Lords Sitting of 8 February 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord De Freyne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

1947 CALL UP: PERIOD OF SERVICE
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state the total number of non-commissioned officers and other ranks called up for national service in the year 1947 who are obliged to serve an extra period of three months in addition to the two years prescribed by the original Act; and, further, whether these soldiers will be given a proportionate increase in gratuity and release leave proportionate to the extra period spent in the Forces.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): No precise period of service is laid down by Act of Parliament for men called up before 1949. His Majesty's Government announced in the White Paper on Call up to the Forces in 1947 and 1948 that, if no unforeseen circumstances arose, men called up during 1947 would serve for not more than two years. As a result of recent decisions, the maximum period will now vary from two years to two years and three months. About 90,000 men, called up in the first half of 1947, are liable to serve for a maximum period of two years and three months, although many of them will be released before the full period has elapsed. Paid release leave is granted at the rate of a day for each completed month of service, and so a proportionate increase in leave automatically results from an increase in the period of service. These men do not receive a gratuity.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, in thanking the noble Viscount for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the
560
other ranks are under the impression that they receive a £10 bounty and twenty-one days' leave, plus sixty coupons, for the two years and three months service? I should like to ask whether the noble Viscount would convey to the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War our feeling that this question should be reviewed and that the privilege leave of twenty-one days should be increased, especially in view of the fact that we want these men for the Auxiliary Forces.
VISCOUNT HALL: I quite understand the desire of the noble Viscount. He will see from the reply that the release leave is extended by one day per month. There is some doubt as to the bounty. I will make inquiries about that and will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friends the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War to the point put by the noble Viscount.

REMUNERATION OF CLUB STEWARDS
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether paragraph 12 (2) (b) of The Wages Regulation (Licensed Nonresidential Establishment) (Managers and Club Stewards) Order, 1948 (1948 No. 2101) is intended to give retrospective effect to regulations which became operative as from October 31, 1948.]
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, the paragraph of the Regulation referred to has no retrospective effect. It merely provides machinery for calculating current remuneration on the basis of staff hours worked in a period prior to the date of operation of the Order.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am much obliged to the First Lord, but I should have thought that the very fact of taking into consideration a period previous to October 31, 1948, in connection with the current remuneration of a club steward must give the Order a retrospective force. Is it not clear that new rates of pay for a club steward are being

561
introduced which are dependent entirely upon what occurred before the introduction of the Order?
VISCOUNT HALL: The noble Earl will appreciate that some basis must be determined on which to fix the remuneration. I know of no better basis than that for the period preceding the coming into operation of the Order. It is not retrospective, except in the sense of taking that period into consideration for fixing the remuneration for the following period.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Lords following be named of the Select Committee to consider the New Forest Bill:

M. Reading,

V. Long,

L. Amherst of Hackney,

L. Kershaw,

L. Crook—(The Earl of Drogheda).

On Question, Motion agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the Bill I am submitting for your consideration is largely technical. I am relieved to find that your Lordships have appreciated that point because, from a glance at the list of speakers, it would seem probable that the debate is to be a duet between the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and myself. I venture to hope at the outset that the performance will be entirely harmonious. This Bill is also largely uncontroversial. Probably another reason why noble Lords have not signified their desire to take part in the Second Reading debate is because many of the Bill's provisions, and the principles on which they rest, have already ben approved by Parliament over a fairly long period of time. The remaining area of controversy
562
has been narrowed during the Bill's passage through another place, when the Government met the main objections raised by the Opposition. I think your Lordships will be chiefly interested in those features of the Bill which may still be a possible source of controversy. I will therefore deal rather briefly with the area of agreement, and more fully with the area of potential dispute.
For more than twenty years, since the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1926, the law relating to wireless telegraphy has not been altered in any respect, in spite of a degree of technical progress which has revolutionised the use of wireless. Twenty years ago, a public television service did not exist. The technique of radar and its employment for the guidance of ships and aircraft was unknown, and both broadcasting and the use of wireless techniques for domestic, medical and industrial purposes were in their early infancy. It is because technical advance has so far outstripped the law relating to the use of wireless that this Bill is urgently needed. I am sure your Lordships would agree that the transmission of wireless signals through the ether must be subject to Government control by the issue of licences. Whatever controls may be removed, this is one of the things that should remain a matter for a Government authority. Otherwise, it would become impossible for us to honour our international commitments about the use and allocation of wavelengths, or to prevent the occurrence of widespread interference between a large variety of different internal wireless transmissions.
Part I of the Bill deals with this matter of licensing, and it provides for the licensing of all forms of wireless communications. The definition of wireless telegraphy in Clause 19 (1), for those who can follow the scientific terminology (and I shrewdly suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, is possibly the only member present this afternoon who understands the full implication and physical significance of the definition) is widened and clarified to make sure that in its present form it covers the use of radar, and that it will include the actuation or control from a distance of machinery, such as the engine of an aeroplane or a ship—what is commonly known as "remote control." The amended definition gives a clearer and

563
more up-to-date idea of what is meant in these days by wireless communications.
Besides modernising the law and bringing it into line with recent technical changes, the Bill will serve two other useful and generally acceptable purposes. It is obviously wrong that the temporary provisions of the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act should be extended every year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Indeed, I believe that in times past there have been protests against the use of this procedure. This Bill will put an end to the misuse of a procedure designed for temporary enactments by substituting, in the form of the present Bill, a permanent Statute. It has also given us the opportunity of consolidating, by bringing together in a single measure the different enactments dealing with wireless telegraphy, the existing body of Statute law on this subject. That is a matter about which my noble friend on the Woolsack and I have little doubt that other noble Lords in this House will be well satisfied. I will not say anything more at this stage about Part I of the Bill, because it lies within what I have called the area of broad agreement.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Does the Bill as it is now drawn repeal the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The Bill as it now stands incorporates many of the provisions of that Act and, for that reason, it will be unnecessary to repeat them from year to year. That is the point I was trying to make.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The 1904 Act will lapse because it will not be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act in future?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is precisely what I intended to convey. With Part II of the Bill we step into the arena of controversy—at least of past controversy. This Part of the Bill will enable us to stop accidental interference with wireless telegraphy when it is caused by the ordinary type of electrical apparatus with which we are all familiar. I am thinking of domestic, medical and industrial electrical equipment. It will also enable us to lay down requirements obviating interference to be complied with by manufacturers or importers who sell
564
electrical apparatus in the United Kingdom.
Before I say anything more about the new powers sought in Part II of the Bill, I should like to say something about the state of affairs which has obliged us, most reluctantly, to ask Parliament for these new powers. The Post Office have received about 40,000 complaints of interference with wireless receiving sets during the past year, and are now receiving complaints running at the rate of 70,000 a year. The number of complaints has grown with the increase of listeners and viewers since the war and, of course, with the increasing use of electrical apparatus liable to interfere with reception. It seems likely that in the future this nuisance will continue to grow, because the use of electrical equipment in the home is likely to become more general and because more doctors and manufacturers are likely to introduce electrical plant into their premises. The figure for complaints I have just given does not, of course, measure the full extent of the hardship, because there are many people who still prefer, for one reason or another, to suffer in silence and to make no public complaint about interference with reception. But surely these people are also entitled to our consideration.
Let me now say something about what happens at the present moment if the Post Office are notified by a letter, or in whatever way it may be, of interference with wireless reception. When such a complaint has been received, a Post Office engineer is sent to find out the cause of the trouble. In about half the cases examined, he finds that the interference is coming from somewhere outside the place where the complainant keeps his set.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Earl has given a figure in regard to the persons who have complained. Is it also possible for him to give us a figure, not of doctors and experts and people like that, but of ordinary persons who use a vacuum cleaner and what he called domestic electrical plant so that we work out the proportion?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am afraid I am not able to do that off-hand, but I am sure the noble Viscount will appreciate that it is only in a very small

