the IUCN been unable to complete or correct this red data book that it is no secret that they have asked the Fauna Preservation Society, of which I have the honour to be chairman, if they will take on the completion and maintenance of the red data hook. This shows that this type of listing in relation to mammals is extremely dangerous, whereas with reverse listing, the Customs can easily identify an animal. The danger is that unless we have reverse listing in the case of mammals, dealers will find some unfortunate, small, furry beastie not in the red data book, and will use the fur until the numbers are so depleted that the species is unnecessarily endangered. This cannot happen if we have listing the other way. It is not a prohibition; it is only a licence to import something, if so permitted. The lists are not a prohibition.
Going on from mammals to birds, instead of 183 names on four and a half pages, we have only 18 names that I can find. With regard to reptiles, I would be guided by the scientists. Reptiles are difficult to rear. We have not yet really learned how to rear reptiles. They are very easy to poach, and are very much in demand. Instead of 77 names of the reptiles that may not be

437
imported, in my Amendment No. 51, to which I am now speaking, I have recommended that no reptiles at all be imported without a licence. This would give us the protection needed, and we need that protection for two or three years until we know the situation. With reference to amphibia, I have made the same recommendation. So much for changing the Bill.
The present system in the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, seems right for fish and I have left it as it is. It is right for insects; it is right for molluscs, and I am told that my friends, who know so much about plants that they would like to reverse list them, believe the present system is the best for plants. So finally we come to Schedule 4, which deals with parts of living things. At the moment we have a list of what may not be imported. This list has given rise to more criticism and difficulty than any other part of the Bill. There are serious difficulties in identification, and serious difficulties in description. I thought that if these difficulties were so serious would try my hand at reverse listing. I do not know whether I have done it very well, but in some cases it seemed easier to apply a reverse listing to some, at least, of these items. The Customs and Excise are then asked to say what an item is, and if they cannot recognise it they can reject it.
There is one main principle involved, on which I believe I am right, in my Amendment No. 53, Item 1, and my Amendment No. 66, Items I and 2. If a living creature may be imported, then I believe the Bill should apply to the items derived from it. If a living thing may not be imported, then neither should the parts of it be allowed to be imported. I know this is a blanket statement, but under the Bill, as long as there is permission to give licences, each case can be dealt with on its merits. I have moved 22 Amendments in a very short time, and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give me some joy.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My noble friend Lord Craigton, put down these Amendments, and I have added mine to them to show that my noble friend has the support of the Benches around him. He has put the case very fully and very lucidly, and so I do not think it needs a long speech from me. I would merely
438
say that I thoroughly endorse the object of these Amendments, which is to simplify legislation by permitting the import of only a small number of any species, and the other species will require licences, subject to the approval of the scientific authorities, and of course, the Minister. Above all, as I said on Second Reading, I think the Customs and Excise authorities will be grateful if these Amendments are helped on by the Government. I would merely say that the principle of readily identifiable species should be permitted by the Government to stand, and I should like to endorse everything said by my noble friend.
Baroness STEDMAN: With the leave of the Committee, I think it would be helpful if I intervened at this stage, and before I deal with the particular purpose of this Amendment perhaps I may be permitted to make a general point about this and the other Amendments, including those I have tabled. Since we debated this Bill on Second Reading in February, my Departmental officials have had very extensive consultations with the voluntary conservation bodies and the trade interests. The Bill has also been examined a great deal by the scientific authorities we established to enable us to introduce import and export controls on an interim basis from 1st January. I should like to express my personal appreciation to the officials and to the members of the scientific authorities for the tremendous help they have provided.
Almost all of the Amendments I have tabled are a direct result of these consultations. So far as we possibly can, we have sought to meet the many suggestions and criticisms that have been put to us. I know that some of the voluntary bodies, and doubtless some of your Lordships as well, will feel that we have not gone far enough, and we shall be debating these matters. All I would ask your Lordships at this stage is that the House bears in mind the need for a practical and effective Bill, the provisions of which can be enforced.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for moving so many of the Amendments en bloc tonight. The principle, as I understand it, is that instead of listing the restricted species the Schedules should list those species or items which are common, which are regularly in trade

439
and which do not require licences. All other species or items will then require licences, whether or not the species concerned is at present endangered. May I say at once that I see many advantages in adopting this principle, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for suggesting it. For one thing, it will make the Schedules shorter and much more comprehensible. Since the species to be listed will be those that are commonly in trade, they will be familiar, and it should be possible to attach the English names to them, if only for descriptive purposes. Many of your Lordships are, I know, concerned at the length and obscurity of the Schedules, and this is likely to get worse as further species are added as a result of amendments to the Convention.
The chief advantage from the conservation viewpoint will be that the occasional trade in the more exotic species can be monitored through the licensing system. If there is any sudden increase in trade in a particular species that is not on the "free" list, or if a new trade develops, this can be considered and the appropriate action taken. Such an arrangement should not really hamper legitimate trade. Although reverse listing would appear to extend greatly the range of controls, the additional species covered would, by definition, only infrequently appear in trade. Only a few specialist dealers handling small numbers of a wide range of species are likely to be affected. Licences would be readily available, without conditions, until such time as it became clear that the species was endangered. If the volume of trade grew to the point that licensing was a genuine encumbrance to the trade, and there was no danger to the species, then it could be added to the "free" list by order.
A third advantage of reverse listing is that it should reduce the number of Amendments to be made to the Schedule by subsequent orders, whenever there are amendments to the Convention. Amendments will be necessary now only where by international agreement we are required to control something that has hitherto been on the "free list. We have given a good deal of thought to this idea and concluded that is is practicable in some cases, although it cannot be applied wholesale to the Schedules. It seems to
440
be suitable in the case of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, which are in Schedule 1. But we do not think it can be applied to the fish and the lower animals; nor does it appear suitable for plants, which are covered by Schedule 2. In the case of parts and derivatives, which are covered by Schedule 3, bird plumage is already in effect reverse listed, and we think the idea could be extended to reptile skins and possibly to mammal skins. But I am advised that it is not practicable for parts and derivatives generally. The decisions must depend mainly on how many controlled species there are relative to the common species in trade, and on the need to specify kinds and items in a way that is understandable to the traders and will enable the Customs to identify them.
The Government intend, therefore, to bring forward at a later stage—hopefully at Report stage in this House—the textual Amendments necessary to enable the Schedules to be in this alternative form. We intend also to table Amendments to the Schedules which will reverse list some groups of animals, as well as some parts and derivatives. This is, however, a complex matter. The scientific authorities are still studying a number of aspects, and I cannot promise that it will be possible during the passage of the Bill to adopt reverse listing in every single case where it is likely to prove practicable. If necessary, the job may have to be completed by order after the Bill has been passed. I hope, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will now be prepared to withdraw his Amendments.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I think this is one of those extremely satisfactory occasions when as a result of the initiative by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, by standing something on its head he makes it more sensible. I think it is a very desirable thing, and it is especially pleasing to this House that my noble friend Lady Stedman has found it possible to accept in principle exactly what is being proposed. I hope that the noble Lord is well satisfied with his activity.
Lord CRAIGTON: I have seldom withdrawn an Amendment with such great pleasure. I have much pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert ("or in Schedule 1 to the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975").
The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: Quite clearly at the moment this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, and I shall withdraw it with the permission of the Committee, but perhaps I can just say one word to the noble Baroness. The reasons for this are quite obvious. I can only hope that administratively this will be kept in mind by the Department when licences are applied for. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Maybray-King): We have dealt with Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 4 does not exist. We have dealt with No. 5. I now call Amendment No. 6.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall submit any application for a licence under subsection (2) above to whichever one of the scientific authorities (as defined in section 2 below) he considers is the best able to advise him as to whether a licence should be issued in pursuance of the application and, if so, its terms; and, before he issues or declines to issue a licence in pursuance of the application, he shall allow the authority a reasonable time so to advise him").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment would require that all licence applications must be referred to the appropriate scientific authority for advice. The Convention requires each Party State to create one or more scientific authority to advise on the issue of licences, and the Amendment merely reflects what is clearly intended by the Convention. Where more than one scientific authority is formed under the Act, then clearly only the one with a particular interest in the type of species concerned will wish to be consulted in any individual case. It naturally follows that if the scientific authority is to give advice it must be allowed a reasonable time in which to do so. But arrangements can be made for emergency consultation if a quick decision is needed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 6, after ("above") insert ("(a)").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I will also speak to Amendment No. 9, because this Amendment is merely a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 9. The effect of the two Amendments will be to impose a maximum time limit of 12 months on the validity of any import or export licence granted under the Bill. As drafted, the subsection specifies no time limit but allows for one to be specified in the licence. A limit is necessary to prevent licences from remaining unused for a long time, by when the threat to the species may have increased. The Convention requires a time limit of six months on export licences, but places no limitation on import licences, because the authorities in the exporting country must be satisfied that an import permit has been granted before they issue their own export permit.
The Secretary of State's current practice is to impose a six months limit on export licences, in accordance with the Convention, and a nine months limit on import licences. He intends to continue this practice, although a statutory maximum of 12 months may provide some useful flexibility in the case of import licences where the circumstances are exceptional. The need for a specific statutory limitation has been very strongly urged upon us by the voluntary conservation bodies, and the Government see no objection. I, therefore, beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 7, after ("degree") insert ("and in relation to any place,").
The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting point. We are moving in the conservation world into an area where the breeding of threatened species in captivity is giving us more of a particular animal in captivity than exists in the wild. Indeed, we have already reached the stage, I understand, where one breeder in a zoo in Germany is breeding what is an endangered wild cat of the cat tribe and is selling the skins, quite properly, for fur or selling the animals to

443
other zoos. The animals are not endangered in the wild and there is absolutely no reason why this should not be done, any more than it is done now with mink.
When I read the first two lines of subsection (3) on page 2,
"A licence issued under subsection (2) above may be, to any degree, general or specific",
I asked myself: Do the words "general or specific" allow me, as the licensing authority, to licence Mr. X, or Zoo Y, to import a certain animal only from that place, or even from that zoo or that person? Do the words "general or specific" refer also to a certain place, or a specified place or a specified person?
This is a drafting point. If the noble Baroness has any difficulty over it I should be quite happy that she should say that she would like to take it away and look at it, and I would abide entirely by her decision as to whether she chooses to add the words or not. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, wants an assurance that an import licence can carry a condition, for example, that an animal must come from a certain zoo in the exporting country. We can give him that assurance, but I shall be happy to take the Amendment back, and if it is necessary to alter the wording we will do so at Report stage.
Lord CRAIGTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("specific") to end of line 9 and insert—

("(b) may be modified or revoked at any time by the Secretary of State, and

(c) subject to paragraph (b) above, shall be valid for a period of 12 months commencing with the date the licence is issued or such shorter period as is stated in the licence.").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 8, after ("period") insert ("or periods").
The noble Lord said: This is much the same sort of point. Have the licensing authority, under the description:
"or such shorter period as is stated in the licence",
without the addition of the words "or periods", authority, shall we say, to allow the import of any particular animal in May and October only? I should have thought that they were "periods" and not a "period". Here again, if the noble Baroness would like to say something, I should be happy. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: We are really being most affable tonight. As I understand it, the noble Lord wants a further assurance that the import licences will be issued in such a way as to prevent the import of an animal during an agreed close season?
Lord CRAIGTON: That is right.
Baroness STEDMAN: That assurance I am perfectly prepared to give.
Lord CRAIGTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("Provided that any licence issued to import a wild animal shall be subject at least to the following conditions

(a) that any premises on which the animal is kept after undergoing any period of quarantine as specified in section 4(1)(b) of this Act are so constructed, maintained and managed as to allow it—

(i) to enjoy a healthy existence; and

(ii) a reasonable prospect of breeding unless a Scientific Authority is satisfied that the importation of an animal of that species without any such prospects is desirable;

(b) that the owner of those premises or one of his employees is qualified to care for the animal; and

(c) that any Scientific Authority shall be given the opportunity of satisfying itself by such methods and at such intervals as it shall determine that the above conditions are being observed.").

The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to bring our legislation into line with that which is laid down in Article III

445
of the Convention, which says that regulation of trade in specimens of species included in Appendix I provides that a scientific authority of the State of import has to be satisfied that the proposed recipient of a living specimen is suitably equipped to house and care for it.
I speak on this subject with experience, and from experience of having made a mistake when the 1964 Act governing the importation of rare animals was first brought in. I was the chairman of the Advisory Committee. At first we did not realise how important it was, when we issued a licence to import a rare animal, that we should assure ourselves that the recipient of the licence was a suitable person and owned suitable premises into which an animal could be placed and, moreover, that those premises were such as would allow that animal to join a breeding unit and produce young. If we are going to allow rare animals to come in, we are merely making a greater drain on wild animals in the wild if we bring them in just to exhibit and to look at them. It should not be allowed unless the animal is capable and likely, and has the facilities, to breed in captivity and so to build up the captive bred population of that particular species that, in case of necessity, it can be released again into the wild. Your Lordships will know of innumerable cases of rare animals where that has been done, and I need not bother to detail them. Further, it is essential that the person to whom they are going should be capable of looking after them properly. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: This Amendment would impose specific conditions upon the granting of licences concerning wild animals. It seems designed to ensure that any such animal which is imported shall be kept and cared for humanely, with a reasonable prospect of breeding. Clearly, these are highly laudable aims and the Government are in sympathy with them. But it does not seem necessary and, indeed, I think it is undesirable, to spell them out in the Bill. There is always a danger that, if certain conditions are spelt out, doubt is thereby cast upon the Government's power to impose others not so specified.
The Convention requires that the scientific authority shall be satisfied that the proposed recipient of a living specimen is suitably equipped to house and care for
446
it before it issues an import licence for an Appendix I species. Breeding is not specifically mentioned in the Convention, but it is covered by the requirement that the scientific authority should be satisfied that the import of an Appendix I animal will be for purposes not detrimental to the survival of the species and that it will not be used for commercial purposes. Thus, in the case of Appendix I animals, we are already obliged, as part of our international obligations to fulfil the duties which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, wishes to impose by conditions (a) and (b) in his Amendment.
When we come to discuss the suggested Amendments to Clause 4, noble Lords will see that we propose to give the Secretary of State power to specifiy from time to time premises at which a live animal shall be kept. But condition (c) in the Amendment would give a scientific authority right of access to premises where live animals were being kept. They could then check that all the conditions laid down were being observed. Such an intrusion into the owners' right to privacy could only be justifiable for animals listed on Appendix 1; the Convention gives us no brief to probe into conditions in which legitimately imported animals on Appendix II are kept. But this condition also seems unnecessary. Noble Lords should bear in mind that many of these animals will be on public display, in itself a safeguard against ill-treatment, or will be imported by highly reputable public bodies. In practice it would clearly be in the interests of the owners of a live animal to allow the scientific authority to inspect his premises because anybody who was unwilling to do so would be unlikely to obtain any further licences. Therefore we believe that the aim of the Amendment is already sufficiently fulfilled by the existing arrangements and I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw it.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Would the conditions of an import licence apply, for example, to animals imported for circuses? I would be obliged if my noble friend could comment on circus animals in this connection. One sees circus animals boxed up and transported from one town to another with very little freedom except in the