565
number of cases that these electrical helps in the home are causing, or are likely to cause, interference; so it would not be a fair comparison, even if we had the figure.
When the engineer has succeeded in tracing the cause of interference to its source, he may, and indeed often does, find that this particular source of interference has been hampering the reception of wireless transmission by several hundred people in the vicinity. One particular electrical contrivance, because it is not working properly, or perhaps because it is badly designed, may be causing this nuisance to the whole neighbourhood. Having located the place, the engineer visits the owner of the premises and asks permission to inspect the electrical equipment in use there. If his suspicions are confirmed, and he finds that the particular apparatus is causing interference—it may be a vacuum cleaner, a refrigerator, a faulty switch, or a bedwarmer which is interfering with the wireless sets in the neighbourhood—he explains to the person responsible for the apparatus how the trouble can be stopped by the use of a small and inexpensive device that cuts out interference. In the great majority of cases the owner of the apparatus—and this has been the experience of the Post Office in times past—not being at all anxious to annoy or interfere with his neighbours, readily agrees to put an end to the nuisance in the manner suggested. The public spirit of the vast majority of people who are unintentionally spoiling their neighbours' pleasure is shown by the fact that in the past year only 500 persons refused to do what was required of them. Out of a total of approximately 20,000 people, that is surely a very small proportion of, let us say, non-co-operators amongst those involved in wireless interference.
According to the law as it now stands, we can do nothing if someone refuses to be helpful. The interference goes on, and many hundreds of people in the neighbourhood of some selfish household may continue to suffer indefinitely. Moreover, more serious harm can be done than spoiling the enjoyment of a wireless or television set. We are all aware how widely radar is now used to assist aircraft in making a safe landing, and that its use is steadily expanding. Electrical apparatus in a hospital, in a
566
factory or in a doctor's house, when used in the vicinity of an aerodrome, may interfere with radar signals and might, therefore, become the cause of a serious air accident. The sole aim of Part II of this Bill is to make it possible to take effective action against the very few selfish people who "will not play," even when it has been pointed out to them that their appliances are interfering with wireless reception or the use of radar signals. I agree, of course, with noble Lords opposite, that every new power taken by this or any other Government is an encroachment upon the liberty of the individual to do as he pleases, and we do not want to obtrude any further than we are absolutely obliged to do. We have therefore tried (I think successfully), to limit the power we are now seeking to the minimum of compulsion required to prevent or stop this particular public nuisance.
Clauses 9 and 10 of Part II authorise the Postmaster-General, after he has consulted an advisory panel of technicians and representatives of persons likely to be affected by the regulations, to formulate regulations prescribing the requirements to be complied with, either in the use of electrical equipment or in the manufacture or import of such articles for sale in this country. For many years past, Post Office engineers have worked in close collaboration with the Institution of Electrical Engineers, a body of whose eminence we are all well aware. The Government are extremely glad that the Institution have promised to assist in the setting-up of the advisory committees which are to advise the Postmaster-General on the requirements to be specified in the regulations for users and manufacturers. We have no doubt that this co-operation will be extremely valuable and we are most grateful to the Institution for their willingness to help.
It is essential for these regulations to be applicable to the user as well as to the producer, and for this reason. It might be thought that it would be sufficient if we were to tackle this matter from the one end. But it will not be so, because we shall have to take steps to stop not only interference caused by existing electrical equipment but also interference resulting, as time passes, from the deterioration in the course of ordinary wear and tear of satisfactorily designed equipment. So we must tackle

567
the matter from the end of the user as well. I should like to make it clear that we are not in any sense dictating to manufacturers in the design of their products. The requirements with which they will be expected to conform do not go further than the technical conditions which, when incorporated in the design, will prevent interference from taking place. Any regulations that may be made either for manufacturers or for users will, of course, be laid before both Houses of Parliament in the normal way.
It will not be an offence for a manufacturer or a householder to contravene the regulations applicable to them. An offence will occur in the way which I will describe later on. The object of these regulations is not to make contravention of the regulations a legal offence; their object is something quite different. It is to inform the people concerned what they ought to do if they want to behave in a public-spirited way, and not to tell them what they must do unless they mean to break the law. We hope and expect that, as a general rule, the mere existence of a regulation drafted with the help of independent experts, and having the authority of Parliament behind it, will be a sufficient inducement to the makers of electrical apparatus to do whatever may be necessary to obviate interference. These regulations will be technical directives, with no more than a moral sanction, and, if they carry as much weight as they deserve, we shall have stopped this nuisance at birth without having to use the powers in the Bill so far as the producers are concerned. But we should be acting unfairly towards the great majority of public-spirited business men, who will no doubt render their apparatus incapable of causing interference, if we were to allow some firms to gain a small competitive advantage by standing out and refusing to co-operate. We must, therefore, have power, in the last resort, to oblige manufacturers as well as users to comply with these regulations.
Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill deal with enforcement. Clause 11 authorises the Postmaster-General, when an apparatus is being used which does not conform with the regulation applicable to it and he is satisfied that interference is taking place or has taken place—that is to say
568
on the advice of his engineers—to serve a notice on the appropriate person requiring him to stop using it, or to use it only at certain stated times. If, at least four weeks from the date on which the notice has been served, and if in the meantime he has not declared his intention to appeal, this person continues to use his apparatus as before, he can then be charged before a magistrate with the commission of an offence. That is the first moment, under this very carefully-considered procedure, at which an offence can take place. The offence will, of course, be the breach of the notice and not the contravention of the regulation. Clause 12 applies exactly the same procedure of enforcement to the manufacturer, the importer or the assembler, enabling the Postmaster-General to serve a notice on such persons requiring them to stop the sale of apparatus causing the interference.
But, of course, both the manufacturer and the user have the right to appeal against the notice served on them, and, except in case of danger to life, the notice cannot be enforced until their appeal has been heard and adjudicated upon. Clause 9 provides for the setting up of an independent appeal tribunal consisting of a lawyer, to be appointed by the legal authorities, and two technical assessors, to help. This tribunal is, of course, entirely independent of the Postmaster-General, and, indeed, of any Government Department. The tribunal will have power to direct the Postmaster-General to revoke or, in the case of a user but not of a manufacturer, to vary any notice, and the Postmaster-General will, of course, be obliged to comply with their directions. So I hope your Lordships will agree that every possible care has been taken to prevent any unfairness towards the people who, either because they produce or sell electrical apparatus or in some other way, may be responsible for wireless interference.
And now may I say a word about Part III? The salient provisions in Part III of the Bill are those relating to penalties, and to the right of entry to premises where a source of interference in breach of the regulations is suspected. Noble Lords will notice in Clause 14 of the Bill that the maximum penalty attached to conviction for offences under the Bill, if they are due to the disregard of a notice prohibiting the use or sale of apparatus without danger

569
to public safety, is really not excessive. I am sure your Lordships will agree with that. The offender will be liable only to a fine, not to a term of imprisonment, and the maximum amount of the fine will be £10 for a first offence and £50 for any subsequent offence. I would like to emphasise that these are maximum penalties, and that the magistrate is left with a wide discretion. It is obviously essential for Post Office engineers to enter premises before a notice is served, because they can decide only by inspecting a piece of electrical equipment—a vacuum cleaner, a refrigerator or a diathermy apparatus—whether it is, in fact, causing interference. Now if the owner of the premises agrees to admit them—as would ordinarily happen, our experience shows, in 99 cases out of 100—no difficulty arises. But, if he refuses, clearly the Post Office representatives must have a right of entry.
As noble Lords will observe in Clause 15, this right can be exercised only with a written authority from a magistrate, and the Postmaster-General cannot attach any condition to the issue of a licence which would enable him to send in his engineers without the sanction of the court. That cannot be done. The approval of the magistrate must first be obtained. The magistrate will not give his consent to the exercise of this right without most careful consideration of both sides of every case. It is laid down in Clause 15 that before he agrees to give his authority for entry, he must satisfy himself on the basis of sworn evidence that the Post Office has reasonable grounds for believing that the offending apparatus is on the premises; and, secondly, that this belief can be confirmed or disproved only by entry and inspection. He must also be satisfied that access at a reasonable time of day has been unreasonably refused by the owner of the premises, and that the latter has had a week's notice of the request for access. I think it is abundantly clear that there will be no unnecessary or unjustifiable intrusion upon the privacy of any householder under these provisions, which have been considered with extreme care. I should also like to point out that this procedure is only an extension of existing procedure under the 1904 Act, which has been in operation now for many years—indeed for forty-five years—during which time no complaints have been lodged.
570
I think that is all I need say about the Bill. The Post Office, with its natural modesty, has never blown its own trumpet, and I feel that, as I am not in the Department. I am able to say what I think should be said. This is a comprehensive and useful measure which illustrates the extreme efficiency and high public spirit of the Post Office. I am certain that anyone who has inside knowledge of the Post Office, and many others who have no inside knowledge, will agree that the Post Office is an extraordinarily efficient and go-ahead Department with a long tradition of public service. I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to your Lordships, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.4 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, as the noble Earl who has introduced this Bill said during his affable speech, this ought not to be in any sense a Party measure. He expressed the hope that we should have harmony. I also trust that that will be preserved throughout our debate. I am sure that noble Lords in all quarters of the House would desire to guard against any interference with radio communications. Indeed, we on these Benches welcome any step towards reducing interference with our business or our amenities in any sphere whatever, whether it be by Government "snoopers" (sent, of course, for the best of reasons and intentions) to see what we are doing and to tell us not to, or by some unwitting neighbour whose electrical appliance radiates energy which is picked up and amplified by our radio sets. Some people would go even further, and would try to stop interference by neighbours whose loudspeakers at full blast with open windows are apt to disturb the rest and leisure of a great many people. But that is another story.
In introducing this Bill in another place, the Postmaster-General admitted that Part II was experimental and offered to consider with an open mind any suggestions for improvement. I trust this attitude holds also in this House, and that the noble Earl who introduced this measure will not resent any proposals which we may make, but will consider them on their merits. After all, the technique of wireless communication is still