447
circus ring. Where do they come into this, or arc they not covered in the Bill at all?
Baroness STEDMANOnly the circus animals which are contained in Appendix I of the Convention are covered by the restrictions on import licensing, but we are, of course, concerned to see that animals in circuses are being well cared for and I assure my noble friend that where any complaints are made to the Department we would certainly see that they are checked out; we would ask our scientific authority to check the conditions under which they were being kept and, if necessary, to see that action was taken.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI am not altogether satisfied with the reply of the noble Baroness. I entirely agree that we are under an obligation in this context only in respect of the rarer animals, but there is very much more than the question of preserving rare animals involved. Outside that scientific point of view there is the question of animal welfare and if we had, as we are bound to have, only the list of Schedule I animals, I would in any case have moved the Amendment to secure its extention to all animals. The time has come when we must treat animals more humanely. Any reputable zoo measures its capacity for keeping animals properly by whether it succeeds in keeping them under conditions which ensure that they breed in captivity; this is a sign that the animal is properly looked after, is content and is living a happy and successful life. I believe that that should apply to every animal kept in captivity. Clearly we cannot apply it to every Tom, Dick and Harry who buys one in a pet shop, but at least we can apply it to animals which have to be licensed before they can be imported; and that is what we should do.
I must, I am afraid, also tell the noble Baroness that she disappointed me, for after the way in which we dealt with the first Amendment today I felt that we were about to enter a golden age. It is wrong to wait until complaints are received before starting to take action. There must be a continual inspection so that the scientific authority can be satisfied that the places to which it gives licences to import animals are looking after them properly, and continue to do so, and that the
448
conditions under which those animals were allowed to be imported are still being observed. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment but I hope that the noble Baroness will look into the matter again and I reserve to myself the right to return to this subject on Report, when perhaps she may be able to deal with the matter rather better than she has been able to do tonight.
Lord WYNNE-JONESThe noble Earl says in the Amendment:
"…any Scientific Authority shall be given the opportunity of satisfying itself …"
Does he, by that reference, mean any body that calls itself a scientific authority or does he mean certain recognised scientific authorities? I should have thought that if he means any recognised scientific authority there would be no reason for the Government to oppose the Amendment, although there may be a certain ambiguity about the expression "any Scientific Authority".
The Earl of CRANBROOKThe phrase "any Scientific Authority" appears in the Amendment with the letters SA in capitals, referring to scientific authorities as defined in the Bill. I have had to use the word "any" because one can not tell at this stage to which scientific authority the Minister will refer for the importation of any particular animal, and perhaps the noble Baroness might consider that matter between now and Report; that is, perhaps she can find a better way of defining "Scientific Authority" to enable a right to pursue the conditions under which the animals had been imported. It might be confined to the scientific authority whose advice the Minister had originally taken before allowing the importation. I cannot conceive that a scientific authority advising the Minister on the importation of, say, molluscs would be likely to want to advise or would be useful in advising the Minister in respect of a licence to import mammals.
Baroness STEDMANI am sorry if my reply disappointed the noble Earl and I am grateful for his offer to withdraw the Amendment. I assure him that I will take note of the points he made. This is not an animal welfare Bill; this is an import and export licensing measure and is therefore rather different. We are conscious of the points he has made and

449
we share his concern for the treatment of animals where they are not being looked after properly or are not being kept in proper quarters. We will, without commitment, look at the matter again and, if necessary, come hack to it.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.19 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert —
(" ( ) Without prejudice to any penalty imposed by any enactment, and in particular without prejudice to the imposition of penalties under the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (notwithstanding the provisions of sections 45(3), 56(4) and 304 of that Act), any person who, knowing of or reckless as to its nature, is in any way concerned in the importation or exportation of anything mentioned in subsection (1) above, except in accordance with the terms of a licence issued under subsection (2) above, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 or to imprisonment not exceeding 3 months, or to both.")
The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to invite the Committee to consider rather more closely whether the Bill provides adequately for the enforcement of its provisions. I should say at the outset that the question is one of some complexity and if my noble friend Lady Stedman, who opened the Second Reading debate with such an admirably lucid speech for which I am grateful to her, were able to tell me that between now and Report she would, with her advisers, further consider the provisions to see whether they are satisfactory, then I should not wish to invite the Committee to divide on the Amendment. I hope that she will, after hearing the anxieties which I shall put to the Committee, feel able to say that she will give further consideration to the matter.
Everybody agrees at once that the Bill we are now discussing is not just a technical, dry Bill dealing with some broad matter of policy, but is one which directly involves personal feelings —I might almost say emotions —strongly held about the way in which animals ought to be treated and which invokes a dislike of the idea that mankind for his possibly perfectly reasonable purposes should endanger species of rare animals which ought to be
450
kept alive. In saying that, I do not believe that I embark upon ground which any member of the Committee would challenge.
If I may invoke an analogy, when looking at the legislation which is designed to protect domestic animals from cruel treatment we are all very grateful for the activities of the RSPCA, which investigates individual cases and brims them to justice. These are cases which, if the RSPCA did not intervene, would go unnoticed. The police are heavily overworked and there is no other obvious authority. The RSPCA discharges a very necessary function and fills a vacuum in the arrangements which we have, and I believe that we all approve strongly of their activities.
One of the conservation organisations, the Friends of the Earth, handed me a note which I should like to read, for I think it relevant. They are very responsible people and I am sure that what they say is perfectly accurate. They say:
"The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds took nine successful cases which the police declined to take up."
That is another area in which one has semi-private societies, actuated by strong feelings, taking up cases which would otherwise almost certainly not be taken up. I hasten to say that i do not for a moment criticise the unfortunate police who are overburdened and who have to deal with the monstrous breaches of the law which take place only too frequently. They cannot be blamed for now and again not taking proceedings in the type of case of which I am speaking, whereas the voluntary conservation organisations would certainly do so. They would be ready and anxious to do it and to test the law.
The objective of the Amendment is to make certain that the enforcement provisions relating to the importation and exportation without licence of the matters described in the Schedules will be adequately enforced. I submit that they will be adequately enforced if the enforcement provisions enable the voluntary conservation organisations themselves to undertake individual cases and to bring them before the courts where they feel that that is necessary in order to achieve the purposes of the Bill.
If that is right, the question is, what is the present position? The Bill creates a

451
prohibition against importation and exportation without licence of the relevant matter set out in the Schedules. The first change which it is respectfully submitted to the Committee ought to be made is that it ought to be an offence to import or export without licence not only if one knows that there is no licence —the word "knowing" in the Amendment brings that into operation —but also if one shuts one's eyes to the question of whether there is or is not a licence. The Amendment contains the words:
"…knowing of or reckless as to its nature"
in relation to this importation and exportation. The first and possibly rather subordinate change —but it is, I submit, one which is very important if we are trying to achieve the objective which we all have in mind —is to see that it does not have to be proved that a person knew that the importation or exportation was unlawful and that it is quite enough if it can be said that it was obvious but that the person in question chose to shut his eyes and was reckless as to whether or not it was lawful.
That is the first change. The second change is really far more fundamental. If one looks at the Bill, one searches for a provision which will indicate who is to enforce its provisions. One does not find it. The nearest thing to an indication appears in Clause 1(6) and is a reference to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and a power given to them under certain circumstances to forfeit a matter imported or exported under the powers conveyed on them by the Customs and Excise Act 1952. I have tried to decide for myself which is the enforcement authority under the terms of the Bill as at present drawn. That is the point which I should be grateful if my noble friend would look at. I believe that it is the Customs and Excise under the provisions of the 1952 Act. Again, I hasten to say that I meant nothing against that admirable department, which works conscientiously and thoroughly. However, it seems to me that the Customs and Excise are the only people, who, under the provisions of the Bill as a present drawn, are enabled and required to initiate prosecutions under powers which they have under the 1952 Act in relation to unlawful import and export.
If I am right in that, I submit that the position is really very unsatisfactory. It is not reasonable to expect that great Department, with all the burdens which are incumbent upon it and conscientiously performing its work as it does, to undertake the kind of personal interests and personal, immediate and direct activity which voluntary organisations concerned with conservation will regularly, gladly, anxiously and eagerly undertake. There are many admirable authorities of this kind. I have mentioned one. They are directly concerned with this very problem of seeing that animals are dealt with fairly and that endangered species are not driven out of existence. It seems to me that it is essential, if the objective of the Bill is to be achieved, not to leave its enforcement to a great public department which will not have the apparatus or the motivation and which will indeed very often conscientiously feel that it is unnecessarily and improperly wasting public money if it initiates prosecutions in a case where there is doubt and where the law is not quite clear for one reason or another because it does not immediately touch the general public long-term interest. A private conservation organisation would think it directly essential to look at the individual case, collect the evidence and, if it thought it appropriate, take it before the court by way of a criminal prosecution.
The object of the Amendment is to make sure that that is what the Bill provides. As I read it, I understand the Bill to provide solely for proceedings by the Customs and Excise. In my submission it ought to provide that proceedings can be taken both by the police who, as I say, though they are very heavily overburdened are very admirable but, in particular,by private organisations, the private citizen, who wishes to invoke the criminal law. That is the purpose of the Amendment which I have put down. I feel —and I hope that I do not exaggerate —that if it is not possible for private conservation organisations to intervene by way of assisting the implementation of the criminal law in this field, the Bill will largely lose of its objective. It will not be enforced; it will not achieve what everybody wants it to achieve, and that would be a disastrous pity.
The Amendment which I have ventured to draft does not take away any power now vested in the Customs and Excise. Your

453
Lordships may have noticed that in the terms of the Amendment it is sought to qualify the operation of Sections 45(3), 56(4) and 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952. The effect of that would be that there would be a dual system of enforcement. Where the Customs and Excise thought it was a proper case they would still have power to intervene, but where other circumstances, some of which I have tried to adumbrate before your Lordships' Committee, are present it would be open to any of the private conservation organisations to say that this was a case where there had been an abuse, a case where they would assemble the evidence, a case where they would endeavour to interpret the law and would ask the courts to interpret it if those organisations could not interpret it correctly. The organisations would start proceedings and hope that those proceedings would result in a conviction which would terminate the type of abuse in question.
That is the objective. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is obviously a matter of complication and as such I greatly hope that my noble friend Baroness Stedman, who has been extremely helpful to us in trying to alleviate our anxieties, will feel able to tell the Committee that between now and the Report stage she will go further into the matter with her advisers and consider whether something on these lines ought not to be placed before your Lordships for consideration.
Lord WYNNE-JONESThis Amendment, which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has moved, represents a very important matter. If I may anticipate for a moment what is to follow I should say that it has some relation to the Amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and myself, which is to be dealt with later, concerning the question of the point of sale. It is an attempt to go beyond the enforcement simply by the Customs authorities, and to ensure that the enforcement can be carried out throughout the whole of the distribution of any species. This is an important matter because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill pointed out, it can easily happen that too much is thrown upon the Customs and Excise, and it is vital that we should make it possible for action to be taken by any interested bodies.
454
Wherever any animal, parts of an animal, any flora, or anything else covered by this Bill is involved, it should be possible for action to be taken in order to ensure that the purposes of the Bill are properly carried out. I hope that my noble frietid will be able to give some assurance to your Lordships' Committee that she will be able to look at this matter and tell us that the Government will provide some means of dealing effectively with this question of enforcement of the Bill.
Lord CRAIGTONI, too, should like to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. The noble Baroness will probably not know that the conservation societies themselves are already getting together and money is being put up to form a policing organisation to ensure that when the Bill is law we shall know that the law is being kept. It will add teeth to their efforts if they themselves can initiate a prosecution. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I hope that the noble Baroness will consider this matter.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment is designed to permit private prosecution for illegal imports or exports under the Bill. Under Customs and Excise legislation goods imported or exported illegally are liable to forfeiture, and the person responsible for their import or export, if he acted knowingly and with intent to evade, is liable to imprisonment, or a fine, or both. The powers to prosecute for an offence under this legislation are limited to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, as provided (as my noble friend said) by Section 281 of the Customs and Excise Act of 1952.
This Amendment seeks to avoid prejudicing the powers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, and, in particular, it seeks to disapply those sections of the 1952 Act quoted in the Amendment, which all provide that penalties under Customs legislation shall not apply where specific offences in connection with imports and exports are penalised by separate legislation. I bow to the knowledge of my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill in his understanding of Customs legislation, which is far better than mine. I appreciate that members of the public will be concerned, and will wish to take action, if they see an animal, plant, or item in this country which they have

455
reason to think has been illegally imported. But virtually all the evidence required to support such a prosecution would be in the hands of Government Departments, so that a private prosecution would be less likely to succeed.
I should point out also that prosecutions brought under Customs and Excise legislation are often the result of a lengthy and painstaking inquiry, and the Commissioners' powers and resources are clearly far greater than those of any private individual. Although the Amendment may not debar action by Customs, there could well be practical difficulties if a private prosecution had been brought, and perhaps lost, while the Customs' case was still being prepared. I should like to emphasise that both my Department and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise value the co-operation of members of the public. We hope that the voluntary conservation bodies also will continue to give us their help, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, intimated, in implementing these controls as effectively as possible.
I am sure that the Customs would enforce this legislation conscientiously and effectively, as they have enforced similar legislation in the past. They have prosecuted on a number of occasions where restrictive animals or birds have been imported, and it must also be remembered that the evasion of these restrictions may be linked with evasion of duty and a private prosecution for evasion of a restriction may seriously hamper the Customs in the enforcement of the law relating to duty. I accept the concern of my noble friend, but I hope that he will withdraw his Amendment. I am always willing to consider and to reconsider, but I cannot offer very much hope to him that, if we take this matter back and reconsider it, we should be any more favourably inclined towards it at Report stage than we are now. I should be perfectly happy, if my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment now, to consider it and have talks with my noble friend again before the Report stage, but beyond that I am not prepared to go.
Lord STOW HILLI am most grateful to my noble friend. She admits quite frankly that the only enforcement authority which would have the power under the Bill as it stands is the Customs and Excise,
456
and I feel that in so doing she gives her case away. My noble friend has very kindly said that she will consider this matter but that she cannot hold out much hope to me. In these circumstances I am quite content to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment, but as my noble friend cannot hold out hope to me, I cannot hold out any hope to her of my being less tiresome on the Report stage than I have been today at the Committee stage. But I am most grateful to my noble friend for her undertaking.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBYBefore the Amendment is withdrawn, may I offer a suggestion? It is that the co-operation of the voluntary conservation bodies might he obtained in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill. Speaking from recollection, I believe there is one precedent, if it is the only one: that of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who are given statutory recognition which empowers them to take action pari passu with the police in the enforcement of legislation about cruelty to children. I believe it is the only voluntary body which is given this special status in the eyes of the law. Anyhow, it might be worth exploring. It seems to me that there are difficulties, and even objections sometimes, about a purely private prosecution, a prosecution by a private citizen who may not understand fully the implications of the action that he is taking and who could get in the way of the Customs and Excise. He could "botch" the whole thing up for them by precipitate action or action through ignorance of the full implication of what he was doing.
Is it a possible way out here for conservation bodies to be named as organisations which have the right to prosecute? One assumes that they would be responsible and well-informed bodies which could work in close co-operation with the Customs and Excise and so ensure that what they proposed to do was not going to he obstructive to any action the Customs and Excise had in mind. Moreover, I think that if this provision were made then in most cases, if the vigilance of the conservation body led to a report to the Customs and Excise that they thought that there was a prima, facie case for a prosecution, they would probably be content to leave it to the Customs and