571
developing rapidly, and the problems which this Bill is designed to meet are of the type for which there is very little precedent. In their definitions, to which the noble Earl called attention, the Government are clearly trying to look ahead. The Bill applies to all radiations of a wavelength greater than one-tenth of a millimetre. When one remembers that a mercury vapour lamp produces a good deal of radiation at three time this wavelength, and that it is quite possible with existing wireless sets to pick up the thermal radiation from a match, indeed from the noble Earl himself (I am not suggesting that he is hot under the collar; I am referring to his normal temperature), and when one also recalls that no existing wireless transmitter produces radiation within three or four octaves of the limit which the Government have selected, it is clear that the Government are taking time by the forelock in their determination to let nothing get past them.
I agree with the noble Earl that we need not discuss Part I of the Bill at any length, because this seems to be a consolidation of earlier measures—notably the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904. The fact that this Act was able to serve its purpose for such a long time without any major modifications shows with what skill and foresight it was drafted. Therefore, it behoves us to try and do as much for the Bill now before the House. Had it not been for the explanation given by the Attorney-General in another place, I should have complained about the paragraph concerning unauthorised listening. To expect anybody to recognise at once whether he is listening to one of the 3,500 authorised stations on the list, or to some unauthorised transmission, would be absurd. But if the clause is administered reasonably, as the Attorney-General promised, and if the real reason for its inclusion in the form in which it appears is to comply with some international arrangement, I think we need not say anything more about it.
As the noble Earl said, Part II brings us to the more difficult aspects of the Bill—namely, the prevention of interference with the transmission of radio signals. The Government desire to do this for two quite distinct reasons. The first, as explained in Clause 11 (1) (b) (i),
572
is to prevent interference likely to endanger the safety of any person, aircraft or vehicle. No instance, happily, has yet happened in which there has been any casualty due to this, but I need scarcely say that we on this side have the warmest sympathy with this intention, and are willing to go to extreme lengths in order to implement it. The second purpose, as explained in Clause 11 (1) (b) (ii), is obviously intended to prevent interference with the reception of radio and television programmes. Naturally we sympathise with this desire also. But there is a great difference between jeopardising safety of life and limb and some measure of interference with amusement and enjoyment.
Everything must give way where considerations of safety are involved. But where it is a matter merely of disturbing slightly the reception of some dance programme or the like, we must have some consideration for the distress and burden which may be imposed on other people who are to be compelled to spend money, and even to refrain from using domestic appliances legally acquired, simply because some neighbour has brought some fancy radio set with which he would like to listen to America. The noble Earl referred to one selfish individual housewife spoiling the reception of radio programmes by a whole street because she will not suppress the radiation from her electric cooker or iron. What about the selfish listener who demands that a whole street full of housewives should be stopped using their domestic appliances, or spend a lot of money on them, simply to improve his reception? Television, like radio, must make its way on its merits. It is surely not right to say that all users of electrical appliances must spend money and effort, and get out of the way so that a rather crude television outfit should not be disturbed.
Radio, after all, has managed to impose itself without the assistance of this Bill. The reason it has been able to do this, as the noble Earl said, is because the problem which Part II of the Bill is designed to meet is a small one. Only 40,000 complaints from 11,000,000 listeners are lodged in a whole year—less than 4 per cent. About half of these are not due to extraneous interference at all; they are due to something being wrong with the reception or with the

573
house wiring—or perhaps they are not even genuine complaints. Only about 15 per cent. are caused by domestic appliances-6,000 in a year, or about one listener in 2,000. The great majority of these complaints, as the noble Earl has told us, have been dealt with without any compulsion, by a little "give and take." Only 500 people have been obstructive—one in 20,000. It is for this small remnant that the whole paraphernalia of search warrants and penal clauses is to be introduced.
The noble Earl said that the number of complaints is likely to grow, but if he is successful, as we all hope he will be, in getting the manufacturers to refrain from selling apparatus that creates interference, there will be a dwindling cause of complaint. It is not likely to grow, but is more likely to vanish. I understand-I think the noble Earl confirms this—that the procedure is that the B.B.C. who, after all, extract about £11,000,000 a year in licence fees, quite reasonably feel under some obligation to see that we get something for our money. For this purpose, if I am correctly informed, they pay a certain sum annually to the Post Office which undertakes the duty of investigating complaints and tracing sources of interference. To trace one source of interference, I am told, costs on the average about three pounds. If it is true, as we are assured, that the cost of fitting a suppressor is only a few shillings, surely it would be reasonable for the B.B.C., or whoever it may be, to add the; few shillings to the three pounds that is presumably already paid for tracing the source of interference, and put the matter right themselves. A few hundred thousand shillings out of 220,000,000 shillings—or £10,000 out of 11,000,000—which the public pay could surely be afforded.
If, on the other hand, it is not true that the interference from an electric iron or cooker, or whatever it may be, can be suppressed for a few shillings, then I say it is a gross imposition to place on the housewife the onus of preventing interference, and to force her to spend money which is not trivial in order to prevent some neighbour from being disturbed in his listening. The whole bias of the Bill is in favour of the radio receiver and against the user of domestic appliances. We on this side of the House have always tried to protect the interests of the poorer
574
sections of the community, and noble Lords opposite always protest that they have the same intentions. I hope, therefore, that they will join us in passing some Amendment on the Committee stage to achieve this end. On the suggestion of the Opposition in another place a clause was added giving the Government power to see that articles liable to cause interference were not sold to unwary purchasers. That is a step in the right direction. It must be admitted that this will cause a small general rise in price, and the question does arise: Is it better that, say, 100 per cent. of the users shall have to pay an extra 5s., or that 10 per cent., who are the only 10 per cent. causing interference, should pay an extra 25s.? That question does not arise if, as I hope, some other source is found for financing these alterations.
The Government's lack of consideration for the domestic user is shown again in the constitution of the Advisory Council which the Minister is to appoint from a panel nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. This Council, which is to advise the Postmaster-General on the regulations prescribing the requirements the apparatus must comply with, if it is to be used, is to consist entirely of experts. The users are to be protected, we are told (if at all) when the regulations come before the Houses of Parliament under the negative Resolution procedure. No arrangements are made for informing makers or users in advance. No alterations in the regulations brought before Parliament are permissible; the regulations must either be accepted or rejected. Everybody knows what scant protection is afforded by this procedure. How often does a prayer against regulations succeed? The tribunals, to which anybody can appeal, will have immense power, and they are equally oddly constituted. They will consist of one man with legal experience and two assessors, again nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. These tribunals, it was said in another place, are to be the safeguard of the individual. What chance has the unhappy housewife, who has been told to stop using her electric cooker, before such a tribunal, which can snow her under with arguments about impedances, capacities, attenuation coefficients and megacycles, and all the rest of it? There does not really seem to be a very hope

575
ful prospect of her being able to appeal successfully to these experts.
At one stage the Government argued that the tribunals must consist of experts because these are technical matters. But at another stage the Attorney-General argued that the word "undue" in "undue interference" was not to be measured objectively by the millivolts in the aerial, but was to be construed as meaning "having regard to all the circumstances." That may be a very good thing, but that is not the sort of judgment that need necessarily be confined to experts. I should have thought that because the verdict was to "have regard to all the circumstances" this was a very good reason to add some non-experts to these tribunals. Of course, the tribunals may be of great importance in other directions. I am not so much concerned with hospitals because, as they are now under the State, no doubt everything will be done to render them immune from any sort of criticism. But the future of whole factories may depend on the decision of these tribunals. If a process is being operated in a factory which cannot be screened off or suppressed, and people chose to come and live in the neighbourhood who complain about the interference, the factory may be ordered to stop operating. There is no hint of compensation, nor need any account be taken of the loss in production. All that matters, apparently, is that nobody should be deprived of the chance of enjoying some jazz band, or perhaps even the Third Programme. The only protection for the factory is the interpretation the tribunal of experts chooses to put on the word "undue."
It seems clear from discussions in another place that the whole burden and cost and making changes in order to meet the convenience of neighbours is to be thrown upon the owner of the appliance or, for that matter, of the factory from which the interference is said to arise. It is true that in the Second Reading debate in another place the Assistant Postmaster-General categorically denied that the housewife would have to pay for the suppression of any interference caused, say, by her electric iron. That is an important point, because we are informed that the cost of suppression for an electric iron, which itself only costs 39s. 6d., may be as much as 30s. When
576
challenged about it in Committee, however, the Postmaster-General edged away from this promise and murmured something about an apparatus which she could buy for 14s. to suppress all the appliances in her home. In fact, I believe these appliances are only effective in completely detached houses. In any event, I cannot agree that the burden should be upon the user of the appliance. I hope the House will agree to remove this imposition.
Another very important omission from the Bill is that no power is taken to insist that the wireless receiver is shielded against interference. The Postmaster-General seems to have been completely misinformed about these matters—or perhaps I should say, insufficiently instructed. If a man insists on using an indoor aerial, so that he picks up only a very faint signal which he has to amplify hundreds of thousands of times, every little ripple from the neighbour's cooker will be magnified too. But if he has a proper outdoor aerial with a shielded lead, and if he connects his aerial earth by a separate lead to the water mains or something like that, leaving only his safety earth connected to the earth wire of his electric mains, an immense amount can be done in reducing pick-up from a neighbour's domestic appliance or from other extraneous sources. Surely the onus should be on the owner of the radio set who wants to enjoy his radio programme to prove that everything has been done to avoid pick-up before the harassed housewife next door is asked to stop using her electric iron. But there is not a word about this in the Bill.
Fundamentally, I am sure that we all want the same thing—namely, that wireless communication should proceed in an orderly fashion, with as little disturbance and interference as possible. None of us challenges the provisions of this Bill in so far as they are necessary for safeguarding life. But we on this side feel that, as the Bill now stands, the powers of entry into people's houses in order to cope with a comparatively rare impairment of the neighbour's amenities are exaggerated. In course of time, if appliances which radiate energy cease to be manufactured, the nuisance, such as it is, will cease. Would it not be well, therefore, to limit the time during which these harsh powers are granted? After all,

577
we must preserve a proper sense of balance between what is necessary and what is agreeable. To keep the factories going is essential to keep the home clean and tidy, to prepare the family's food and laundry, is almost equally important. No obstacle should be placed in the way of people working to these ends, nor should any burden be cast upon them merely in order to improve the quality of someone's radio reception.
I trust that the Government will be prepared to accept Amendments designed to achieve these ends—namely, to put the onus on the complainant to ensure that his receiver is fitted with every means of avoiding interference before the housewife is hindered in her lawful avocations, and to prevent any burden being thrown upon her, should it prove necessary to alter the electrical appliances from which the radio waves are emitted. If some such minor Amendments are incorporated, I do not think there is any reason to object to this Bill or to divide against it on the Second Reading. And I feel confident that on the Committee stage the Government will accept Amendments which will afford the safeguards I have outlined. In those circumstances, I also commend the Bill to the House for a Second Reading.
3.25 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I find myself in some little difficulty this afternoon, because if the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, expects one word of support from me I am afraid he is grossly mistaken. I have had a good deal to do with wireless in this country during the last ten years, and I realise how essential this Bill is: the Government are asking for no more than what I may describe as the minimum powers. I think I may claim to have had a good deal more to do with the Post Office interference investigation department, and to know more about the way they work, than possibly even the noble Earl who introduced this Bill. During the last ten years they have done a magnificent job of work, labouring under appalling difficulties. I am certain that if I were to say to-day that they will be thankful to have these powers, although they are the last powers in the world they want to have, I should be making a perfectly correct statement. The engineers have been so hampered that time and time
578
again during the last ten years the safety of this country has been dependent upon the tact and skill of the Post Office engineers engaged in this work to get something suppressed because they had no power to enforce it.
Now the safety of this country is something which has to be taken into account. We must have the powers to deal with people who will commit what is really an offence against the whole countryside—and I do not mean the housewife. Nine times out of ten, the housewife is the most reasonable person in the world. Equally, the trouble in her house is something which, nine times out of ten, the Post Office engineer, once he discovers the piece of electrical gear which is creating the interference, can put right without charging her a penny-halfpenny, or costing anybody anything except his own time which is, I believe, given at the cost of the B.B.C. B he must have the power to find out exactly where that interference is coming from. It is no good saying that he can go up to a house with all his testing gear and say: "Oh yes, the interference is in that house." Theoretically and scientifically, that would be an attractive proposition; but practically it is not true. There has only to be a telegraph wire across the road and something which is interfering in one house will appear as something which is interfering in the house on the other side of the road. Is it suggested that the Post Office will serve a notice on people to suppress a piece of machinery in their house without first making absolutely certain that the piece of machinery is in that house and not in the house across the road?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: But nobody has challenged the proposals of entry; the noble Lord commended them.
LORD SANDHURST: I know that, but I am taking the whole thing logically because it has been challenged by other people. Another point upon which a great deal of play was made was the inefficiency of the indoor aerial. Admittedly, the indoor aerial is not necessarily efficient, but it is not necessarily totally inefficient. In these days there may be forty flats in a comparatively small building. What is the roof going to look like if every flat has an outside aerial?
LORD CHERWELL: Use a communal aerial.
LORD SANDHURST: How many sets are going to work satisfactorily if people are trying to take fifteen different programmes off a communal aerial? There is another person—and a very important person—who is more affected by this Bill than the ordinary broadcast receiver. The average person with the broadcast receiver does not suffer from severe interference, but we in this country have a person known as the wireless amateur, commonly known as a "ham." These amateurs work on short waves, and are particularly liable and susceptible to interference. They are a valuable asset to this country; they are the breeding ground for our operators of the future, and they are the people who need protection far more than the ordinary household broadcast listener.
I happen to live in an area where there are D.C. lifts, which make any short-wave work almost impossible. There is no reason why those lifts should not be suppressed, except the fact that I believe that it costs about three pounds to do it. But I think landlords and others might be expected to spend three pounds on suppressing a lift, when by not suppressing it they are spoiling the wireless reception of people living in a large area. We must have compulsory powers to make people maintain their electrical gear in proper order. I am perfectly certain that in the majority of cases it is not a matter of spending something on equipment to suppress; it is a matter of having one's electrical equipment in proper order. But there are people who are so "pig-headed"—I know of one case—that they will not allow the Post Office engineer to go and look at a piece of electrical equipment, even when he says, "It is not going to cost you anything; I am going to put it right for you and it will give you more economical service when I have done it." But the answer he receives is: "I am not going to have you touching my electrical equipment; you have no right to do it." We must have powers to deal with people like that.
Out of about 40,000 cases, there are about 500 who refuse to do anything. I should have liked to hear how many of those 500 are firms and how many are private individuals. I believe that in one case it was a statutory undertaking which refused to do anything; and I think I
580
was responsible for finding it out. I consider that too much is made of the possibility of interference from household machinery. In fact, I believe that the housewife and her machinery do not come into the question at all. The most serious interference comes almost entirely from big electrical gear and very little comes from such things as cookers, irons, or even electrical shavers, which are usually regarded as one of the worst sources of interference.
LORD CHERWELL: Fifteen per cent. of the complaints are associated with domestic appliances.
LORD SANDHURST: But the complaints are put right with very little cost to the people against whom the complaint is made. It will be found that of the people who will not have the trouble put right, the great majority are firms; they are not, in the main, domestic consumers. I say in all seriousness that, from the point of view of the safety of the country, this power is necessary. This interference is not with ordinary broadcast reception; it is interference with radio reception of a vital nature. The Post Office must have the power given them under this Bill.
3.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to add a word to this discussion—not of course with any special technical knowledge—before we agree to give this Bill a Second Reading. I do so because I would venture to press on the noble Earl in charge of the Bill the importance of considering in good time one suggestion which was made by my noble friend Lord Cherwell, and which had also occurred to others of us. It is not a matter of Party controversy at all; but it does seem to me that it is worth considering, quite impartially and very carefully, whether it would not be well to make this a temporary measure, a Bill with a reasonable time limit of some years, rather than put it on the Statute Book as a permanent enactment. I will give my reasons in a moment. I say that I do not presume to intervene as an expert, for indeed I am not one; and this is eminently a case in which, on the technical side, fools may rush in where angels fear to tread. I admired very much the way in which the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading walked delicately in what, I dare say,

581
is to him, as it is to me, a rather mysterious territory. I have the more reason not to pretend to know more about the matter than I do; and if your Lordships will forgive me I will tell you briefly why.
In the early days of wireless one of the great authorities was the late Sir Oliver Lodge, who was himself the inventor of some most important apparatus. It so happened that, when I was a Law Officer of the Crown, I had the duty to appear for the Post Office in a patent action in which Sir Oliver Lodge was concerned. I did my work as thoroughly as I could; at any rate I went to school with experts of the Post Office for, I should think, a couple of months. At the end of that period we invented between us a question which, we thought, when put to Sir Oliver Lodge in the witness box, would do a great deal to shatter his claim. The situation was unfortunate, because the Judge was a great expert on these things and so was counsel on the other side. However, I got up, and, with the boldness of youth it may be, propounded my question to that benevolent, fatherly figure—rather like a handsome Socrates—whom many of us knew and who himself was one of the best broadcasters that ever lived. When I put my question there was a pause; and Sir Oliver, instead of replying immediately, stroked his beard and then said: "Will you allow me to observe that that is a very good question? But I do not think you quite understand the subject. Let me explain it to you." By the time he had given his explanation I was completely lost and never recovered my position. I am in no danger, therefore, of speaking as if I knew a great deal about this subject.
But what strikes me, and what I think must be admitted, especially after this very interesting debate, is that this Bill deals with topics which are novel and which, in some aspects, appear to be in the course of surprising developments. We had command of radar methods, I believe, before the enemy—and it was just as well that we had. How many people were there—one or two perhaps, really great physicists—who fully anticipated what could be done by radar when it became a practical and invaluable instrument? I do not imagine there are any of us—not even the noble Lord, Lord
582
Cherwell—who would claim to foresee how this science is going to develop in a limited number of years. The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, which was introduced by Mr. Balfour's Government, was a surprising piece of work. It was for long regarded as a practical and useful instrument. It was carried on by the annual legislation—too long, it may be—with very small amendments; but in itself it was, of course, a temporary Bill. I have no doubt that that was because it was fell that Parliament was enacting about a subject which was shifting and developing and, it might be, changing.
I appreciate that if that kind of change were to take place hereafter, it would be possible for the Government of the day to introduce an amending measure. But we are all familiar with the answer given on such occasions: "There is not time for this; we would do it if we could, but as it is we must go on as we are." Therefore, I ask the noble Earl to consider—I do not expect him to give ma a definite answer now, one way or the other—whether there is not a good deal to be said for making the proposal in its final form a proposal which will continue for whatever may be a reasonable number of years, and which therefore will more directly require Parliamentary reconsideration when the time comes. I think that is a matter worth considering. I do not think that it was considered in another place. It certainly is not aimed at destroying the objects of this Bill, but I would like the noble Earl and the Government to consider whether at Committee stage that might not be a suitable thing to do.
As for the rest of it, everybody must have been impressed by the point which my noble friend Lord Cherwell made—a point which probably nobody in the House could make with the same scientific background. I do not know how far it can be said that by this visitation, when it is authorised, one can arrive at a certain conclusion that this is the source, and the only source, of the trouble. That is no doubt largely a matter for the experts. Certainly the Bill is produced and explained on the view that this can be done. It may be so, but all this is rather mysterious to some of us.
The noble Earl himself said that Part II was experimental. I think the Minister