457
Excise to pursue the further investigations and, if necessary, take the action which the law enabled them to do.
This is just a suggestion; but I feel that to leave it to the Customs and Excise alone is to narrow the possible area of successful vigilance. I may be wrong about this, hut sometimes an animal of a particular species becomes known to be in somebody's back garden or in an attic and as being kept there for private exhibition to people who may be interested to see a rare specimen which has been smuggled into the country. Citizens may hear about this, and they may feel that there is some ground for investigation. If they can report the matter to a voluntary body which might first embark on preliminary investigations before putting the matter in the hands of the Customs and Excise, that might help. Sometimes the citizen is reluctant to call in the police or to bring in bureaucracy, from whose actions rather serious results may follow; and if the voluntary bodies could be, as it were, an intermediate point of information and of report to the Customs and Excise, in co-operation with them, you would have responsibility wihout officialdom, you would relieve the citizen of his anxieties and you would probably be of assistance to the Customs and Excise themselves. Anyhow, since my noble friend is going to consider the matter again I offer that as a possible addition to the matters she might take into account.
The Earl of MANSFIELDI have moved hastily to the Back-Benches because I was going to say that I hope the noble Baroness will bear in mind that there is, I think, quite a lot of support from these Benches, albeit the Back-Benches, for this Amendment; and I say that having started my legal career as a pupil in the chambers of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. There are many occasions, as I suggest, when it would be wholly inappropriate for a prosecution to be initiated by the Customs and Excise. They are mostly concerned with prosecutions which are in point of time probably placed, in relation to goods, pretty close to the point of entry. In those circumstances, if, for instance, the goods —and I use the word in its generic sense —are not near the point of entry, either in place or in time, it may well be far more appropriate either for the police to prosecute or for
458
a private prosecution to take place, whether or not that is under the aegis of a voluntary body; it really does not matter for the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment whether the prosecution is undertaken privately by an individual or by a group of individuals acting in concert. So I hope that the noble Baroness will consider this matter with her advisers with some degree of seriousness.
Baroness WHITEMay I also urge the noble Baroness to take account of the very ingenious suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, because I think this might get her out of what I fully appreciate is a genuine difficulty. We can all see the apprehension that an ill-advised private prosecution might make things worse rather than better. On the other hand, if this analogy is a sound one —I have no notion whether or not it is, but it sounds to me prima facie to be a sound analogy —then one has very knowledgeable and very responsible organisations in this country which could be relied upon to undertake responsible prosecutions only, and I would have thought that this might well be a way out of what might otherwise be a difficult dilemma. We all realise that official bodies are most reluctant to undertake prosecutions unless, I would say, they are 98 per cent. certain of success, and that they will not chance their arm on something where they have doubts about it. We know this in so many spheres, where a public prosecution, because it is not virtually certain of success, is not undertaken even though one may be almost certain that there is an infringement of the law. So I would hope very much that my noble friend will consider this seriously.
Baroness STEDMANI was intending to consider it seriously in any case, but the more I have heard while the debate has gone on the more I have had doubts raised in my own mind that they might perhaps be able to make out a case for the private prosecution and we might perhaps be able to use the method suggested by my noble friend Lord Houghton: but we will certainly consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.48 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 13, after ("statement") insert ("or representation")
The noble and learned Lord said: In a very general sense, this Amendment is directed to the same objective as the last one, and I should be grateful if I might take it together with Amendment No. 17, which is in exactly the same form. The two Amendments relate to the provisions in subsection (4) of the Bill concerning the making of untrue statements, and what I would ask your Lordships to do by way of amendment is to include in line 13, after the word "statement", the words "or representation", and to make the same change in line 17. In other words, if I may take paragraph (a), the offence would be:
"makes a statement or representation which he knows to be false in a material particular ";
and a corresponding change would be made in the later paragraph.
What is pointed out to me is that you may well have a case where there is a blank in a form and the applicant is asked to say in the blank whether (a) or (b) is the case. He does not do so; he just does not fill in the blank. I should have thought that a "statement" connotes the idea of a more or less precise concept expressed in consecutive wording. It is different from an expletive; it is not the same as "representation". Representation may be included in the word "statement"; but a representation can take all sorts of different forms. You can wink or shrug your shoulders or do all sorts of things to produce a belief in the particular person to whom you make the representation without making a statement to him.
That is the point of these two Amendments. I should not be serving a useful purpose if I were to make a long and tiresome oration in support of each. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is a sensible change; that it strengthens the enforcement provisions and cuts out from them a weakness which might otherwise be exploited by a person of ill faith. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN:I am advised that in legal usage the words "statement" and "representation" are very close in meaning. That being so, I am happy to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.51 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("in a material particular").
The noble Viscount said: With the consent of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 14 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 15 and 18. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, my Amendments to omit the words "in a material particular" are also to do with getting the truth. I was rather emboldened to put down these Amendments by the fact that on 11th July 1974 the Government accepted Amendments of mine to omit these words from the Health and Safety at Work Act. I agree that the Health and Safety at Work Act has nothing to do with the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill, but the principle is the same.
These Amendments make it an offence knowingly and recklessly to tell a lie when applying for a licence under the Bill. As the Bill stands, under this subsection deliberate lies are not punishable unless they are material. In principle, why should anyone tell a deliberate lie when applying for a licence to import an endangered species? The subsection as it stands does not create any absolute offence, but operates only when something is done knowingly or recklessly; so why turn a blind eye to a deliberate falsehood?
It may seem at first sight that material facts can be separated easily from nonmaterial ones; but I can give instances of where this is not so. Let us take the applicant's address as material —which I think one must. I can imagine a situation where an applicant puts down a friend's address as his own because his own address is known to the scientific authority as that of a limited company of which he is the sole director and which has been blacklisted for abuse of licences in the past. Is the date on the application form material? I should say that it is; because the case may occur where the scientific authority of a country decides not to issue licences for imports from a certain date, but decides also to allow existing applications before that date to be honoured. The date of the application is then very material. Is the man taken to commit an offence if he puts down deliberately an earlier date so as to avoid the ban? An applicant might perhaps be superstitious

461
and might put down an earlier date to avoid, say, "Friday, 13th". If so, that is surely anomalous.
As I see it, an additional problem is as to whom the mis-statement is to appear material. If it appears material to the scientific authority but not to the applicant —and this could genuinely happen —is there an offence? I am aware that other Acts refer to material mistakes. On the whole, they are absolute offences unqualified by the words "knowingly or recklessly", as in this case. I can give an example from Section 78 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, part of which reads:
"If any person does any of the following things, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act: …if, for the purpose of obtaining a licence, certificate, or instrument he makes a declaration or statement" —
your Lordships will note that there is no reference to "knowingly or recklessly" —
"false in any material particular, unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know of that falsity".
In other words, the burden of proof is reversed and the defendant must demonstrate his lack of knowledge.
I feel that these words ought to be omitted. They have been omitted from other Acts. I have referred to my Amendment to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and I need not go into that; but I moved then to delete the same words, "in a material particular", on the ground that a person involving himself in the proceeding of that Act ought to warrant his own truthfulness. He should not be able to argue over the meaning of "material" in order to avoid the consequences of a deliberate lie on his part.
I hope that the noble Baroness has the gist of what I am trying to explain. The point is that these words have been omitted from other Acts and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is the principle that counts. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANThe subsection as it stands would make it an offence when applying for a licence, knowingly or recklessly to make a statement or furnish information which is incorrect in a material particular. Courts are familiar with this expression which occurs in offences under the Perjury Act 1911 and many other statutes relating to false statements. It
462
means a relevant fact; one which if wrong could lead the Secretary of State to make a decision on the issue of the licence or its terms other than the one he would have taken if he had been given the correct fact. It is not the intention to penalize someone who makes a mistake in an unimportant detail.
These Amendments would make it an offence to make any mistake on an application, however trivial, whether it was done knowingly or merely recklessly. It would seem unduly harsh to penalise an applicant for a minor error which would not affect the decision on a licence application. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that and withdraw. I also accept I am surrounded by a wealth of legal knowledge, and if they come to the noble Viscount's defence and say his wording is right, I may be persuaded to accept it.
The Earl of MANSFIELDWould the noble Baroness agree that, if you tell a white lie, one will not be convicted, but, if it becomes black in the opinion of the courts, one will be convicted?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDI follow the point made by the noble Baroness; but I put down this Amendment because previously I had the same Amendment accepted on the other Bill. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but I am not too happy about the authority being able to tell the difference between a white and black lie. Sometimes they may get confused as to what is a white lie and what is a black one. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("or").
The noble Baroness said: This is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 19, with which it should be considered. The effect of these two Amendments is to make it an offence to recklessly furnish false information or documents. As the clause is drafted, subsections 4(a) and 4(c) cover both a statement known to be false and a false statement made recklessly. In the case of information or documents, however, subsection 4(b) makes it an offence only where the falsity

463
is known. The Amendment will provide a parallel with subsection 4(c) by covering any false document or information furnished recklessly. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 17, after ("statement") insert ("or representation").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert
("or
(d) recklessly furnishes a document or information which is false in a material particular,").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this in moving the previous Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. 8.5 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("£400") and insert ("£1,000").
The noble Lord said: This is a very brief point. As the noble Baroness and your Lordships will know, for a clouded leopard, for example, one would have to pay over £1,000. But if anybody secures a clouded leopard for £1,000 and pays a fine of £400, they have made a nice profit out of it. I realise the difficulty, but I should like to hear what the noble Baroness has to say on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANThe present £400 maximum fine in Clause 1(4) is that which magistrates' courts can impose on summary conviction over a wide range of indictable offences (including theft and criminal damage). It is therefore by convention the normal limit of their fining powers in relation to purely summary offences or on summary conviction of hybrid offences; that is, one such as the present offence which may be tried summarily or on indictment, with maximum penalties specified in the relevant enactment for each mode of trial.
Maximum fines on summary conviction higher than the normal f400 are available in a limited number of instances; for example, where the illicit profit to be made from committing the offence would outweigh the maximum fine which could otherwise be imposed, or where the speed of summary proceedings is essential for effective enforcement of a relatively serious offence. But generally it is preferable that magistrates' courts' powers should be standardised on the basis of the £400 maximum. In the present case, if it seems desirable that a higher penalty should be available, it is open to the prosecution to proceed on indictment where, on conviction, an unlimited fine or a maximum of two years' imprisonment are available.
It may be objected that the £400 limit of the magistrates' courts' fining power, which was fixed hack in 1967, has been seriously eroded by inflation. This point is well recognised and the recently published Report of the James Committee on the distribution of business between the Crown Courts and magistrates' courts proposes that the limit should be increased from £400 to £1,000, and that all hybrid regulatory offences should in due course carry, on the summary limb, a new maximum fine of £1,000. When legislation to implement the James Report is introduced, the opportunity will be taken to review the penalties in existing legislation, including the penalty in this clause, in the light of the new maximum. But it would be wrong for this Bill to anticipate the Government's consideration of the James recommendations, while leaving unchanged those for offences in other legislation of the same or greater intrinsic gravity. To do so would leave the courts with little idea of the relative seriousness with which Parliament has decided that they are to be regarded and hence provide little indication for sentencing policy, of the aptness of a sentence.
Lord CRAIGTONI am grateful, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 37, after ("shall") insert ("after consultation with the appropriate scientific authority regarding its disposal,").
The noble Lord said: This is a small point. There are cases regarding for-

465
feited animals of zoos having to accept for the sake of the animal an animal seized by the Customs which they really do not want. There are cases where an illegal importer claims that of course the bird which has arrived was not ordered by him at his address but finds himself given custody of the bird by the Customs and Excise which he knows perfectly well he has illegally imported. I am aware of the fact that this Amendment is incorrectly drafted; but there is nothing in this Bill which gives the Customs and Excise the powers, if they want so to do, to consult the scientific authority about the disposal of these creatures. It is an incredibly difficult position. There is a great deal of inside information that scientific authorities have. Would it not be an advantage for it to be put into the Bill that the Customs and Excise could consult the scientific authority about the disposing of the creature? I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANAs the noble Lord has accepted, the Amendment is defective in drafting. Noble Lords will observe that line 37 on page 2 of the Bill refers to liability to forfeiture and not the act of seizure. The liability arises at the time of importation, whether or not the actual seizure is effected at that time. This is a matter which has been decided by the Courts. Therefore it is clear that con- sultation of the kind envisaged in the Amendment cannot affect the liability to forfeiture for which the clause provides.
So far as the intention behind the Amendment is concerned, I am happy to be able to assure the Committee that where animals, birds and other goods restricted for conservation reasons are seized by Customs because they have been imported contrary to those restrictions, it has always been the practice of Customs to consult the policy Department, which is in touch with the scientific authority, about disposal. A legal provision for this purpose is not therefore necessary. It would, indeed, by positively undesirable and may hamper Customs in their task of enforcement.
Consultations as to disposal normally have to be conducted speedily —usually by telephone. In the case of live creatures, it is usually done before seizure takes place, for obvious reasons. The Committee will appreciate that the need for seizure may arise urgently during the
466
course of investigation. If consultation were a legal requirement, it would have to be on a more formal basis and the delay may well obstruct Customs in their enforcement activity. For instance, it might give the owner an opportunity to conceal or dispose of the animal or bird, so that it could not be seized at all.
I can assure the Committee that Customs will continue to act, as they have clone in the past, with every regard for the objectives of conservation. But we must oppose this Amendment, which is likely to impede the effective enforcement of the very controls we are discussing.
Lord CRAIGTONI, too, oppose the Amendment as I have drafted it. However, if the noble Baroness is satisfied that it is not necessary to write into the Bill that there may be consultations with the scientific authority, and in the hope that the Government may be able to look at this again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert —
("( ) Where anything is sold to which subsection (6) above applies, the contract shall be deemed to include a warranty that the conditions laid clown in this section and which refer to that thing, have been complied with.").
The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the noble Baroness for having redrafted this Amendment. Whether or not it is improved, I do not know —it only came in the first Marshalled List —but, as now drafted, where it says that the contract should be deemed to include a warranty rather than "to include a warranty" as in the previous Amendment, it forces the seller to make certain that what he is selling is legally imported. This, to some extent, protects the buyer. It makes the seller very wary of advertising for sale something of whose legality he is not sure. So far as I can see it does not add anything at all to his paper work or the keeping of records at the ordinary place of a sale. If I go into a shop and buy something, I suppose there is an implied warranty by the seller that the goods are not stolen. This is all that this Amendment is saying.I believe it would be a useful Amendment, but am content to leave it to the noble Baroness as to whether she wishes to

467
turn it down or to have another go. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANIn discussing this Amendment, we shall be touching also on matters which affect Amendments Nos. 28, 35, 42, 69, 26 and 27A. The element common to all of them is that they seek to back up controls at the point of import with provisions relating to the point of sale. It is natural that people should be offended if they see apparently banned goods on sale in the shops and I can understand that they will want to take some action. But I do not think that this Amendment is the best way to go about it. First, it must be remembered that, even for the species and items in the Schedules to this Bill, there will be no bar to commercial trade in many of them. We are not required to restrict trade in the vulnerable species listed in Appendix II to the Convention, provided the exporting country has been willing to give a permit for export. And we have no intention of imposing such a restriction unless our scientific authorities tell us that the Convention has got it wrong and that the species really is endangered. Moreover some of the items listed in Schedule 3 to the Bill may be derived from species that are not even included in Appendix II to the Convention —they are not even vulnerable; they have simply been included as requiring licences to help us overcome the "recognisability" problem.
It follows that there will continue to be a good deal of commercial trade in many of the species and items covered by this Bill. We are stopping it only for the truly endangered species. This particular Amendment, of course, goes much wider than the controlled species, because subsection (6) covers all whole animals and plants of all kinds.
We believe it would impose a wholly unacceptable burden on retailers and other traders to require them to maintain records of all wildlife goods to show whether they were covered by the controls and, if so, whether they had been licensed. It must be remembered that a single large import of skins might be split up into a number of batches and treated in various ways by numerous traders before reaching the shops. Incidentally, I would have thought that the Amendment falls short
468
of its objective in that it covers goods for sale, but does not cover live animals and plants on exhibition.
I believe that the aim of this and the other "point of sale" Amendments can be met adequately by the use of existing powers and existing records. If, for example, someone were to report to the Department of the Environment that they had seen a leopard-skin coat, the Department could arrange for the species to be identified by an expert and check whether it was likely to have been covered by an import licence. If there then were reasonable grounds to suspect an illegal import, they could ask Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to investigate.
Customs already have considerable powers to investigate cases of suspected importation contrary to a prohibition or restriction. These powers have been found to be quite adequate in the past in connection with prohibitions and restrictions for conservation and other reasons, and have in fact been used on numerous occasions to good effect. The restrictions provided for by this Bill are similar to those we have previously exercised over imports of animals and birds and I cannot see that they change the situation in a way that calls for additional powers.
The Customs do not hesitate to use their powers to investigate cases where illegal importation is suspected and, where confirmatory evidence is obtained, the existing law provides both for forfeiture of the goods and for prosecution where there has been intent to evade a prohibition.
I can appreciate that anyone reporting a suspected illegal import will be interested in knowing what action has been taken. I certainly have no wish to discourage vigilance by the voluntary bodies and private individuals with an interest in conservation —indeed I welcome the help which they can give towards the effective enforcement of our controls. It may be that, in the light of past experience, we can improve the feedback to bodies and individuals who report suspected offences. I am certainly prepared to reveal in summary form figures showing the results of the action taken as a result of such reports. Moreover, officials will be willing to give a certain amount of informal guidance as to which types of