583
in another place described it as entering upon a novel ground. It certainly is. It is, perhaps, interesting to reflect that we have to legislate in this new sphere under great difficulties, because the old principle was that your private dwelling was a place from which you could exclude the invader, that nobody was entitled to come into your house against your will, unless of course he had a proper warrant, just as nobody was entitled to turn a stream of filth into your back yard.
In those days everybody—Judges, lawyers and so on—assumed that the invasion was always something which palpably could be seen, measured or smelt, whereas, of course, the truth was—and we did not realise it—that all the time there was an invasion going on by the transmission of these minute and unseen "waves" (as I suppose I may call them), and that one could not stop them. In many cases, they passed through walls, causing no harm to anybody. Now we have a difficult question to decide—a question which I thought the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, illustrated brilliantly: Where are you going to draw the line?
That leads me to the only other observation I wish to make, for I do not want to detain the House too long. Would the noble Earl in charge of the Bill give us, if he can, what is the view which we ought to take of this phrase "undue interference" in Clause 10, subsection (2):
"The said requirements shall be such requirements as the Postmaster-General thinks fit for the purpose of ensuring that the use of the apparatus does not cause undue interference …"
I perfectly understand that one cannot give a simple conclusive list, or perhaps even an exact formula, but it is material to notice that, whereas the Bill by its language is addressed to the discouragement and, it may be, the prevention of what is called "undue interference," in the noble Earl's speech to-day—and the same was true of speeches in another place—the language used suggested that this was an attempt to deal merely with interference. It seems to me it must be largely a question of degree, which no doubt good sense would prescribe but I do not find anything in the Bill except this word "undue" to indicate that there
584
is that sort of limitation which is intended in everything which is here provided.
While I am on page 10, I would also ask whether I am right in my views about the regulations referred to at the top of that page:
"The Postmaster-General may, after consultation with the advisory committee, make regulations …"
I do not find anything in the Bill which says that those regulations are to be subject to the negative Resolution of either House. I imagine that that is because that is already provided for. Is it in the Statutory Instruments Act? I do not remember, but I thought that at some convenient time we might be assured on that point. No doubt the draftsman is right.
LORD ROCHE: It is in Clause 16.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has pointed out, the method of negative Resolution, though very proper, is not in practice a complete protection. If I remember rightly, the Resolution has to be put down and the matter dealt with very promptly—within forty days, I think it is. I do not think it is a complete protection.
The other small matter upon which we might have some information now, if it is convenient—I do not want to take the finer points at the moment—is this. On page 12, in subsection (4), there is a reference to the appeal tribunal. The Bill runs thus:
"… the tribunal shall hear the Postmaster-General and the person at whose instance the reference was made …"
There again, I do not know what is meant. I am only asking for information. Obviously, it cannot be intended that the tribunal has to hear both sides in person—certainly not in the case of the Postmaster-General. I suppose what is contemplated, and what follows in law perhaps, is that either party is represented as that party thinks desirable. There must be some intention of that sort.
I do not want to detain your Lords-hips further because, although this whole Bill is most interesting to me, and a large number of queries suggest themselves to me, I am too much of an amateur to

585
think it right to detain the House upon such reflections—the more so when, on the one side, the matter has been dealt with by an expert and, on the other, the noble Earl has the services of a most accomplished body of expert advisers in the Department which he is representing to-day. My respectful submission, however, is that, with a Bill of this novelty, the suggestion I have made would be well worth considering. It is not by any means to be classed as a "technical" Bill, as the noble Earl called it in his first sentence; but it is a Bill which touches important vital interests of ordinary men and women. I think it is necessary to consider impartially and carefully whether, in any event, there ought not to be given, for the time being, only a temporary period of operation.
3.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I reply first to the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken? I will certainly look carefully at his suggestion that the Bill should run for only a limited period of time. It occurs to me at the moment that this might result in our having to produce another Bill or having to resort to the unsatisfactory procedure which we have used hitherto of including it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That might be the case and, in the event, we should not be able to accept the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion. On the other hand it might not, and I can assure him that we will carefully consider his suggestion, to see whether there is any way in which it can be met.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I be forgiven for intervening for one moment? I do not want to be misunderstood. I was not putting forward the suggestion on the assumption that in three or four years no legislation at all will be needed. That was not my idea in the least. What I had in mind was that when you are dealing with this matter, which is essentially experimental and novel, there is a great deal to be said for not legislating for all time and thereby producing an inertia against all possible improvement. It is my own view that you should have new or amending legislation as the circumstances change, or at any rate the decision to continue the old legislation if the circumstances do not change. I apologise for interrupting, but the noble Earl had not quite appreciated my point.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount says—namely, that new legislation may be desirable in certain cases, but in others it may be undesirable, especially if the business of the Government is rather congested and there is only a limited time in which to get through quite a number of important Bills. I am putting the other side of the case, which I am sure the noble Viscount appreciates from his experience of the day-to-day work of the Administration. I will examine the noble Viscount's other points, but I prefer to wait until I have had an opportunity of consulting with my advisers on this point of undue interference. I realise that it needs careful examination.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, very warmly indeed for what he has said. I think his words carry special force because he speaks with personal experience of this problem through his own connection with electrical engineering. I welcome what he said because it had that independence of mind behind it which is so characteristic of this House, and which makes the House so useful in the business of legislation. I listened with much care and respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said. I was glad to observe that in a general way his thermal radiations did not appear to interfere with mine, and my thermal radiations did not appear to interfere with his.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Not yet.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is the last occasion upon which I shall use anything approaching technical language. The noble Lord, who speaks as an expert in these matters, raised a number of points which I think were directed mainly to clauses in the Bill which he would like to see altered by amendment during the Committee stage. I hope he will accept it when I say that, in order to do justice to his argument and to be able to meet him on his own ground, I should like an opportunity of consulting with my advisers; I will then reply to the best of my ability to all the points he made. There was one general observation which I do not think he intended to apply to any particular clause but with which I did not feel I could agree at first sight—namely, that the B.B.C. should cover the cost of altering electrical apparatus so that it does not cause interference. I think that would be objectionable. It

587
would remove any inducement for either manufacturers or users to make or use apparatus not liable to cause interference, and the result of that might well be that the cost, which is in fact greater than anything the noble Lord had in mind, because the cost of adapting industrial electrical equipment or medical electrical equipment is much more considerable than would be the case in adapting some ordinary piece of domestic apparatus—
LORD CHERWELL: Medical electrical equipment would come under the State in any case; but I would be quite prepared to consider the possibility of confining my amendment to existing apparatus. If the Government are successful in inhibiting the sale of apparatus liable to cause interference, difficulties in this respect would not arise in future.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am glad that the noble Lord is prepared to limit what he wants in that way; but I am not sure that we can meet him even to that extent, and I should prefer to answer his narrower point at the next stage of the Bill. In conclusion, I should like to say that what has happened in the past is that the Post Office has had to rely entirely on persuasion to achieve the suppression of interference to wireless telegraphy. That is the method that the Post Office will want to use in time to come. Persuasion is going to be the first line of attack on wireless interference, and it is only in the last resort, when persuasion fails, that these powers for which we are asking will have to be used. I am inclined to think that the very existence of an ultimate power of compulsion may help to make the power of persuasion rather easier, and I devoutly hope, as I am sure everyone who has spoken on this Bill hopes, that it may never be necessary to use these powers, even if they are accepted by Parliament and become part of the Statute Law of the country.
LORD CHERWELL: I do not object to the power of compulsion unless it compels a person to go to expense. Compulsion to enable investigation and the tracing of interference is one thing, but compelling a person to go to considerable expense in order to suppress that interference is another.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am afraid that what we understand by "compul-
588
sion" does cover expense, although I could not accept the noble Lord's word "considerable." However, I will not enter into that argument now. I must thank the noble Lord opposite, and all those who have spoken, for their support for the general principle on which the Bill is based.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL
3.59 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Loans by the Corporation.
(3) The Corporation shall not, except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve, make a loan to any person unless he is carrying on the business of distributing cinematograph films to persons carrying on the business of exhibiting such films to the public, and the loan is to be employed in financing the production of such films.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve." The noble Viscount said: When we debated this Bill on Second Reading, I think there was a large measure of agreement between us. We all wanted to help the independent producer—indeed, it was the independent producer about whom we were most anxious. I hope we all agree that if the Government are to help they must take a real share of the risk and must not play for "safety first." But your Lordships will see that Clause 2 of the Bill forbids the giving of a loan to an independent producer direct, and confines the loan to distributors except in special "classes of case." No special provision is inserted to ensure that the Corporation shall see to it that where they do give a loan to a distributor the

589
conditions as between the producer and distributor are fair and reasonable. I think the Committee would generally agree that that ought to be so. Whether we should put that provision in the Bill or not, I am not sure. I have not put down an Amendment to that effect, but perhaps the Committee would wish to have an Amendment of that kind inserted. However, I will not move such an Amendment now. It could easily be moved during the Report stage, if we agreed that it would be a wise thing to do. But we certainly wanted to give the independent producer his chance, and "giving him his chance" means giving finance where it is reasonable to do so.
If your Lordships look at this very odd passage, Clause 2 (3), you will see that it says:
"The Corporation shall not, except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve, make a loan to any person unless he is carrying on the business of distributing cinematograph films to persons carrying on the business of exhibiting such films to the public, and the loan is to be employed in financing the production of such films."
That means that the Corporation can normally make loans only to a distributor. I have not the faintest idea what is meant by "classes of case." I asked the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when we were discussing this Bill on Second Reading. He was very informative about everything else, but he could not give me any information as to what was meant by those words. He did not know, and if he did not know then I do not suppose that the Board of Trade knew either. Had they known, no doubt they would have instructed him. It is possible, though, that, between now and then, the noble Lord or the Board of Trade have thought out what they mean by "such classes of case." Films do not fall into classes. A film is a good film or it is a bad film. It is a film you like, or it is a film you dislike. It may be an æsthetic film, an intellectual film, a moral film or a less moral film. But it is not really meant by this clause that a loan is to be given only if the film satisfies some æsthetic and moral standard. I am sure that the noble Lord does not mean that.
What is really meant, undoubtedly, is that a film should be likely to be a good box office proposition—that is to say, likely to succeed, to earn more than it costs. If that is what is meant, then
590
why not say so? I think, indeed, that that is appreciated in the Government Amendment. Your Lordships will see that the next Amendment is one the object of which, if I may paraphrase a page of writing, is this: before the Corporation makes a loan it has to be satisfied that a film or a group of films is likely or are likely to earn more revenue than the cost of the film or the cost of the group of films as the case may be. That seems to me to be perfectly good sense, and I am prepared to agree that that ought to be taken as a test.
The other test which I suggest we should apply is the one in my Amendment. We want to do two things: we want to encourage good propositions and good producers, and we want to keep costs down. Now the way to do this, I think, is to say that the producer and his backers have to take a minimum share of the risk. If they do that, they will not be likely to put up bad propositions to the Corporation. If they take a reasonable share of the risk, then they will have every inducement to keep costs down and to make as good films as possible—"where the treasure is there will the heart be also." I venture to suggest that we had much better cut out these odd words about classes of case and say that the Corporation must be satisfied of the two sets of conditions before it makes a loan direct to the producer. It must be satisfied that the film is likely to earn more than it costs. Further, the Board of Trade may lay down a minimum proportion of risk which is to be borne by the producer and his backers.
I do not think the Committee would wish to insert words without knowing clearly what they mean. It is altogether wrong—I am sure we shall all agree upon this—to put words into a Bill which either do not mean anything, or are such that we do not know what they mean. I am sure that the Committee, with its anxiety to help the independent producer in this business and this art, will be very anxious to know, before they agree to words of limitation, what are the conditions which are to be imposed on the producer. If they saw them afterwards in Board of Trade regulations which will not come before the House (I do not say that they should), we might find that we had passed the Bill and that the Board of Trade were laying down regulations about classes of

591
case of which the Committee would not at all have approved and which we might think rendered the Bill and the whole of its objects completely nugatory. There has been so much agreement as to what we have in mind that I venture to hope that we can agree upon this. In any case, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve").—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps it will meet with the convenience of the Committee and with that of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in particular, if I deal with both Amendments at the same time, as they are complementary. It is quite true that during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill I could not give your Lordships a definition of "classes of case." The reason was that I did not know what was the definition—and I think that was a very good reason. But I did say that the definition of "classes of case" was at that time being worked out between the Board of Trade and the interim company—the National Film Finance Company Limited. That task has now been completed, and I think that if I give your Lordships the intention of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and what the initial definition will be—I stress the word "initial" and I will come back to it later—it will help the noble Viscount.
It is proposed, as soon as the Corporation is set up, to authorise the directors to make loans to companies organised to carry out a programme of production of cinematograph films and equipped with the necessary experience in a relevant type of production, provided there is an adequate amount of private investment ranking behind any money lent by the Corporation. In making loans, the Corporation will not only impose such particular terms and conditions as the directors may think applicable to each company, but will also require to be satisfied on such general points as arrangements for distribution of the films and deferment of certain payments—for example, producers' remuneration—until other costs have been recovered. Your Lordships will see that in the definition of "classes of case" two requirements
592
have to be satisfied: a financial requirement, which the noble Viscount is so desirous of having, that there is an adequate amount of private investment ranking behind any money lent by the Corporation, and also a commercial requirement (which I think the noble Lord will agree with me is equally necessary) that the producer must have the necessary experience in a relevant type of production. I agree with the noble Viscount that it is wrong to put in a Bill words the sense of which we cannot apprehend, but he will agree with me that it is equally wrong to put into a Bill words which might have to be altered from time to time. I would stress that this is the first word upon this subject, and not the last.
This will be the general definition of the classes of case where the Corporation will be authorised to grant loans, other than through the distributive agencies, for film production; but my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade may want to add to this definition in the light of new circumstances. I think the noble Viscount will agree with me that it is far better to leave this definition as it is and not attempt to use precise language. It is difficult to express these conceptions satisfactorily in precise and legal language which would be appropriate to an Act of Parliament. The other points raised by the noble Viscount come up properly for discussion on the Amendment down in my name. Perhaps, in view of what I have said, the noble Viscount will agree that I am not being unreasonable in asking him to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, who has now been able to tell us what he did not know, and what I gather the Board of Trade did not know, on Second Reading. A scheme was hereafter to be revealed, and now it is revealed. It is not easy to follow a long technical definition read out to us, and if I withdraw my Amendment now, I do so reserving the full right to return to this point at a later stage in the Bill. I can say at once that I do not think I like it. There is one thing about it that I am sure I do not like. The noble Lord, if I followed him rightly, said that one of the conditions which must be fulfilled before any loan can be made, is that there must be a certain amount of money ranking behind the Government loan. I do not like that. I said on Second Reading, and

593
I thought I carried the House with me, that I did not believe that was right. This is playing for "safety first." If you are to lend money as a financial institution, I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to act in this way. But this, we all admit, is a very odd kind of industry; it is nearly "on the rocks" to-day. It has an interest which far transcends the production of films itself—that is why we have this Bill—and all over the world we want British films to carry British ideas; and we want individual producers.
The Government are taking £38,000,000 a year out of this industry. I want them genuinely to put some of that back, and I want it put back on fair terms. I do not consider that taking a first mortgage constitutes fair terms, in the sense of taking a risk in this particularly risky business. If we play for safety in that way, we merely assist a few films which I dare say in the long run would have obtained the finance anyhow. The proposition sot out in my Amendment is that the Government may lay down conditions as to the minimum risk which the producer may take pari passu with the Government. That, I think, is right, but I do not think the Government ought necessarily to rank in front of him. I shall certainly move on Report stage to strike that out, because I do not think any business will be done under that condition. If we want this Bill—and I think the House does want it—we want a risk to be taken. It is not a great sum of money—only a revolving credit of £5,000,000—and the amount ventured on one film will be only a fraction of that. The £5,000,000 itself is no large percentage of the £38,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer already extracts from the industry. As at present advised, I am definitely against the proposal to put the Government first and the producer second. I think there ought to be a chance of them going into the venture together.
I would like now to study the question of commercial experience. I will tell you frankly the difficulty I feel about it. I want the new man to have a chance. At the same time, the new man ought to be associated with somebody who knows the business. As I have said, the film industry is very odd; it is not like any ordinary business proposition which we are accustomed to finance. It is something wholly different, and it has
594
to be approached in a spirit partly practical and partly imaginative. I do not think the Government are being very imaginative about this. So far as I can make out, whereas what the clause purported to do was to give a chance to an individual producer, it seems to me that the words uttered by the noble Lord do not carry that out.
The individual producer has to have an arrangement with the distributors and with a company which must have a considerable financial backing. If we hedge him round as closely as that, there seems to be no practical way, except by going through one of the distributive agencies. I know the Minister to be perfectly frank, and I do not know whether he has had time to consider that point. I myself would like time to consider it. It may be a wise thing to adjourn the Committee stage. I think these discussions across the Table enable us to get the facts better than on Report stage, when one can speak only once, except by leave of the House. I am sure the Minister and also you, my Lord Chairman, dislike the idea of converting the Report stage into a Committee stage. There might be a possibility of passing the Committee stage and recommitting this clause. In any case, I will raise this matter again when we come to Report stage.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I follow the noble Viscount's arguments precisely, and I am grateful to him for withdrawing his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I had not finished. I thought the noble Lord was going to answer something. I was then addressing myself to the Lord Chairman. Unless it is possible to recommit the clause, perhaps it would be more convenient that I should move that the debate on this matter should be adjourned.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think I am right in saying that the proper practice would be to recommit the Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Would that be after, or before, the Report stage?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then I reserve my right to move the recommitment of the Bill. I hope we shall not rush this