469
items are likely to be in the country legally and which are not. But I must emphasise that the Government cannot undertake to reveal the outcome of individual inquiries, except where a prosecution ensues.
We have every sympathy with the noble Lord's aim of stopping commercial trade of all kinds in truly endangered species of wild-life and I can assert that Departments will use the very extensive powers already available to them. I know the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, believes that his Amendment, as re-written, would not require the retailer to keep records. If it transpires that his goods were illegal imports and if he was sued by the purchaser he could get redress from his supplier. I know that is the line the noble Lord is taking. My advisers are at present unconvinced but we are willing to look at this again, and in the light of this I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord CRA1GTONI am very grateful to the noble Baroness, as will be the conservation bodies, for the detailed and informative way in which she has said that she does not like my Amendment, and I am glad that she will be looking at the point again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert —
(" ( A person in breach of the terms of a licence issued under subsection (2) above shall be liable, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400, and to a fine not exceeding £20 for every day on which the offence continues after conviction").
The noble Earl said: I find myself in some difficulty, because I am not certain which Amendments are to be passed and which are not to be passed, and I do not know what will be the condition of this Bill by the time when, sooner or later, we get to supper. But certainly at the stage when I put down this Amendment, bearing in mind the Amendment which I have already withdrawn, it seemed necessary that there should be some penalty for breaking any conditions which were attached to a licence under Clause 1(2).
still think that that is likely to be necessary, although I must confess that I am not certain in these circumstances what the words "general and specific" mean. But if they mean, as I assume they do, that conditions can be attached to the licence other than those mentioned in Clause 4(1), then unless this Amendment were accepted there would be no penalties applicable to a breach of any conditions attached to licences given under subsection (2) of Clause 1. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment would make a person who breached the terms of a licence liable to a fine and provide a cumulative penalty for retaining the animal, plant or item after conviction. The Amendment appears to be unnecessary. Imports and exports of controlled goods are already prohibited, except in accordance with the terms of a licence issued by the Secretary of State, under Clause 1(2) of the Bill. Goods imported contrary to these terms would he subject to forfeiture under Customs and Excise legislation and the importer could he liable to prosecution. To impose a line as proposed by this Amendment would thus entail a double penalty for a single offence. The proposed cumulative penalty would also seem unnecessary and inapplicable where the condition did not relate to a continuing state of affairs. The goods would be forfeited once the fact of illegal import was established.
There are already penalties relating to breach of conditions after import; for example, for moving the animal to premises which were not those specified in any direction by the Secretary of State. In this context I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, whether he would be prepared to await discussion of the Government Amendment on Clause 4, from which he will see that it is proposed to introduce a penalty for retaining an animal at the wrong premises. I hope that when we discuss this point he will agree that it would meet most of his requirements. I imagine that the Amendment is primarily concerned with import licences. But I would point out that it would, in any case, be virtually impossible to impose such conditions on an export licence for an animal, plant or item which would have left the country. I hope that when we get to Clause 4 we might clear the noble Earl's mind a little.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I shall wait for Clause 4, and if I am not then satisfied I can always put the Amendment down again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.24 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert —
(" ( ) A person handles unlicensed goods if, knowing or believing them to be items unlawfully imported by virtue of this section, he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, dispersal or realisation by, or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, and it may be convenient if I also speak at the same time to Amendment No. 25. I move this Amendment from this geographical position in the Chamber, although I am painfully conscious of the presence of a Whip behind me and the possibility of my buttons eventually being snipped off. I appreciate that these Amendments are an attempt to invite the Government to consider widening the whole scope of this Bill. As the Bill now stands —and I appreciate the concern of the Customs and Excise to clutch on to it —it is concerned with the importation of goods (and I use the word "importation" as a convenient term) and is not primarily concerned with what happens to those goods once they have finally left the point of entry, although I bear in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said in her reply to Amendment No. 22.
As I see it, the defects of the Bill are possibly twofold. Once goods have left the point of entry, and have left it for some time, it is wholly inappropriate for the Customs and Excise to pursue them very far. I know they will disagree, but I have considerable knowledge of their ways and workings from my past. They have neither the facilities to make a thorough-going investigation of this kind of problem, nor am I sure it is a very good idea that they should try. It is a matter which is very much better left to the police because, as noble Lords and Ladies who are criminally minded will already have perceived, these Amendments follow very closely upon the provisions in
472
the Theft Act which deal with honest handling
As the Bill stands, we reach the ludicrous position that if, for instance, someone imports goods which are prohibited under this Bill, and gets away with it —and we have to admit to ourselves, even if not to the Customs, that such will happen —and he thereafter sells those goods to a dealer who takes them in the knowledge that they are unlicensed, but not in the knowledge of how precisely they came into the country, I can see nothing that the Customs and Excise or anybody else can do to stop the subsequent sale. That is something which I apprehend the conservation bodies view with great alarm, because it makes nonsense of the whole Bill. Therefore, if the Government are going to put something on the Statute Book, making use of our very limited Parliamentary time, they should at least try to make it as effective as they possibly can. That is why I invite the noble Baroness and the Government to pay regard to this matter at this stage.
Of course, my Amendments go rather further than dishonest dealers who merely, as it were, buy from an importer or his agent. I anticipate that as the goods dry up, as one hopes they will, under this Bill it will become more and more profitable to undertake a dishonest exercise of that nature; this happened with birds' eggs and a number of things like that. Therefore, it will he worth more and more to dishonest men and crooks, not to put too fine a point on it, to engage in this kind of exercise. We then come across all the various people who are links in the chain between the original point of entry and the eventual suit made of vicuna cloth, or whatever it happens to be —and I quote that example facetiously.
As I read this Bill, there is no power, unless one brings them all in under some kind of conspiracy (and "conspiracy" is not a very popular word in Government circles these days) to bring into the net the man who stores the goods, the man who oils the wheels and makes the whole affair —I was going to use the word "conspiracy" —prosper, so that the crooks gain their unjust reward. So that, in the same way as the law provides for all the people who deal in stolen goods, my Amendments try to provide for all the people who may try to deal in unlicensed goods.
The Amendments emphasise the dishonest nature of the transaction. I want to emphasise that a person who is an innocent receiver or handler will not be liable to be convicted, so we are dealing here only with dishonest people. I am painfully aware that the Amendments are not properly drafted. I used the word "goods" because it came conveniently from the Theft Act, but if I had thought rather more about it I should have put down on the Marshalled List something more cumbersome but possibly more correct. I am also aware that as the Bill now stands, Amendments such as these could not be accepted, if only by virtue of the Long Title. Nevertheless, if the Government accept the spirit of the Amendments, and bear in mind that we are now in the very early stage of the passage of this Bill through Parliament, I have absolutely no doubt that these worthwhile provisions can be written into it.
Lord BROCKWAYI hope that the Government will give consideration to this Amendment, or to Amendment No. 25 which raises a somewhat similar point. I find that it is a little strange that I should be speaking in favour of an Amendment which is moved from the Opposition Front Bench.
The Earl of MANSFIELDWhy?
Lord BROCKWAYHowever, we are considering the most effective way to deal with the essentials of this measure, and I want to assure the Minister that we are doing so with very great appreciation of the purpose of this Bill and that our desire is only to strengthen it.
First, I should like to argue in favour of this Amendment, as I am in sympathy with those who are responsible for carrying out customs duties at Heathrow and at the ports. They have an extraordinarily difficult task to perform and so far as Customs and Excise are concerned I believe it is true that the conditions often make their task increasingly difficult. Often I come into conflict with the officials at Heathrow and at the ports and sometimes their decisions are remedied after an appeal to higher quarters. However, when I think of the duties which those officials have to fulfil it is too much to ask that in this Bill we should make them responsible for saying whether goods are
474
legally or illegally imported into this country..
I follow that appeal on behalf of the officials at our airports and seaports by suggesting that it is impossible to say that goods which have been accepted by Customs and Excise but which are contrary to the provisions of this Bill subsequently shall become legal in this country. We do not apply that principle to drugs. Drugs may pass Customs and Excise, but still they remain illegal in this country; and anyone who handles them, or who organises their coming into this country, or who sells them, or who is in possession of them is breaking our law. That same principle ought to apply to articles which escape Customs and Excise but which nevertheless are sold in this country. Although they have evaded Customs and Excise, they would have been illegal if they had been discovered by Customs and Excise. But having passed Customs and Excise, there are, so far as I can see in this Bill, no provisions by which they remain illegal when they are sold and no provisions by which those who facilitate their sale can be prosecuted.
When replying to this Amendment and considering other Amendments which have a similar purpose, I hope that the Minister will at least be able to say to us that this very important point will be considered before Report stage. I hope also that if the drafting of this Amendment is not acceptable, an acceptable Amendment will be produced.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment and Amendment No. 25 are variants of an attempt to extend control from the point of import to the point of sale. The Amendments would make it an offence for somebody to handle goods which he knew or believed to be illegally imported. I do not want to repeat again my lengthy reply to Amendment No. 22. However, the Government believe that the difficulties can be adequately met by our existing powers and records. These Amendments appear to be somewhat wider ranging, in that they would cover anyone handling the goods after import. On the other hand, unlike some of the other Amendments, they would leave the onus of proof on the prosecution. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will have gathered from the discussions and from my reply to Amendment No. 22 that in

475
our view this Amendment would create an undesirable overlap with the existing Customs powers and could well undermine the ability of Customs to take action. While, however, it will or may create problems and some difficulty for Customs in meshing them together satisfactorily with their present Customs legislation, I am conscious of the feeling of the Committee about the Amendment and am prepared to have a look at the drafting and the implications of it and to consult again with the noble Earl before Report stage.
The Earl of MANSFIELDFirst, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for the generous manner in which he greeted my Amendment. On the very first occasion that I defeated a Government in 1973, of which my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton was a Member, I defeated it only because of the votes of the then Opposition who came flooding into the Lobby with me. At Report stage it would be nice to have the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, with me, if that were necessary. More seriously, I am very pleased that the noble Baroness is prepared to look again at this Amendment. I say with sincerity that there comes a time for Customs and Excise, however worthy they are —I am not criticising, for in my day I used to prosecute for them —when the maintenance of the criminal law should he left to the police and the ordinary prosecuting authorities or, in proper cases, to private prosecutions, at least in England and Wales. As I said before, I am conscious that these Amendments are badly drafted, and never expected what I may say was a very flattering reception.
Before I withdraw Amendment No. 24, the only other matter I would ask the noble Baroness to consider so far as Amendment No. 25 is concerned —I am speaking immediately after the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill in order to throw a fly on the water in a titillating manner —is that in Amendment No. 25 there is summary conviction. But if one is to be consistent about this, provision ought to be made for conviction and penalty on indictment. When the noble Baroness considers the one point I hope she will also consider the other. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness WHITE Baroness WHITE moved Amendment No. 25A:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert —
(" (6A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State —

(a) to maintain a register of licences issued under subsection (2) above, and of certificates issued in pursuance of subsection (6B) below;

(b) to secure that the register is open to inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and

(c) to afford members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining from the Secretary of State, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25A which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones and myself, and to speak to Amendment No. 25B which is part and parcel of the proposed procedure. I do this because in a completely different context, and one which I think provides a reasonable analogy, your Lordships' House has agreed that where one has registers of this nature it should be possible for the public to obtain access to them. We discussed this principle at considerable length when we were dealing with the Control of Pollution Act, and there it was agreed that where a Secretary of State, or the Minister responsible, licensed a particular action which was one of considerable public interest to those concerned —in that case with pollution; in this case with conservation —the information that a licence had been issued was, and should be, public property. It was recognised under the Control of Pollution Act, as I am suggesting should be recognised under this legislation, that there could be circumstances where someone might perfectly legitimately put a case to the Secretary of State that there were special reasons where, if it were known on what terms he had obtained the licence, or exactly what the licence covered, it might adversely affect his interests, and if the Secretary of State was satisfied that this was so he could then refrain from including the particulars in the register open to the public, but it would also be incumbent upon the Secretary of State to indicate to the public that such an exception had been made.
It seems to me that the principle concerned in these two situations is similar;

477
that the public are entitled to know if licences have been issued in such circumstances, that there is under Amendment No. 25B a procedure whereby if there were some genuine danger to the interests of the person concerned it could be impartially considered by the Secretary of State and those interests could be safeguarded. I am sure it would be of considerable assistance to the voluntary bodies and, in a few cases, experts in this particular field, if they were able easily to obtain this information, understand that until now the Department has resisted the suggestion that this provision should he included in the Bill. They have said, in effect, "Well, in certain circumstances we would probably be willing to let certain approved persons know whether so-and-so was licensed to import such-and-such an animal or object or product." At any rate it is suggested for the Appendix I animals in the Convention but not for Appendix 2.
I must confess that I have not been able to go into the details of exactly what this would cover, but it is the attitude with which I am concerned: that it should be regarded as some concession that this information should be available. I believe it is a right that this information should be available. After all, the Department will know perfectly well what licences have been issued. The onus of seeking exclusion from the register will be on a person who has some personal pecuniary interest in the matter. Therefore the onus should rightly he on that person, to be dealt with under Amendment 25B and not 25A.
I do not know whether or not my noble friend will, as I very much hope she will, follow up the proposals in Amendment No. 12, but if it is made possible for persons other than Customs and Excise in certain circumstances to initiate prosecutions, then obviously this is an item of information which would have to be available to them. It seems to me the arguments are strongly in favour of open government, a principle to which the noble Baroness and I are both committed, and therefore one ought to resist the very natural tendency of all Departments not to reveal information if they can possibly avoid it. So even if my noble friend has been advised to the contrary (as I suspect she may have been) I hope she will have a look at this. She has been extraordinarily
478
co-operative over this Bill and I am sure we all appreciate that very much indeed, but it seems to me that this principle, which has already been accepted by Parliament, that where registers of licences are compiled by the Department they should be open to public inspection, should apply equally to the provisions of the Bill before us. I beg to move.
Lord WYNNE-JONESI hope that my noble friend Lady Stedman will be able to meet us on this particular Amendment. As my noble friend Lady White has pointed out, what we are asking for is the supplying to people of information which in normal circumstances should not be regarded as secret, confidential or private. It concerns a public matter. However, there is in Amendment No. 25B provision for anyone who considers that his particular business would be affected by publishing this information, to ask the Secretary of State that it should not be published. That would appear to cover any legitimate cases.
Why do we want this? It is in order that the people of the country, the interested societies, and so on, should be able to know quite clearly who have licences to carry on this import and export. If they know this, they are in a very much better position to look at any infringements of the law. If they do not know it, they have to go round and try to find out in one way or another. It would seem that it is highly desirable that this information should be made public. My noble friend said earlier that she was looking forward to a greater feedback between her Department and the various societies. From my own personal knowledge I know she has gone a long way to encourage and help in this, and this is a desirable thing.
We would say that this Amendment goes a considerable way to help exactly this sort of feedback in order to supply the information which enables the various societies to take some policing action. My noble friend has indicated some two or three times this evening that her Department consider —or perhaps it is not her Department but Her Majesty's Customs and Excise —that they are already in a position to do the whole policing themselves. From what has been said by Members of your Lordships' Committee this evening, it is clear that this is not

479
accepted as being a correct reflection of the present state of affairs. I think most people who have any experience of it at all know perfectly well that the Customs and Excise are not in the position of being an effective police force throughout the whole country. No one can deny that they try to do —and they do —their jobs well at the points of import and export, but to imagine that they go all the way round the country and control everything that happens in every small shop, every small warehouse and every small factory in the country is really to suggest something which is patently absurd.
I suggest it is important that Her Majesty's Government should realise that we are serious when we suggest that the mode of policing should be made wider, and that this can be done only if information is available as widely as possible, with proper safeguards. That is the purpose of these two Amendments, so I hope my noble friend will be able to give us some assurance on this matter.
Lord CRAIGTONI am a little worried, especially about the words in Amendment 25B:
"to an unreasonable degree some private interest by disclosing information about a trade secret".
I have been thinking about the disclosure of information in the interests of the animals themselves, because I envisage a situation where a legitimate trader was exporting animals from a certain place where, if it were known that this were done too easily, the whole area would be subject to poaching. Therefore, if the noble Baroness is going to pass this, then I think one reason for not disclosing information should be that it affected the protection of the animals themselves.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBYI wish to support the Amendment of my noble friend. I am not even sure that I would concede the proviso in the second part of it under Amendment 25B, paragraph (b). When people are importing endangered species they are presumably putting that species in still further danger; or at least, if endangered species are thrown into this traffic too freely, then the species may be in still further peril. The licensing system is introduced in order to stop people from importing endangered species except for reasons which seem to be good to the Secretary of State, based on
480
advice that he will receive from the scientific authorities. Therefore, this may be on the whole an undesirable traffic.
What is it, and for what are our endangered species being imported? Here we come to the question of information. I have no doubt that if a Question were put down to the Secretary of State, "How many licences have been granted over a certain period for the importation of a named species on the list?", he would give the information. However, if you asked the Secretary of State, "To whom have these licences been granted?", the probability is that he would say, "It is not practice to divulge the names of persons to whom licences have been granted". He would probably not be disposed, either, to indicate in detail the purposes for which the species were imported. In other words, licences are granted within the discretion of the Secretary of State without any possibility of public information, or Parliamentary control of what is being done. It seems to me this is undesirable.
In certain cases, the names of people to whom licences are granted might occur to those knowledgeable of the people or of the species; it may be thought that there is something undesirable about the way these animals are being imported; one cannot say. Sometimes a little dust is thrown into the eyes of officials, and although we know that a false statement in any material particular puts a person in serious jeopardy, one cannot be quite certain in all circumstances that the full truth has been told to the Department in applying for a licence. I agree with my noble friend who moved this Amendment that there need be nothing secret about this. Why should there be? We are not prying into people's private affairs. We want to know who is engaged in traffic involving endangered species, the preservation of which is so important to those who believe these matters are important that not only do we give those species the protection of the law in this country, but they are the subject of international conventions. What is being done to safeguard the very existence of endangered species therefore is important.
I acknowledge freely and gratefully the way in which my noble friend who is in charge of this Bill has responded to proposals made to her already, and if she

481
goes on as she has done, she will earn some special order of merit from your Lordships' Committee for being so cooperative in dealing with a complicated Bill. But, quite seriously, I hope that she can feel disposed to allow a register to be kept and freely inspected without charge, knowing that this is not the sort of register that everybody will take a day trip to London to come and look at. It will be something that only those who have a special interest, and I submit a bona fide interest, in endangered species would wish to inspect, and thus find out a little more about who is bringing in these animals, a little more about the circumstances, and the reasons why they are being brought in. If the animals are being brought in for commercial purposes, one should, I think, look at the granting of a licence less favourably than if the importation is for some scientific purpose.
However, I hope your Lordships will feel that this is an important Amendment. If leave is asked to withdraw it, I sincerely hope it will be withdrawn only on one of my noble friend's firm assurances, which have been pretty plentiful up to now, that the matter will be given very careful consideration. If my noble friend can introduce the word "favourable" consideration, then all the more acceptable will it be.
Lord MOW BRAY AND STOURTONI should like to enter one small caveat. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, hit many nails very hard on the head. He macle some very good points, underlining what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said previously. Let it not be thought that I am not in sympathy with what they are trying to do, but the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, himself pointed out that if the people inquiring were possible commercial trade rivals they should not be looked at so sympathetically —I think that was the gist of what he was saying. But how easy for a commercial concern to put up a person in the guise of an interested conservationist! I do not see how you would ever find them out.
Similarly, I am slightly worried, and I do not wish to make this a Party matter, but there has always been a slight difference in people wanting to know a little more
482
about everyone's goings on. I do not want all my tax affairs to be known to the total public, yet the tax inspector has a perfect right to see them. The Secretary of State is an honourable man, his Department officials are honourable people, the Customs are honourable people. I really see little reason for the doubts that seem to be implicit in this Amendment, that the Secretary of State will allow wool to he pulled over his eyes. With the passing of a Bill like this, I would think that the Secretary of State and his officials would welcome their attention being drawn to possible evasions, or what appear to be evasions, or what appear to be transgressions against the law. I imagine they will he more than willing to assuage or tell the informant with thanks that action is being taken firmly, but I see no reason to suppose that, with the passing of a Bill like this, the Secretary of State and his officers will become slack.
The second point other than commercial privacy, which I think is important, is whether this particular clause would cause a lot more people to be needed in the Civil Service. Would it be a costly business to implement? I should like to ask the noble Baroness that question. I sympathise with the point, but merely wonder whether noble Lords are right in thinking that it will be necessary.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI am not altogether satisfied with everything that my noble friends and noble Lords and Ladies on the other side have said in pleading these two Amendments and trying to encourage the noble Baroness to accept them. I have had some experience of dealing with licences of this nature in the importation of endangered species of live animals. I think this perhaps brings us back to the Amendment of mine on which the noble Baroness poured a certain amount of scorn. Those who are keen on conservation do want to be abundantly clear that when live members of endangered species are imported there is some such control of their importation as the Amendment which I moved earlier insisted on there being. If there is that control of importation of live animals, defining "animals" in its widest sense, I think it would be sufficient if there were information available every year of the number of animals imported of different species, so that we the general

483
public, and in particular those of us interested in conservation, could see whether or not we were satisfied that the Government of the day were allowing, or rather the scientific authorities were advising the Government to allow, a reasonable number of these animals to come in under appropriate conditions. With that I think I would be reasonably satisfied.
I think we have a right to be disturbed at the possibility that some of the products of these endangered species are being imported in too great quantities. There, within limits, you could get the same sort of information published every year, and could tell the general public and those interested whether or not they were coming in in too great quantities. I think one of the things we have to avoid at all costs is starting up a witch hunt by people whose hearts are perhaps more strong than their heads, when by and large the information of the total amount of imports coming in would tell us whether or not there was likely to be a strain on those species. That some sort of information has to be given I am quite clear. If I may go hack again to blowing my own little trumpet about my Amendment, I think we have got to be satisfied that these things are coming in under reasonable conditions. I certainly would not myself go quite as far as these Amendments.
Lord WYNNE-JONESDoes the noble Earl mean, when he refers to the overall numbers admitted, that it would not matter whether there were 1,000 mice or 1,000 leopards let into the country?
The Earl of CRANBROOKI am not concerned with 1,000 mice or 1,000 rabbits coming in, because the species concerned are abundant. Any question of animal welfare that comes into it can be dealt with under the 1911 Act. Whether they were originally wild or originally tame, once they come into captivity they are subject to that Act, and any ill-treatment can be dealt with under that Act.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment and Amendment No. 25B —it is probably convenient if we consider them together —would between them oblige the Secretary of State to make publicly available detailed
484
information about all licences, except to the extent that a licensee had obtained a certificate of exemption. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that it is already the Government's intention to publish summary statistics showing the numbers of animals, plants or items licensed, imported and exported, by species and by country of origin. The United Kingdom is bound by Article VIII of the Convention to make such statistics available each year to the public and to the Convention secretariat. The figures will be reported to the scientific authorities at more frequent intervals and these reports will also normally be available to the public. In fact the first set of figures derived from our existing controls will be available in a few days' time.
These Amendments, however, would require disclosure of detailed information on individual licences, including the importers' names and their sources of supply. To allow this and to allow members of the public to obtain and keep copies of the entries in the register would seem to us to be an unwarranted breach of the normally confidential relationship between Government Departments and private individuals. It would obviously be damaging for the transactions of one trader to be known to his competitor, and we are therefore very careful to protect commercial confidence.
Noble Lords will appreciate that many of the species in the Schedules are subject to regular trade under licence, and it is only where no commercial interest is involved that I feel I can go any way to help the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady White. I can appreciate that certain individuals and bodies may well wish to know whether an item they see on display has been legally imported. Normally, I think, they should be content with the arrangements we discussed under Amendment No. 22. But I am aware of one circumstance in which an individual might reasonably wish to have information in order to avoid the trouble and expense of a fruitless private prosecution. If a private prosecution is contemplated under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 against someone in possession of a bird of prey of a species found wild in the United Kingdom, the person or body bringing the prosecution will want to establish that the bird was taken from the wild in

485
this country and was not imported under licence. To help in such a circumstance, I can say that if an individual or a body contacts the Department of the Environment, gives the name of the assumed importer and of the species, identifies himself and gives a good reason for his inquiry, he may be told whether or not a licence has been issued. I would stress though that these arrangements apply only to non-commercial trade, which means in effect trade in the truly endangered species of Appendix I of the Convention, and a few others including birds of prey, which we are treating in most respects as though they were on Appendix I.
Amendment No. 25B would allow any trader to apply for a certificate permitting the omission of any details of his licence from the proposed register, if he can satisfy the Secretary of State that such publication would jeopardise his commercial position. I appreciate that this is designed to meet the points I have made about the undesirability of disclosing confidential commercial information. But licences are already being issued under the existing controls at a rate that is not far short of 10,000 a year. The vast bulk of these are for normal commercial trade. As I have had occasion to say several times already today, there is no impediment to commercial trade in species on Appendix II of the Convention if the country of origin is willing to give export licences. Doubtless, the majority of traders would seek exemption certificates of some kind and the Secretary of State would be required, under sub-paragraph (b) of this Amendment, to make detailed inquiries in thousands of cases. Frankly, I do not think that the bureaucracy and the cost involved can be justified.
We introduced this Bill on the basis that it could be done with little extra cost and little extra manpower. I am prepared to be as co-operative as I possibly can wherever possible, but the Government must oppose these two Amendments. I hope that the assurances that I have given about the availability of information, where there is good reason to disclose it, will enable the noble Lords who have moved the Amendments to withdraw them. If not, I must ask the Committee to reject them.
Baroness WHITENaturally, I am much
486
disappointed in the reply from my noble friend. She will realise that if this was the United States applications for licences would have to be published, and not merely the licences which were actually granted. They seem able to cope with the situation, and I can see no reason why Her Majesty's Government should not be able to be at least more generous than the noble Baroness has suggested. I still believe, in circumstances of this kind, that the public has the right to know what is being permitted in its name.
1 do not know whether between now and Report stage we might have some further consultations, because it appears from what the noble Baroness has said that even for Appendix I animals it is regarded as a favour, as a concession, that people should be given this information, and that it would he given only on the discretion of the Department to persons of whom t hey approve. This does not seem to be satisfactory. I can see the difficulty of numbers, and the weight of work concerned if the concession went perhaps as widely as we have suggested in these two Amendments. I still think that the feeling, as I understand, among at least certain of the conservation societies that they need this information in order to pursue their interests adequately, is something which should he taken further into account. It is plain that at the present time my noble friend is not prepared to accept these two Amendments, and there are some doubts on the other side of the Committee about them. Therefore, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendments, but I should like to have some further consultations between now and Report stage. At the moment I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
9.12 p.m.
Lord CHELWOODPerhaps as a silent Member of the Committee so far, I might be allowed to say a few words. I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her accommodating and understanding attitude to the most important Amendments which have been moved, apart from the last one, where I was disappointed. There are seven more clauses to go, and I hope that this will be maintained. I want to put one

487
point to the noble Baroness. I want to seek an assurance that there are no contradictions where this Bill is concerned now that the Schedules have been stood on their heads. I warmly welcome this, and it saves me making a powerful speech. Glancing back at the Marshalled List, I notice, for example, that in Amendment No. 2 my noble friend Lord Cranbrook had sought to make sure that there was no contradiction between this measure and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. I refer to Schedule 1 to that Act.
The fact that Schedule 1 to this Bill, just to deal with this alone, has now been stood on its head, does not mean that there may not he a number of contradictions and clashes with other existing legislation apart from that Act. I think particularly at the moment of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. Nobody knows more about that Act than the noble Baroness in the Chair, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, because it was her Private Member's measure in another place. Section 7 of that Act deals specifically with the importation of birds and eggs. I understand that a number of repeals are in the mind of the Government Department.
To give one example only not to waste your Lordship's time, I understand that the import of the common quail, whether alive or dead, is likely to be allowed in future, whereas at present it is banned under Section 7(1)(a) of that Act. Without giving any other examples, it will be seen that it is very important indeed that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should march accurately in step with any other measures which seek to deal with the same problems. I hope that the noble Baroness can give the Committee the assurances I am seeking and perhaps she will, in replying to this point, bear in mind that there is strong opposition to the repeal of those sections of the Protection of Birds Act, particularly Section 7, which control the import of birds by order. It is very much hoped that those provisions will remain on the Statute Book.
Baroness STEDMANI am sure that I can give the noble Lord those assurances. It is our intention that our legislation shall be improved, not made worse, as a result of this Bill and that our protection
488
shall be as good as, if not better than, it has been before. Our scientific authorities are going into the whole matter carefully and expeditiously and I am sure that we will find that everything is covered when we get the revised Schedules.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
9.16 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES Lord WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
"Trade in Endangered Species.
Any person who deals in, or invites dealings in, anything for the time being specified in the second column of Schedules 1 and 2, or in Schedule 3, to this Act, shall, unless he can show that its importation was not unlawful by virtue of Section 1 above, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400, and the animal, plant or item shall be liable to forfeiture under the Customs & Excise Act 1952."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is like some others we have considered; it deals with the problem of the point of sale. It has been pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and others that the Bill as drafted is designed essentially to deal with import and export, but the purpose of the Bill in its real intention goes beyond that. It is designed to stop the trade in endangered species. If we are to do this effectively we must ensure not only the control of the import and export of endangered species but also any attempt at selling endangered species in this country. In other words, the point of sale is extremely important if we are to control this trade. As has been pointed out repeatedly, it has become clear that to rely simply on Customs control is inadequate to deal with this problem and, thus, the Amendment would control the actual sale of endangered species and products.
Inevitably when people are trying to get into the country by surreptitious means the products of endangered species—of reptiles, leopards, crocodiles and so on—they will probably be brought in, to evade regulations, by methods which do not make it easy for the Customs to detect them. I remember that when the predecessor of this Bill was introduced by me two years ago the argument used at the time against the measure was that the Customs could not enforce it. It is, of course, very difficult to have every airport and seaport properly and effectively manned in such a way that every attempt at infraction of