595
matter, because I understand the Corporation are going on with this job and making some advances ahead of Parliamentary authority. I would like to have an opportunity of considering this point with those who advise and help me in these matters, in order to decide whether we should recommit the Bill. I also wish to make this suggestion. As I say, I do not very much like the conditions which the noble Lord has read out. At the same time, the noble Lord says: "We may want to alter them." That is true, but as the matter stands at present, the right to alter them rests entirely with the Minister. If we part with the Bill we have no right to say anything about it.
There is a way in which this could be done. The Minister could put his regulations into an Order which could be laid and prayed against. I suggest that if we are not quite sure that the long formula—I almost said rigmarole—which the noble Lord read out is to be moved by him as an Amendment on the Report stage—if it is merely an indication of what is at present in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I said on Second Reading that there would be an initial definition of the class of case where finance would go to the producer direct (that is, under the exception made in Clause 2) which would obviate the necessity of financing production through a distributing agency.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Where is the definition to go? Usually the definition is in the Interpretation Clause of the Bill. Is the noble Lord going to put it there? I gather he is not. I am obliged to the noble Lord for that information. But what he is saying to-day is that the President of the Board of Trade, who this day last week did not know what he meant—I am not complaining—has now had an initial idea, having very properly taken counsel with his Corporation, and, as at present advised, thinks this is the sort of thing he would like to do. But if we part with the Bill, he may have second thoughts in a fortnight's time which may be even worse than these (which I do not like) and which may make the position even more strict. Parliament will have parted with the Bill, and we shall have no chance to consider it. Obviously this clause will have to be
596
recommitted, as the Lord Chairman has suggested. I warn the noble Lord that, if we agree to pass the clause without any definition in the Bill of what it means, we may ask that Parliament should have an opportunity of approving or disapproving the regulations that are laid down. I feel sure the Committee would like to hear the noble Lord in reply, and I propose then to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I apologise for having interrupted the noble Viscount; I thought he had finished. May I say what I intended to say then? I follow the noble Viscount's arguments precisely, and I am grateful to him for offering to withdraw this Amendment. I will undertake to put his points to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, and if the noble Viscount will give me the opportunity I shall be pleased to discuss with him, through the usual channels, the best way of dealing with the situation as outlined. I agree that the matter is too important for it not to be thoroughly understood at this juncture.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (3) to insert as a new subsection:
"(4) The Corporation shall not make a loan to any person for the purpose of financing the production of a film or programme of films unless that person agrees to produce from time to time to the Corporation, as and when required by them so to do, an estimate of the cost of producing—

(a) that film or, as the case may be, each film in that programme of films; and

(b) any other films the production of which he finances, either in whole or in part, or in the commercial success of which he has any financial interest, at any time before the loan is completely repaid,

and in making any such loan and exercising their other powers under this Act in relation to any such loan, the Corporation shall have regard to the amount which might reasonably be expected to be received by the person to whom the loan is made from the distribution—

(i) of the film or films the production of which is to be financed by means of the loan; and

(ii) to such extent, if any, as appears proper in the circumstances, of the said other films."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment carries out an undertaking which I gave to your Lordships on Second Reading.
The effect of the Amendment is twofold. First, it empowers the Corporation to require every borrower (whether a producer or a distributor) to produce the budgets of all films which he finances, or helps to finance, up to the time his loan has been repaid. Secondly, the Corporation are required always to have regard to the borrower's expectations of revenues from films wholly or partly to be financed by means of the Corporation's loans, and in suitable cases to have regard to his expectations from other films. The Amendment makes it quite clear (as the noble Viscount pointed out in the speech he made on the Amendment which he has just withdrawn) that the Corporation are not expected to make loans for producing films merely because they will have artistic or other merits, and regardless of whether or not the receipts (including receipts from overseas) are likely to cover the costs of production.
I do not disguise from your Lordships the fact that the directors of this Corporation will have a difficult task to discharge. The commercial prospects of films must play a prominent part in their considerations. The difficulty will be especially great with the more expensive type of film, designed for competitive exhibition in the international market. But—and I would emphasise this very strongly—it will never be possible for British film production to prosper by making only "small" pictures, intended mainly for the protected home market. My right honourable friend, in his general directions to the Corporation (the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked me on Second Reading whether I would give some indication as to what they would be), will ask them not only to keep close watch on the costs involved in the projects submitted to them but also to remember the importance, both to the industry and to the national economy, of the different types of film production, including international pictures. In proper cases the Corporation must be prepared to run proper risks. They will be expected—and I think your Lordships will agree, rightly expected—to operate with reasonable prudence, but it must not be forgotten (this should be underlined) that the Corporation are being established for the purpose of supporting and encouraging the production of films. If at the end of five years the £5,000,000 which is being made available remains undiminished,
598
and that result has been achieved only because the Corporation have in fact done very little business, this Bill, which has been received so warmly, not only by your Lordships but in another place and (I think I am right in saying) in the industry in general, will have failed to achieve its purpose.
The references in this Amendment to "other films" in paragraph (b) and subparagraph (ii)—that is, to films which will not be financed by means of the Corporation's loans—are necessary because, in many cases, the Corporation will have to look for repayment of the loans not only to the revenues from films which have been financed, but also to the general assets of the borrower. Your Lordships will see that the Corporation will necessarily be interested in the borrower's other activities and, in particular, in the costs and potential of his other productions. The reference to "exercising their other powers under this Act," which is also incorporated in the Amendment, is directed mainly to the possibility that, if the borrower is behaving imprudently, it may be necessary for the Corporation to foreclose upon him. This Amendment implements to the full the undertaking I gave, and I hope it will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think your Lordships will readily accept this Amendment. I would offer one or two observations, although not as to the merits of the clause, which I think is well drawn and carries out the intention. But if it is possible and convenient to define as closely and carefully as this what is intended here, why cannot we have equal precision when we come to what is much more obscure, the "classes of case"? That is my first point. The second is that, as the Government have laid down—as I thing is quite right—that the Corporation are not to advance money unless they think the proceeds from the film or series of films will be equal to the costs of production, I cannot see why the Government should want a clause or a regulation which says that they must come in in front of the producer, the distributor, or whoever it is who is to have the loan, and why they cannot go

599
into the venture together. With regard to the administration of this subsection I will not press the noble Lord, who I think would be a bit venturesome in this matter—I like his outlook better than that of the President of the Board of Trade. But I hope that when he is discussing the points I have made with the President of the Board of Trade, he will not fail to remind him of the unpleasant consequences which befell the gentleman who kept his talent in a napkin.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL
4.34 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MILK (SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS) BILL [H.L.]
4.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, I am very glad indeed that this Bill has had such a favourable reception from all sides of the House. I think we all, irrespective of Party, wish to see clean milk distributed far and wide throughout the country, and, as a whole, I think we are also genuinely agreed that this Bill is a step in the right direction. I have looked into one or two points which arose on the Report stage of the Bill, and if I may I should just like to answer one or two questions to clarify certain matters. The first was on a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, who seemed rather anxious as to whether the words in the Government Amendment would sufficiently protect a vendor who sold milk to a person who might improperly use the milk in the course of his business as a caterer. The words in question were,
600
"reasonable cause to believe." I have examined those words carefully, and I am given to understand that they would provide a perfectly adequate defence for a vendor in that position. In fact, the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl would be much more onerous than the Government Amendment. On those grounds I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied.
There was one other point which was more substantial, and which raised a certain number of questions, especially during the Second Reading of the Bill. Many noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, and others were very naturally worried over it. The point was that while we are promoting the sale of clean milk all over the country, it is extremely important that we should never lose sight of the ultimate aim of getting pure, disease-free milk from the cow itself. In other words, we must continue with our policy of up-grading the herds. That is extremely important. In view of the interest which was shown by so many noble Lords on that occasion, I thought it might interest your Lordships to know of some of the provisions proposed to be inserted in the new Milk (Special Designations) (Raw Milk) Regulations which, as announced during the Committee stage on January 27, it is now planned to bring into operation on October 1 next.
It is proposed that no application for a licence to sell milk under the special designation "tuberculin tested" received after September 30, 1950, will be considered unless the herd is attested, and that existing T.T. licences will be terminated on September 30, 1952, if the herd has not by then become attested. Thus, we shall gradually secure that all milk sold under the special designation "tuberculin tested" comes from attested herds. It will also have been noticed that in Clause 4, subsection (1), of this Bill we are making the special designation "accredited" an obsolescent one, so far as the specified areas are concerned. This proposal will be applied to the whole of the country under the new Regulations to which I have referred. This will mean that from October 1, 1954, onwards, the only raw milk that can be sold under a special designation in England and Wales will be tuberculin-tested milk from attested herds. Ample notice