489
Regulateons of this type is spotted. Indeed, very often these articles will be brought in as fakes. A man bringing in, say, leopard skins will not say, "This consignment consists of a couple of thousand leopard skins and I am bringing them in illegally." He will pretend that they are something else and he may get away with it.
It may be a mixed cargo and he gets the stuff in. It has come into the country and the important control is at the point of sale. It is at the point of sale that one can really have effective control. Therefore, the new clause is suggested in order to ensure that we can have this point of sale control. I hope that your Lordships will look at this favourably and that the Government will be prepared to accept it.
Lord CHELWOODI should very much like to support the arguments put forward—and very well put forward—by the noble Lord. He has left very little to be said. As I see it, the Amendment marches very much in step with Amendment No. 24 which was moved by my noble friend Lord Mansfield and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, showed an accommodating attitude, saying that she would give careful thought to it. I believe that the Amendment provides a second line of defence, so that the points of entry are not the only line of defence and the point of sale is a second and equally important one. The noble Baroness made a reference to the Protection of Birds Act 1954, as I did. There is one feature of that Act which clearly shows that a second line of defence is necessary. I shall be very brief in giving an example, but I should like to explain that one is entitled, if one has a licence, to own, for example, a peregrine falcon. One must have a licence from the Home Secretary. If one is accused of illegally owning such a bird, it is quite easy to evade prosecution by claiming that the bird in question was either imported before the restriction was imposed—and I believe that that was in 1970, as a result of amended legislation—or that it was a gift from a stranger. As a result, prosecutions which ought to be followed through very often cannot be.
believe that exactly the same may very well arise in many instances where the present Bill is concerned. That is why the noble Lord and I felt that there was a
490
need to impose a duty upon the defendant to prove his innocence by producing the necessary evidence and documentation—the sort of evidence which will stand up in court. Of course we fully understand that this is contrary to the generally accepted principle that one is innocent until proved guilty, but there are healthy precedents. For instance, the 1954 Act provides precedents in Section 4(2) (a)—(d) and in Section 6(1) (d) and (e). The defendant has to prove that he has lawfully imported a bird or an egg or he must prove in court that he has not contravened the Act itself or any order made under the Act. I remember the arguments with the Home Office at the time as to whether that was acceptable. It is only one of a number of examples which could be given as to why this should be done. There are exceptions which prove very good rules and I believe that this is one of them.
I feel very strongly that the onus of proving innocence should be put fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the accused, who would have to show that his action was not unlawful. There would be no problem in producing the necessary documents and II believe that the provision would involve the retailer in protecting the species in which he trades and from which he makes a profit, and that would be a good thing. I believe that it is essential that we should have really effective controls not only at the ports but at outlets as well.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONI should like to make one point to my noble friend. The Amendments of my noble friend Lord Mansfield did not make a man guilty unless he knew that the items were unlawfully imported. Under the present Amendment, one would be guilty though innocent. I do not personally believe that the Protection of Birds Act is a good parallel because the bird has to be alive and the egg must be fresh, so that it is therefore a matter of much more recent importation. Here we are dealing not only with what could be alive but, far more probably, with skins, feathers or some other material. It would not be half as easy. I beg noble Lords not exactly to equate live birds and fresh eggs with all the matters which we are now dealing with. Certain goods could have been here for some time—

491
and I am not expert enough to know whether one can tell the age of skins which have been dried and cured. I suppose that it would be quite hard and I believe that we should think twice about something which would automatically make a person guilty.
Lord BROCKWAYMy noble friend Lady Stedman agreed when we were discussing the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that she would consider the point before Report stage. I hope that she will at lease consider the point of sale, which seems to me to be the most important point other than import and export.
Baroness STEDMANWe have had a number of these various Amendments on imposing controls at point of sale, and as has been mentioned I have agreed to take back Amendment No. 24 and see whether we can consider that matter. But the present Amendment would put the onus on a retailer or anyone dealing in an animal, plant, or item controlled under this Bill, to prove that it was legally imported, on pain of a fine, and make the thing in question subject to forfeiture unless such proof was forthcoming. Many of the comments I made on Amendment No. 22, moved by the noble Lords, Lord Craigton and Lord Mowbray and Stourton, are applicable here also. As I indicated, the Government consider that this could be an unacceptable hindrance to legitimate retail trade. Customs already have power to investigate cases where there are strong grounds to suspect illegal import.
It would in any case be inappropriate to provide in this clause for forfeiture of the goods under the Customs and Excise Act 1952. If the goods were imported contrary to a prohibition, they are already liable to forfeiture under that Act, and there is no need to restate this. But I must emphasise that the liability to forfeiture arises from the importation contrary to a prohibition, and liability under the Customs and Excise Act 1952 cannot arise from sale in this country. Nor does it seem appropriate to hold a retailer liable for an offence committed at the time of import and to penalise him, when he has already suffered forfeiture of the goods. In view of these points and of our earlier debate, I hope that the noble Lords who have proposed
492
this Amendment might feel disposed to withdraw it. I have said that we shall reconsider Amendment No. 24 very carefully, but I believe that this Amendment would prove to be an unacceptable hindrance to legitimate retail trade, and we must also consider that matter in terms of our present economic climate.
Lord WYNNE-JONESI am faced with a somewhat difficult position here because if I may take up the last point of the noble Baroness I should say that we are not really discussing the present economic climate; we are discussing, very definitely and clearly, as she has done all along, the question of trade in endangered species, and we must be really clear about this point. Naturally I accept that the noble Baroness is herself very much concerned with the problem. She has already given us an assurance that Amendment No. 24, which raises much the same point, will be carefully considered by her and her Department, and if she were prepared to look at the whole situation, then I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Baroness STEDMANYes, I certainly give that assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WELLS-PESTELLI wonder whether your Lordships would allow me to intervene. As I understand the situation, allowing for the 22 Amendments which were moved at the very beginning, there are still 26 Amendments to be dealt with. I do not know how long your Lordships want to go on, whether it is felt that the Committee stage can be finished tonight or whether it is felt that it would be appropriate to call a halt at a quarter to 10, or perhaps 10 o'clock. The Government can find time on Thursday for the Committee stage of the Bill to be completed. There will be time available on Thursday.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONWe are in rather a quandary here. My noble friend Lord Craigton, who has been taking such a leading part in the discussions on this Bill, is unfortunately unable to be here on Thursday. He is content to go on; and, so far as I am concerned, I am happy to go on. I do not know the feelings of other noble Lords.
9.31 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES Lord WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 27A:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
" Representation as to Endangered Species.
. If any person advertises, or attaches a description to, goods, in such a manner (including the distribution of material to persons he has no reasonable grounds to believe would be specially interested in them) as to be likely to be seen or heard by the general public, and representing the goods as comprising or including any part or product of any animal for the time being specified in the second column of Schedule I to this Act, or the whole or any part of any item for the time being specified in Schedule 3 to this Act, then, whether or not the goods are as represented, the person so offering them for sale shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, No. 27A, is to introduce a new clause which is really one dealing with the problem of advertising. It is an Amendment which is, I think, of some significance, though I would not myself regard it as so important an Amendment as the previous one, to which I must confess I attached a good deal of significance. This Amendment deals with the problem of advertising those goods, including animals, of course, which have been imported into the country and which are on sale. These may be on sale perfectly legally, but if one is dealing with endangered species it is important that their sale should be restricted to those people who are purchasing them for a perfectly legitimate purpose. For example, somebody may be selling something to a museum, and it may be a perfectly legitimate activity; but the advertising of it should not then be wide general advertising in the Press, it should be restricted to those people who are interested in purchasing that sort of thing.
The reason for this is that if a species is endangered and you allow the species or its products to be imported for a particular purpose, and if there is then a general advertisement of these things, it is made much easier for people who have got the things in an illegal way to get away with selling them. In other words, here is an attempt to put a restriction on the scope of advertising those things which may have been legally imported. The Amendment is one which I think goes a little way further towards helping to restrict the whole trade in endangered species. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANAgain, this is another attempt at "point of sale" control, although it is directed at advertising and is no doubt designed to damp clown the demand for products of endangered species. The Amendment would make it an offence to advertise, presumably for sale, any item which was claimed to be derived from a controlled animal, whether or not it was in fact so derived, and any item which was claimed, rightly or wrongly to be the whole or part of an item included in Schedule 3 to the Bill.
The first point to understand about this Amendment is that it covers all parts and derivatives of the animals listed in Schedule 1, not just the readily recognisable ones that have been included in Schedule 3. It would thus prohibit advertising goods, the trade in which the Bill does not even seek to license, let alone ban. As I have already explained in connection with Amendment No. 22, there are many species in the Schedules to the Bill that cannot yet be regarded as endangered. They have been put on Appendix II of the Convention to enable the trade in them to be monitored so that it can be restricted if it proves necessary. So long as they remain on Appendix II and are not transferred to Appendix I, we have no remit, as an importing country, to restrict trade. Moreover, the Convention makes a clear distinction between whole animals and plants and their parts and derivatives. It sensibly recognises that only some of the parts and derivatives can be identified without detailed expert examination and, in many cases, laboratory analysis.
Even if this Amendment were restricted to the items specified in Schedule 3, it would prevent advertising of many things for which licences for commercial trade will still be readily available. An essential difference between this Amendment and the others we have already debated about sales of controlled species and items is that it is directed not only against anyone who promotes by any form of advertisement any part or product of a Schedule I animal or the whole or part of a Schedule 3 item, but also against anyone who so advertises when the subject of advertisement is not as represented. The latter is, I suggest, a matter best dealt with under the Trade Description Acts. I urge the noble Lords to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONESI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Clause 2 [Scientific authorities]:
9.37 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
(" (1A) Without prejudice to his power under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall, as soon as practicable after this subsection comes into operation,—

(a) establish at least one body under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, or

(b) assign to at least one body, under paragraph (b) of that subsection, the duty referred to in subsection (3) below.")

The noble Baroness said: This Amendment will make it mandatory on the Secretary of State to have at least one Scientific Authority to advise him. The Bill as drafted gives him permissive powers both to establish new bodies and to assign the duties concerned to existing bodies. However, the Convention requires that each party State must designate one or more scientific authorities and there would seem to be an advantage in reflecting this requirement in the Bill.
If the Amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State will still be empowered to have more than one scientific authority and to choose, for each authority, whether to establish a new body or to assign the duty to an existing body. Provided that at least one authority is formed, either or both methods can be used. The Secretary of State has already appointed three bodies to act as Scientific Authorities: the Nature Conservancy Council; the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, as Scientific Authority for Plants; and a newly established Scientific Authority for Animals. It is his intention to "designate" these bodies formally after the Bill becomes law. I beg to move.
Lord CRAIGTONThe noble Baroness said that she was proposing to designate scientific bodies. Would she think, before that is finally decided, whether such scientific bodies should not be specifically referred to in the Bill or in a Schedule that the Minister has power to amend? I am not sure that it is acceptable simply to designate, without putting them in the Bill, the scientific bodies to which she referred.
The EARL of CRANBROOKWhen
496
answering my noble friend, perhaps the noble Baroness can consider this point also. I think it is wise to appoint the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. They will be essential as advisers on the importation of plants. Surely the Natural History Museum is as essential in advising on the importation of wild animals and, to a considerable extent, on plants as well; because the two divide up the world between them. One takes one half, as it were, and the other takes the other half. Can the noble Baroness tell us why she mentions only Kew and no specific authority for animals?
Baroness STEDMANI think the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has probably established my case for saying that we shall have scientific bodies but not designate them. A future Secretary of State may have other ideas about which bodies he wants. We have at this point of time, because they were doing certain jobs in Government fields before, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Botanic Gardens at Kew and the Scientific Authority for Animals. The Natural History Museum is not named as such, but I understand we make tremendous use of their staff and resources. They give us a lot of scientific help. I am sure they will continue to do so in the future. It may be unwise to name these specific bodies when we might, in the light of how the Bill works, want to alter, extend, or add to them in the future. We should be tied if we had them named in the Bill.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI am only concerned that the noble Baroness mentioned two bodies, one which—as a zoologist—I think is more important than the lowly botonists.
Lord CRAIGTONI agree with what the noble Baroness says. These scientific bodies, such as the Natural History Museum, may require exemption from the Bill and so it is in effect giving exemption from the Bill to a body which is out-with the Bill and in the power of the Minister. I ask her to look at this. I will accept her decision but it is an important point.
Baroness STEDMANI follow the noble Earl's argument. We will reconsider the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.43 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("endangered") and insert (", or to be likely to become, endangered as a result of international trade,")
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment will make it clear that the scientific authorities can give advice in respect of species which are likely to become endangered. Subsection (3)(b) as drafted gives a scientific authority power to advise generally on species which they consider to be endangered. But the aim of the Convention is to protect not only those species which are already endangered but also those which may become so as a result of international trade. The Amendment thus brings the Bill into line with the Convention. I beg to move.
Lord CHELWOODI would ask the noble Baroness whether she is entirely satisfied that the words "as a result of international trade" achieve their object. It seems to me their effect is to reduce rather than increase the power of the Secretary of State when a species is endangered and perhaps put him in a position of not being able to take action until the damage has been done. Perhaps I have misread the Amendment. I should like to ask whether the word "likely" refers to "endangered" or to the likelihood of international trade. We all know that quite minor transactions can endanger a rare species. Therefore it is essential to be able to anticipate trade in the species concerned, and not merely to take action to restrict or prevent imports after the damage has been done. Are the words "as a result of" and those immediately following them really necessary, or was the Bill better drafted previously? Did the Bill as drafted previously give the Secretary of State the wide scope which he ought to have to deal with the restrictions that are necessary?
In any case, international trade, as we all know, is only one of the factors that endangers rare animals or plants, though it is an important one which can sometimes be decisive in actually making extinct a plant or animal. An equally important threat arises, for example, through natural or man-made changes in a habitat. I feel that the Amendment is unnecessarily restrictive, albeit, I am sure, unintentionally.
498
All I am really asking is for the noble Baroness to be good enough to look at this again between now and the Report stage. I am no lawyer and I may have misunderstood the implication of these words. However, I think that the Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State the right to control animals and plants because they were endangered or because dangers were on the increase, and he could do so for any reason without any special emphasis being put upon international trade, which I fully accept is one of the ways in which difficulties can be produced.
Baroness STEDMANWe are advised that this Amendment is correct and is an improvement on the original drafting. Our scientific authorities will have the task of monitoring what is happening to all these species, and it will be for them to advise us, when we know the result of the imports and exports of the species, which ones are not only endangered but which are likely to become endangered because there is the trading in them. I think it is important that we leave this Amendment as it is.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.47 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN: moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert—
(" ) In so far as it does not have power to do so apart from this subsection, any scientific authority may publish reports relating to the performance by it of its duty under subsection (3) above.
( ) Before appointing a person to be a member of a scientific authority established under subsection (1) (a) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies, or persons and bodies, as he thinks fit.").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment would introduce two new subsections into the Bill. It might be convenient if I were to describe them separately. Subsection (3) (a) would give a scientific authority power to publish reports about the performance of its functions under this Bill. Under the Convention, the Department of the Environment, as principal management authority for the United Kingdom, is required to send periodic reports to the international Secretariat about the United Kingdom's implementation of the Convention and to publish the reports in this country. However, the activities of the scientific authorities themselves may also be of public interest and it seems reasonable to empower them,

499
if they wish, to publish independent reports of their activities. Of the three scientific authorities that have been established, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, already have powers of their own to publish reports. But it is necessary to provide a specific power of publication for the scientific authority for Animals, which is to be a specially appointed body, and for any other body that might be established or designated in future under Clause 2 which did not otherwise have such a power.
Subsection (3) (b) would require the Secretary of State, before making appointments to a scientific authority established under subsection (1) (a), to consult such other persons or bodies as he thinks fit. Clearly, consultations with appropriate scientific bodies is desirable in this specialised field and, before the members of the Scientific Authority for Animals were appointed, the Secretary of State did consult widely in order to ensure that the new body should be representative of a wide range of expert knowledge. The Secretary of State fully intends to continue this practice with later appointments to this or any other specially established scientific authority, and the Government are prepared to see this requirement written into the legislation.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI think this is an exceedingly important Amendment, because it is of fundamental importance that where the Minister disagrees with a scientific authority the public should be informed, and indeed everybody concerned should be informed, of the fact that the Minister has disagreed with them. In this way, those concerned may take what action is possible for them in order to try to persuade him to do better in the future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power to modify Schedules 1 to 3]:
9.50 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
500
("(1) The Secretary of State may, after consulting any scientific authority or authorities, by order make such modifications in any of the Schedules to this Act as he considers necessary or desirable for any of the following purposes, namely—

(a) to give effect to any amendment to the Convention made in pursuance of its provisions;

(b) to give effect to the inclusion of anything in or the withdrawal of anything from Appendix III to the Convention (kinds of animals and plants the trade in which a party identifies as needing international control) at the instance of any party to the Convention;

(c) to promote the conservation of animals or plants of any kind which appears to the Secretary of State to be, or to be likely to become, endangered as a result of international trade;

(d) to remove any restriction which is for the time being imposed by virtue of this Act on the importation and exportation of animals or plants of any particular kind or of any particular items and which does not in the opinion of the Secretary of State promote such conservation as is referred to in paragraph (c) above.")

The noble Baroness said: This Amendment recasts the whole of the subsection, to clarify it and to ensure that it embraces all the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may need to amend the Schedules. The Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State power to modify the Schedules by order after consultation with the scientific authorities. He can make additions if it appears to him that a species has newly become endangered or that the danger has increased. Conversely, he may make deletions if he considers that a species is no longer in danger or that the danger has decreased. But there are other circumstances in which changes may be needed.
Paragraph (a) of the Amendment will permit additions to or deletions from the Schedules to reflect any amendment to Appendices I and II of the Convention; for example, to include species added to the Convention Appendices by Conferences of the Parties, the first of which is to be held in November of this year. The United Kingdom, as a party State, will be obliged to implement controls on such species unless it enters a formal reservation. Similarly, paragraph (b) will permit Schedule alterations to reflect changes to the Convention's Appendix III. This Appendix differs from the others in that species are placed on it by unilateral action on the part of one

501
State, not by international agreement; although, again, there is provision for any country to enter a reservation.
Paragraph (c) would permit other additions to the Schedules in the interests of conservation of endangered species. A scientific authority might recommend the control of a species not as yet covered by the Convention, because they considered that it was none the less threatened by international trade or was likely to become so. It might also be desirable to control a non-Convention species because, although not itself endangered, it was not easily distinguishable from one already controlled. There would be no intention to restrict trade in such a species in practice but, by subjecting it to licence, the enforcement problems faced by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise would be lessened and evasion of the controls would become less likely. This principle has already been adopted to some degree under existing controls; for example, licences are required for furs of all the spotted cats, including those not listed on the Convention, because they form a readily recognisable group. The wording of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) all allows species to be added in the interests of enforcement. I beg to move.
Lord CRAIGTONI would ask the noble Baroness once again to look to see whether this clause enables her to enact reverse listing, because in paragraph (c), for which I am very grateful and thank her, she promotes the conservation of animals likely to become endangered. But, as I said in moving Amendment No. l, there are many animals which she does not even know exist at this moment. So I should like her to look at the wording to be sure that it is all right.
Baroness STEDMANI am advised that the paragraphs in the Amendment have been drawn up in such a way as to facilitate reverse listing in the Schedules, as we discussed on Amendment No. 1.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONClause 3, as now amended, gives the Minister greater control over international
502
and transit trade in endangered species. Friends of the Earth, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wildlife Fund and many other conservationists would like an assurance from the Government that the Customs and Excise will fulfill their duties in controlling international trade in scheduled species. They argue that there have been cases when Customs and Excise have not used their authority to control this trade. Underlying the Bill now before us, and the Convention that it seeks to implement, is the increasing rate of disappearance of animals and plants in the wild, whether from habitat destruction, pollution, taking live for zoos or pets or taking for their products. A significant part of this taking, and indeed of the destruction of habitat, occurs because of international trade. Not only was the orang-utang depleted in the wild by excessive collecting for zoos, but now that it is more scrupulously protected from that threat it is endangered by destruction of its habitat for wood to be sold abroad by, for example, Indonesia for foreign currency earnings.
It is recognised that the first duty of this country is to restrict its own import, export and trade in endangered species and their products. But just as it would be ridiculous to continue to ignore the loopholes created by allowing in large quantities of manufactured products, so it would be unthinkable that we should allow rare animals to pass through areas of United Kingdom jurisdiction if their export had not been sanctioned by the country of origin and their import by the country of destination. It would equally be wrong not to take whatever steps might be deemed to be necessary if the animals passing through came from and were going to non-signatory countries.
No problem exists in law, which is why I have not tabled an Amendment on this subject. The Customs and Excise Act quite clearly bestows powers to control animals or any other goods in transit. It places no obligation on Customs to do so, however, and they have stated in relation to this Bill that they do not intend to take action, even if informed of the consignment and the need to prevent its passage. Thus, if the last pair of clouded leopards in this world were known to be on their way from India to a non-ratifying country, or to a country that had ratified but with forged documents, we understand that our

503
Government would not be prepared to act. Or if those self-same animals were passing through but were labelled as being ocelots (which are at present on Appendix II of the Convention and thus allowed for trade) and Customs were informed, we also understand that they would not act. To show that this is not imaginary, may I quote the fact that on 3rd February, 10th February and 30th March of this year three consignments of lugger falcons, which are on Appendix II, passed through Heathrow on their way from India to Frankfurt, labelled as being ravens.
I am raising this issue to seek a statement from the Minister that Customs will act, at the very least when informed by reliable sources, to control abuses of this kind. We are told that a very large percentage of international trade in animals passes through Britain's ports and airports. Thus, the consequences of our controlling this trade would be of considerable benefit to conservation. The Minister may feel, however, that she may not give an assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
However, I quote from a recent Question in another place, which asked under what circumstances the Customs and Excise waive the powers vested in them by the Customs and Excise Act 1952 to stop the import and export of rare animals. The reply was as follows:
"In exercising such discretion as the powers vested in them by the Customs and Excise Act 1952 allow, the Customs and Excise take account of individual cases and of the policy adopted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of his responsibility for the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species."
Objections to controlling transit have been raised also on the grounds that it is not practicable. But there is a case here—namely, that certain rare animals in transit will be travelling through our country perfectly legitimately, and in accordance with the provisions of the Convention—and it is claimed that if the documents are travelling with the animals to show that all is well, such documents will be susceptible to forgery. However, this is already an established practice. tinder the Diseases of Animals Acts—for instance, the Equine Animals Importation Order of 1973—papers must travel with the animals, and
504
even if the animal is diverted, say by fog, to some other airport, it is not allowed to land unless it has the necessary papers. Also we understand that several other countries require that papers travel with the animals. As to forgery, that is not an argument sufficiently strong in itself to invalidate the proposal.
It is not intended that Customs should be asked to board aircraft which have touched down merely for refuelling—at least not at present. What is very badly needed is that transhipment should be controlled when necessary, and it is worth pointing out to this Committee that the first EEC Government to ratify this Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany, has stated in its legislation that it will cover transhipment. If two developed countries are prepared to take this step, then others may surely follow. We should always seek to give a lead. It may be objected that the EEC would not agree to control of transit by individual countries, but as I have said, West Germany has done so. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, pointed out at the Second Reading of the Bill, Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome specifically allows member countries to control import, export or transit for reasons such as those embodied in the Convention.
Many of the developing countries are quite unable to control poaching, smuggling and straight corruption, and will remain in this situation for some years. In the Serengeti National Park in 1975 some 2,700 animals were poached, compared with only 960 the year before, according to the Director of Tanzania National Parks. The tighter the controls become, the greater will be the incentives to break them. The scandal of corruption in other African countries, particularly as regards ivory, has recently been aired in the Press. Many developing countries would probably acknowledge freely the impossibility of avoiding smuggling or the issuing of forged export documents. Action on the part of developed countries is going to be the major contributor to conservation. While control of transit will not affect those animals exported with forged documents, it will affect those animals exported as being something else and those coming from the non-Convention countries, whether directly

505
or having been smuggled out of the Convention countries. I apologise for that rather long statement, but I think it was worthwhile getting it on the record in order to obtain the answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
Baroness STEDMANI am grateful to the noble Lord for having given me notice that he was going to raise this point. I have been able to have some rather hurried consultations about it and there has evidently been some misunderstanding. It has been stated that transhipments will not be subject to the normal restrictions; they will not require licences. The Convention specifically exempts transhipments from licensing controls. They would not be practicable since the export and import permits provided for in the Convention would not normally be available at places where transhipments occur. Nor would there usually be anyone in this country responsible for the transaction, except as carrier. To impose transhipment controls generally would simply cause delay in transport, with consequent distress to the animals, and incidentally would divert transhipments from this country to other countries. But we have never said that action would not be taken in any circumstances.
There is no doubt that Customs have a legal power to take action in the case of transhipments. If reliable information were received that a particular consignment had been exported in contravention of the Convention, and this information were given in sufficient time, then Customs, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, would act accordingly. So far as the legislation in West Germany is concerned, we have not had time to check on that and to find out what the position is, but certainly so far as the transit and the taking of proceedings is concerned, that is the position in this country.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON:I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and I think everyone will be made much happier by her answer.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
10.4 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
"Restriction of importation and exportation to specified ports

—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the importation or exportation of any kind of live (or dead) animal shall, in any or specified circumstances, be prohibited, unless landed or despatched at one of the ports as specified in the order.

(2) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order.

(3) A person in breach of an order made under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400, and the animal shall be liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Act 1952.".

The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides the Secretary of State with the power, but not the obligation, to restrict the sea or air ports through which species under this Bill may be imported. This Amendment would make it possible to concentrate the expertise of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in matters relating to this Bill, thereby minimising the possibility of smuggling. It would also make it easier for Department of the Environment appointed experts to be made available to resolve cases of doubt on identification before delay, suffering or death is involved. It also has the advantage that animals entering through these ports are properly cared for, thereby minimising the risk of death to rare species. This is particularly true where these ports coincide with those currently designated under the Rabies Act for mammals and the Captive Birds (Importation) Order 1976, where facilities for animal welfare are expected to be constructed. Such considerations have obviously weighed on other Departments in restricting ports under the two pieces of legislation mentioned above. Therefore most species imported are, or will be, controlled in this way and it seems ridiculous to except other species. Supporting evidence for the usefulness of these permissive powers is also given by the fact that again the German Government—the first EEC country, as I have said, to ratify this Convention—has already taken powers of this nature.
I would point out that under the second of the three subsections in this Amendment the order would be subject to Statutory Instrument, which could be altered, varied or revoked by any subsequent order. The initial suggestion in the minds of my friends and experts who were advising on this subject was that something like nine seaports and eight airports would probably meet the case.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment is evidently intended to give the Secretary of State power to restrict ports of entry or exit for any kind of live or dead animal. It has been suggested that restriction on ports would enable Customs to build up skills and expertise in identification in certain places. United Kingdom Customs officers are generalists who work by following general guidelines and by calling in expert advice when they require it. The volume of trade is not such as to justify resident experts in each of the many specialisms with which we are concerned. If experts can be called upon, there is no advantage in restricting ports. Indeed, there could he positive disadvantages. There is the danger that restricting ports might encourage attempts at evasion. Unscrupulous importers might attempt to import controlled species at ports not designated to receive them and then mis-describe them in the hope that the Customs staff, unfamiliar with such imports, would not detect the attempted evasion.
It has also been argued that for live animals only, ports should be restricted on welfare grounds. It is true that reception centres for this purpose may he available in due course at the busier ports, but there is the need to ensure that animals spend the minimum possible time on the journey. This seems best achieved by using ports nearest to the eventual destination and by flexible arrangements when aeroplanes are diverted because of adverse weather conditions. For live animals, if the welfare argument has any force at all, the restrictions should apply to all animals. In our view, to restrict ports would impose a substantial impediment to trade and, if anything, would tend
508
to weaken the arrangements for enforcing these controls without really achieving any worthwhile benefit. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food already restrict ports of entry on health grounds, for all live mammals and for birds, and have laid down conditions on welfare grounds for the import and export of live animals under the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973. Therefore, it does not seem to the Government necessary or desirable to make any extra provisions in this Bill.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI find that a most profoundly disappointing reply, and if it were possible to divide the Committee on it at this moment, I would be very much inclined so to do. It seems to me that this is one of the things which all of us concerned with the importation of animals have been wanting for a very long time indeed, partly because we know that it is extremely difficult for a Customs officer to identify animals which should not be imported. I readily admit, however, that now that the noble Baroness, I.ady Stedman, has accepted the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton, that difficulty will be largely obviated, because we know that if there is an importation of an animal which is difficult to recognise, the Customs officer will know ahead that this animal is likely to come in and will be able to get an expert there to advise him.
The fundamentally important thing is that the importation of all live animals should be restr icted to ports where there are reception centres available to receive them. It is quite ridiculous to allow an animal to come in and possibly to die because, for some reason or another, it is not collected, or because there is no reception centre available. The only really effective reception centre available at the moment for every kind of species of wild animal is the RSPCA centre at Heathrow, which does immensely good work. There should be a similar centre at every place where exotic animals are brought in. I can see no reason why the importation of wild animals should not be restricted to places where there are reception centres.

509
It is the thinnest possible excuse—if the noble Baroness will excuse my putting it like that—to say that the place of importation should be near the ultimate destination. The ultimate destination is going to be all over the countryside. We know that already a very large proportion of the smaller wild animals imported comes in at Heathrow, and those that come in by ship come in very largely at Southampton, where there certainly used to be quite a good reception centre organised privately, locally. I hope the noble Baroness will think again, and will think again after consulting a number of the societies concerned not only with the welfare of animals but with the general risks Sattending the importation of real wild animals. I hope the noble Lord will put this Amendment down at the next stage of this Bill, if he feels bound to withdraw it tonight. I would always be perfectly ready to divide the Committee if it was my Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTONThis may be the first occasion on this Bill on which the noble Baroness, taking over the whole Bill for the Department of the Environment, has not really got together with the other ten Ministries, I believe, who previously handled this subject. I was told by one of the eleven Ministries to which I wrote about it that there was no proper accommodation except at very few of the ports of entry, that there was not enough money to pay for proper accommodation, and that the same applied to proper veterinary services. They would try to better the situation, but it was going to take a long time because of the difficulties. This is not a frivolous idea at all. If the noble Baroness gets together with the other Ministries, she may find that there are several Departments of the Government who would like to see the ports restricted. While she is doing that, would she remember that if action is taken on this Amendment, or something like it, for example, the Wildfowl Trust at Slimbridge have to import flamingoes from Scandinavia to Bristol, because they cannot travel for very long, so there must be exceptions permitted by the Minister if the number of ports is restricted.
Lord de CLIFFORDI join my noble friends in supporting this Amendment.
510
I am afraid I cannot see the noble Baroness's argument very clearly. The importation of these animals to a limited number of ports must enable us, in the present economic circumstances, to produce the best conditions in which to import them. I am afraid that if noble Lords wish to divide the Committee I shall be with them.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONI think the noble Baroness will have taken the message of the Committee. It has been one of the occasional pieces of legislation on which the Committee would probably have been nearly unanimous. I think there is more to be said on this. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, probably hit it on the head when he said the Department of the Environment in this case were probably acting on their own without full consultation with the other Departments concerned. There are arguments I should like to put to refute those of the noble Baroness, but bearing in mind the time I will reserve that right for Report stage, when I can assure her we shall be pressing this Amendment.
Baroness STEDMANI am grateful to noble Lords opposite. I told your Lordships earlier that I was open to be very co-operative where I was asked to do so and where possible. I think we might have another look at it and perhaps consult with the noble Lord. We might perhaps be able to restrict the ports for live animals. It is the dead animals and the derivatives which raise problems. We might be able to have some sort of permissive power to restrict ports in respect of the live animals. If the noble Lord would like to have consultations with us between now and Report stage we might be able to do something.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Restriction of movement of certain live animals after importation]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("such premises as may be specified in the direction") and insert ("the specified premises").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like also to talk to Amendments Nos. 37, 39 and 41. These four Amendments, taken together, give the Secretary of State power to specify, at any time after import, the premises at which a live animal should be kept. Under subsection (1), as drafted, the Secretary of State may make a direction specifying the premises to which a live animal imported under licence shall be taken. The animal must then remain at those premises until the Secretary of State gives permission for it to be moved. However, once such permission has been given, the Secretary of State's control over the animal's movements ceases. The Amendments provide that the Secretary of State may specify the premises either by a direction under Clause 4(1) at the time of import or subsequently. Thus all the movements of an animal for which a direction had been given could be subject to the Secretary of State's permission. The penalties already provided for would continue to apply to offences in connection with the possession, movement or retention of the animal.
There will probably not be many cases in which this power will be needed. Normally it will be sufficient to specify the initial premises by direction. A situation might arise, however, where for example a zoo closed or it came to the notice of the Secretary of State that an animal was not being properly cared for, in which it would be desirable for the Secretary of State to have power to direct that the animal should be moved to some other premises. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.17 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 15, at end insert—
"(1A) The Secretary of State shall keep available, for public inspection at all reasonable times, a register of directions given under subsection (1) above.".
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak also to Amendment No. 44, which merely complements this Amendment. This Amendment is to allow conservation organisations to monitor the traffic in animals. At present most prosecutions are brought about by notifications by independent bodies. The directions referred to in the first Amendment are as to where the animals may be moved to, and are relevant to, say, a safari park owner who wishes to put one of his animals into a circus which he also owns, or somebody who wishes to import young animals to run with older animals of the same species in order to make it look as though he is successful in breeding that species. The latter example is not hypothetical. Such things do happen, though it would be difficult and possibly out of the question for us to supply the names of the persons involved. It is a fairly simple Amendment but it is not unimportant. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to make publicly available the information given in directions under Clause 4(1). It has a bearing on Amendment No. 25A which was withdrawn earlier this evening. My officials will of course be keeping a register of directions to enable them to keep track of imported live animals and to ensure that they are not moved without permission. But we cannot see any purpose in allowing the public to inspect the register. Moreover, the register will contain information about importers' names and addresses; it would be an invasion of privacy to reveal them.
If members of the public see in a zoo, or elsewhere, an animal of a species which is normally banned, it would be most helpful if they would report the matter to my Department. We could use the register and other information to check whether the animal was likely to be an illegal import, and if so we would ask Customs to take appropriate action. I hope that this assurance might persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONI do not accept that this Amendment is in parallel with Amendment No. 25A, which had all sorts of implications in the commercial field. Live animals will hardly be a commercial proposition, except from the point of view of advertising them to the public, which will be helping rather than hindering, so I do not think that there is the same objection in principle, However, the hour is late and I will look at what the noble Baroness has said and consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 20, leave out ("premises specified in the direction") and insert ("specified premises").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this Amendment when moving Amendment No. 35. I therefore move it formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.21 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 26, leave out second ("or").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 40 because No. 38 is a paving Amendment to it. The two Amendments together would create a new offence of knowingly retaining an animal at premises which are not those specified. Subsection (2) as drafted makes it an offence to take an animal to premises other than those specified or to move it from specified premises; but it would not be an offence to continue to keep it at premises other than those specified. This means that someone could be fined for moving an animal to unsatisfactory premises, but could not then be forced to return it to the specified premises. Some of the animals involved will be extremely valuable and an initial fine for
514
disobeying a direction might be an inadequate deterrent. It could also happen that one person was responsible for moving the animal while another was responsible for its retention, and the Amendment, by creating a separate offence, would cover both cases.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("premises specified in the direction") and insert ("specified premises").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert ("or
(c) knowingly retains it, at premises occupied by him, at a time when he knows that those premises are not at that time the specified premises,").
The noble Baroness said: I have also spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert—
"(2A) In this section "the specified premises" means, in relation to an animal, such premises as are for the time being specified in relation to that animal by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section (whether in a direction under subsection (1) above or otherwise)."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Citation, interpretation, repeals, extent, etc.]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 6, line 17, after ("(2)") insert (", (2A)").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is simply consequential upon Amendment No. 6 and applies the latter to Northern Ireland. It places an additional duty on the Secretary of State as Management Authority. Clause 8(2) specifies references in the Bill to the Secretary of State which need to be read as references to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, as Management Authority for Northern Ireland, where appropriate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.24 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 29, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (5A) below,").
The noble Baroness said: This is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 46, with which it needs to be taken. The two Amendments will bring the Act into operation six months after Royal Assent if the Secretary of State has not brought it into operation by order on an earlier date. When the Bill was drafted the date of operation was left to be appointed by order, because it was then thought that some time might be needed to make all the necessary administrative arrangements. However, the controls were substantially introduced on 1st January of this year and six months would now appear ample time in which to make the necessary administrative changes to exercise the controls under the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 6, line 34, at end insert—
(" (5A) Any provision of this Act not previously brought into operation, or not previously brought into operation for a particular purpose, shall come into operation or, as the case may be, shall come into operation for that purpose on the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.").
Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord de CLIFFORD Lord de CLIFFORD moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 6, line 34, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 is hereby repealed to the extent that it gives powers to suspend the whole or any part of this Act, or to exercise controls over anything for the time being mentioned in section 1(1) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak very briefly. The Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 was used in January to suspend the Animals (Restriction of Importation) Act. Your Lordships' House has had this Bill before it on many occasions and has discussed it thoroughly. I am merely asking the Committee whether it agrees that the threat of this Import, Export and Customs Powers Act, which was brought in in 1939 as a wartime measure, should not apply to this Bill any further and that any alterations which might have to be made to the present Bill should not be made under it but should be brought before Parliament so that Parliament can discuss them. At the moment alterations can be brought in solely at the whim of the Secretary of State.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment would have the effect of disapplying the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 in so far as the present Bill is concerned. I must urge the House in the strongest terms not to adopt this Amendment. The 1939 Act was an emergency measure which gave the United Kingdom Government wide powers to restrict imports and exports of any kind. In the Government's view, it is most desirable to leave the Act undisturbed, so that it is available in the event of any future unforeseen emergency.
I presume that the fear underlying this Amendment is that a future Government might use the 1939 Act powers to suspend, or modify disadvantageously, the measures we are now considering. But I sincerely hope your Lordships will agree that this denotes an excessive suspicion of Government. It is true that we used the 1939 Act powers to introduce most of the controls embodied in this Bill from 1st January last. But this was a positive

517
act to enable us to honour the international Convention which our predecessors had signed in 1973. It was an interim step made necessary by the pressure on the Parliamentary timetable. It was one which we felt confident would have, so far as it went, the full support of this House in view of our earlier debates on the Bills on the subject brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones.
I do not really understand the dark suspicion that seems to underlie this Amendment. In any case, once we have ratified the Convention—which we have undertaken to do in time for the United Kingdom to be represented at the Conference of the parties this November—we and any future Government will be bound by its terms. I do hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, will accept my assurance that we fully intend to implement these controls effectively and that he will withdraw this Amendment.
10.35 p.m.
Lord de CLIFFORDI am fascinated that the noble Baroness thinks that I have suspicions of the Government's actions at all. I am suspicious of all of them, including those of my noble friends at times. I am afraid that part of the argument does not convince me, but I am prepared to accept what the noble Baroness says, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Animals the importation and exportation of which are restricted]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?
Lord CHELWOODI wish to take this opportunity to say a brief word on Schedule 1 to the Bill, as I did not have an opportunity to do so at the beginning of the consideration of the Bill. I wish to say how immensely pleasing it was that the noble Baroness agreed to the reverse
518
listing proposed by my noble friend. I am sure that this is an excellent concept, because it allows the monitoring of all rare species and concentrates trade on the common or commoner species.
I felt that my noble friend's list of domestic and other animals—the common ones—was unnecessarily restricted. I should like to give two brief examples of what I mean. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the list must be a reasonable compromise between what I call sensible conservation and the legitimate activities of the trade, however much some of us may deplore some of their activities. The first example is that of love birds. I hate to see birds in a cage, but 12,000 were imported in four years through the RSPCA hostel alone. These figures are taken from All Heaven in a Rage, the publication of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Sad though it is, they are very commonly seen in cages. What about, for example, racing pigeons or domestic pigeons? I am sure that it would not be the intention of the Government or of my noble friend to prevent the import of common birds, such as I have just mentioned, and that a very careful look will be taken at the list of common animals—I am not talking now about plants—so as to strike exactly the right kind of compromise. I should like to say how enormously welcome is the attitude the Government have taken to the suggestion for reverse listing.
Baroness STEDMANI am sure that it was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in reversing the Schedule to debar us from having love birds or pigeons.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Items the importation and exportation of which are restricted]:
10.33 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 26, line 2, at end insert—
" . Yarn made wholly or partly of hair of any animal of the species Vicugna vicugna.

519
Fabric made wholly or partly of hair of any animal of the species Vicugna vicugna.".
The noble Baroness said: This gives me the chance for an almost final fling to show how co-operative I am. This Amendment will extend the existing controls on hair of the vicugna to the yarn and fabric made from it. Noble Lords will probably recall from our discussion on Second Reading that the main threat to this animal is the demand for its hair to be made into cloth. Peru have banned all exports of vicugna products with the intention of conserving the species. The Government have recognised for some time that there is a strong case for prohibiting commercial trade in vicugna yarn and fabric, as well as the hair, but have been hampered by the difficulty of distinguishing it from other fabric. We are now satisfied that the recognition problem is not insuperable and that these controls can be enforced.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
In the Preamble:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 67:
Line 2, after ("Flora") insert (" (in this Act referred to as the Convention) ").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 together because these are simple tidying up provisions to avoid the need to repeat the full title of the Convention where references are made to it in the body of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 68:
Line 9, leave out ("that") and insert ("the").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
In the Long Title:
Lord CHELWOOD Lord CHELWOOD moved Amendment No. 69:
Line 2, after ("items") insert ("and trade in them").
The noble Lord said: Although the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is not here, I believe I am allowed to move this Amendment on his behalf. I do so simply in order to give the Government an opportunity to express a view about it. All I have to say is that it would of course be necessary to alter the Long Title if in fact, as many of us hope—and this view has been expressed on both sides of the Committee—Her Majesty's Government find it possible to set up some sort of second line of defence, as I have called it; that is to say, at the outlet, rather than only at the ports. This would be consequential upon the acceptance of any Amendment which did that in any way. I therefore beg to move this Amendment formally.
Baroness STEDMANI referred to this when speaking to Amendment No. 42. I should like to remind your Lordships again that the Bill which the Government have introduced is intended primarily to operate the import and export controls required by the Convention, and we think it most undesirable to extend its scope to the control of trade within the country. It is unnecessary for the objective which noble Lords have in mind, and I would hope that the Amendment would not be pressed.
Lord CHELWOODI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Long Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

BUCKS LAND AND BUILDING COMPANY BILL (Petition for Bill)
Examiners Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with: Referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
FOYLE AND LONDONDERRY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table; the Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Report from Her Majesty's Attorney General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
WRITTEN ANSWERS

  REEF TARGET AND INTERVENTION BUYING-IN PRICE
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether the beef intervention buying-in price of £26 ·76 is to be constant throughout the 1976–77 livestock year and if not with what notice and by whom any alteration will be made.
  Lord STRABOLGIThe price of £26 ·76 per cwt. is an average of the buying-in prices for seven categories of animals which were fixed for the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 1976–77 marketing year. Given the rate of the green pound the buying-in prices can be altered either by a change in the coefficients used to derive buying-in prices for individual categories of cattle from the intervention price; or by suspending the buying of one or more categories. Such changes may be brought into effect at short notice in order to avoid disturbing the market. Decisions on these matters have to be settled within the EEC framework. The Government have recently announced that buying of steers (M) is to be suspended in Great Britain from 3rd May for a temporary period. While this measure remains in effect the average of buying-in prices is reduced from £26 ·76 to £26 ·43 per cwt.
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether, should there be a revaluation of the green pound, the beef target and beef intervention buying-in price
  522
  would be raised by the full amount of any alteration with effect from the revaluation date.
  Lord STRABOLGIThere are currently no proposals for a change in the green pound. If such a change were at any time to occur the Government would consider the possible implications for the present level of target and buying-in prices for beef. Account would need to be taken of the beef market situation, the balance within beef support arrangements between premiums and intervention and other important factors.

  ACCUMULATED DEBT SERVICE AND INFLATION RATE
  Lord BARNBY Lord BARNBY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What the £6,461 million estimate for Accumulated Debt Service (Budget Report 1976–77, page 15) represents per capita per annum; and what is the authoritative rate of inflation recorded during the last Budget period.
  Lord JACQUESThe forecast of public sector debt interest in 1976–77 of £6,461 million shown in the Financial Statement and Budget Report represents about £115 per head of home population. The retail price index for April 1976 is not yet available. The increase in the RPI between March 1975 and March 1976 was 21 ·2 per cent.

  CULTURAL PROPERTY: UNESCO CONVENTION
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will specify the difficulties raised for Britain by ratification of the UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import and export of cultural property.
  Lord GORON WY-ROBERTSMHer Majesty's Government would find difficulty in carrying into legislative and practical effect those provisions in the Convention concerning import control and related measures. There is no provision in the laws of the United Kingdom for proceedings to be taken against persons

  523
  suspected of having infringed the export controls of other countries, unless there are grounds for believing that a particular object is stolen property or that the law of the United Kingdom has been otherwise broken. The Convention calls for the implementation of measures to supplement the export controls of other countries. The difficulty would be to distinguish at the point of importation those goods which have infringed the laws or export controls of other countries.

  LIBRARY SERVICES
  Lord CHAMPION asked the Leader of the House:
  What proposals he has for a review of the House of Lords Library services.
  Lord SHEPHERDAs I outlined to the Offices Committee on 30th March, I am setting up a small Working Group under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to report to me with the following terms of reference:
  524
  "To review the future of the House of Lords Library and to consider the needs of—

  (a) all Members of the House for a general reference library and information service; and

  (b) the Lords of Appeal and the Lord Chancellor's Office for a specialized library.".

  After consultation with the Chairman, I have invited the following to be members of the Group and I am pleased to say that they have agreed to serve:

  V. Eccles

  V. Norwich

  Bp. Rochester

  L. Ashby

  L. Darling of Hillsborough

  Bns. Elles

  Bns. White

  L. Wilberforce

  with the Principal Clerk, Information Services.
  House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eleven o'clock.