601
is being given of the change in order that farmers may have plenty of time to upgrade their production to T.T. standard; and it is earnestly hoped that the support of the whole of the House for these measures will be forthcoming.
Finally, I should like to stress that this Bill will achieve its objects without undue hardship or discrimination. I think, also, that it will benefit everybody. It will benefit the consumer, because he will be getting a supply of pure milk which should lead to the increased consumption of milk; it will benefit the dairyman, because he will be sure of delivering and of dealing in a pure product; and it will benefit the producer because for the first time he can be certain that his milk is receiving adequate and proper treatment with the care which it deserves. I believe that, in the light of all these considerations, it is a worth-while effort which we are making with this Bill. I suggest that the time we have spent on this Bill has been well spent, and that the Amendments which have been passed are extremely valuable ones. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a speedy Third Reading, so that we may send it on its journey to another place. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
4.43 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I should like to say a word more on the subject which I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. I welcome this Bill, particularly in view of what the noble Lord has just said. But my anxiety is that from the moment this pure milk is delivered at the door, the danger period begins—and that state of things will continue, unless something is done to alter the present system. I have been having a look at bottles of milk delivered at the doors of consumers. The other day I was visiting a friend who has been rather jocular about some of the things I said in this House on the Second Reading. As I drove up to his door I saw a bottle of milk standing there. The stopper was in the bottle, but the milk was oozing out at the top; it was rather a windy day and there were specks of dust settling on the milk. Your Lordships will appreciate from such an example that all the good that has been done in providing supplies
602
of T.T. milk can be undone in the course of the transport of the milk. Harmful germs may be in the air, or in the dust that settles in the tops of these bottles. My desire is to remove that danger to the health of the consumers.
We all know that milk when poured out into jugs—which may or may not be too clean—and stood perhaps anywhere in the house until the jug is empty, is liable to pick up any germs that are about; moreover it is unlikely, if it is left standing for a time, to be so clean as when it arrives at the house. I feel that a great deal can be done to eliminate this danger. There are many people who are interested in this subject and who realise the danger. One of these persons has invented a special stopper, and has communicated with me. I have arranged to discuss the matter with the appropriate officer of the Ministry of Food and in due course, should he take the view that it is worth investigating, I will put him in touch with the inventor. (I ought to say that I have no interest personally in this invention.) The new bottle, if this invention were adopted, would be the same as the existing one; but if this very simple apparatus works, then, when the bottle was standing, the milk would not be getting any contact with the air; when the bottle was turned up to pour out the milk the amount required would come through the stopper; when the bottle was replaced on end it would become sealed again. The difficulty, of course, is to get a stopper that is satisfactory in every way. This particular one is made of very inexpensive material and would probably outlast the bottle.
I understand that the life of a milk bottle is, roughly speaking, forty fillings, after which, because of rough usage or other reasons, it is of no further use. It seems to me that if we were to replace the bottles after forty fillings, we should gradually arrive at a satisfactory type of bottle without any great expense. But even if there is some expense to begin with, it will be well worth while if we can reduce to an absolute minimum the danger of milk picking up any injurious microbes or germs at the end, so to speak, of its life—that is, the moment before it is used by the consumer. I hope that the Government will pay attention to this matter. I am not satisfied that we have got so far as we can in the elimination of the danger of infection from milk

603
after the bottle has been opened. I hope the Government will investigate this matter, for I feel sure it will be to the general benefit, particularly to the benefit of children. I welcome the Bill as being a great step in the right direction.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, the Committee stage of the previous Bill went through with such rapidity that I was not in my place at the beginning of this discussion, when, I understand, the noble Earl referred to the Amendments which I raised on Report stage of the Bill. I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters, but those who advise me—the National Farmers' Union—still feel that, under Clause 1 as it stands at present, far greater hardship will be imposed upon the producer-retailers. During the previous stage of the Bill, the noble Earl admitted that there would be hardship. The National Farmers' Union believe that the hardship that will be inflicted upon those persons is much greater than the noble Earl makes out. I hope that, before the Bill goes to another place, the noble Earl will give these people an opportunity of discussing these points with him or with the Minister, so that this hardship, which I am sure the noble Earl is just as keen to remove as I am, will be mitigated as far as possible. That also refers to the Amendment which I moved to Clause 2. The National Farmers' Union feel that the Amendment which the noble Earl moved in respect of caterers does not go quite far enough and does not covet the point which was contained in my Amendment. I hope the noble, Earl will discuss that matter with them also before the Bill passes to another place.
4.51 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before the Bill leaves this House, I should like to add one or two words. First, I think we have improved it considerably in various respects while it has been passing through this House. I am certain that the noble Earl will accede to the request just made by my noble friend behind me, that people in his Department should discuss with the National Farmers' Union the two points raised by the noble Earl on Report stage. In regard to the first point, I think there is still some way in which it might be met. In regard to the second, the Government put down an
604
Amendment to meet a point we had made on Committee stage in this Bill—namely, whether a man had reasonable cause to believe that the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) of Clause 2 (3) were satisfied. I think one of the conditions is that the man was a caterer. If he had reasonable grounds to think that he was a caterer, I should have thought that no court could convict him under this Bill. In fact, at the time when the Amendment was offered to us, I thought it fully met the point that had not been covered in the Bill as it originally came before this House. In regard to the first question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, however, I believe that indeed there is still something to be met.
There is one point I did not quite understand when the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary, was talking to us. So far as I could understand, he said he thought that this measure would increase the consumption of milk. Much more milk would be consumed to-day if the milking system were adequate. It does not need this Bill to raise the consumption of milk. It needs more dairy herds providing more milk, because a great deal more milk could and would be consumed in this country to-day were it available. Moreover, were more milk available, we could (and I hope that within the next year we shall) get back to making some of our old-established cheeses. It may not be quite relevant to this Bill, but I think I shall just be in order when I point out that, if we do not do that soon, the skill of the cheese-maker will be lost and one of our best agricultural industries—that of making really good cheeses—will be lost, perhaps for ever.
The huge requirements of carrying supplies for the Services with which I had to contend when I was Minister of Food are now, of course, nothing like so large, and I hope that we shall be able to allow cheesemakers a certain amount of milk during the flush months when the new grass comes. As the noble Earl well knows, there is more milk than is really necessary for six weeks or two months during the early part of the year. I hope that some of that milk will go into the making of cheese which, after all, does not need to be put into the bottles that have been so admirably described to us by my noble friend behind me. Incidentally, I should like to see

605
one of these bottles before I speak in its favour. A bottle into which the air cannot get unless it is in a certain position may be a more difficult bottle to clean, and the cleansing of bottles is most important if one is to ensure a clean milk supply.
I hope that as a result of this Bill we shall obtain a greater increase of attested herds in this country. That is the direction in which both the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture should press forward for the improvement of our milk supply. Do not let us be content with the second best, which is pasteurisation. The best is T.T. milk, properly and cleanly bottled on the farm. In that we get the full nourishment of the milk which nature meant calves to have and which we people have adopted for drinking as well. No calf was ever meant to have pasteurised milk. I maintain that the unpasteurised but pure milk from a T.T. herd is far better than any pasteurised milk. I hope that by the provisions of this Bill a larger number of producer-retailers will be encouraged to tip-grade their herds and provide T.T. milk for the consumers, rather than to go in for the purchase of expensive pasteurisation plant. I think that this Bill will carry us a step forward, at any rate in that respect, which to my mind is the better way. I hope that this Bill will be a great success and that, as a result of it, we shall get far more T.T. herds in this country in the future than we have at the present time.
4.59 p.m.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I rise with great diffidence because I am neither a bacteriologist nor a dietician. However, I am advised that one of the provisions of this Bill will make it impossible in some areas, including London, to buy raw milk which is not T.T. Like everybody who has spoken, I am anxious to see more T.T. milk available, and I wish to remind His Majesty's Government that there is a danger in pasteurised milk. All our recent statistics and research work show the enormous difference in resistance to disease between breast-fed babies and bottle-fed babies. Particularly is this striking in the American figures. It is important to remember that the American figures of bottle-fed babies all relate to pasteurised milk. I think it is dangerous to compel
606
pasteurisation without a greater knowledge than we possess at this moment.
5.0 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, I have spoken once or twice in this House regarding the pasteurisaltion of milk, and what I have heard today has made me more convinced than ever that I ought to repeat one or two of the things I have mentioned before. When the Opposition and the Government front Benches agree on anything, I think we on the back Benches ought to consider our position and decide what we should do. For that reason, I think that those people who are not here to speak for themselves ought to have some representative in this House to speak on their behalf. I consider that there was a complete answer so far as the pasteurisation of milk is concerned—and I am not without some experience.
What is the use of having an up-to-date herd with dirty, filthy shippons that are not fit to be seen? My general complaint against the Ministry, in two Governments, has been their failure to carry out the provisions of the Cowsheds and Dairies Acts, and to compel the shippons to be modernised so that they can be properly cleansed. There are some that I have been to particularly, as I mentioned once before, those on one estate in North Wales where there are seventy farms, not one of which you could enter without wearing a pair of rubber boots. Milk is the best food that we can produce in this country. How to get over this difficulty of unclean milk, say the Ministry and their advisers, is to take the dirt out of it. But in my view, it should never have been allowed to get into it—in other words, that both the herd and the shippons should have been cleaned up.
This talk of pasteurisation is just a lazy excuse by responsible officials for not carrying out the provisions of Acts that have been passed, in this and in the other House, in regard to the cleaning up of herds and shippons. If in the future they are to remain in the same condition as they have been in the past, and no more strenuous effort is made to clean them up, then this will not be the last Bill with which we shall be confronted respecting this problem of clean milk. I have seen the dirt taken out after pasteurisation. I have seen nearly half a bucketful taken out of a plant in one day. I am perfectly certain that it ought never

607
to have been in it, and that it need not have been there.
We too readily think we have done a big job when a Bill leaves this House and goes to another place, and then becomes an Act of Parliament. But really the job is just commencing. It is the enforcement of its provisions and its efficient administration that matter more than anything else. Adequate discussion, in order to make proper provisions in the first place, before a Bill is introduced, followed then by efficient administration, is more important than constantly having new Bills and regulations. Are we trying to find more offences of which people can be found guilty? I think it is about time there were fewer offences to commit, instead of more. I do not know how some of these farmers can cope with the situation at the moment. There are people I know well who find it impossible to comply with many of the regulations that are made.
We should not only clean up the herds and the shippons but we should also see to it that proper water supplies are taken to these places. That is not unimportant. On one of the big farms that I know, there is no water supply at all. Everything runs down a spouting into the paddock from all the stables and shippons, and then into a pond in a grazing field from which all the beasts have to drink. That farm is in Wales, but this also applies to some parts of England. If I were to take the Minister (whom I am pleased to see here to-day) to see some of these places, I think he would be shocked at the conditions under which milk is produced. The only thing one can say is that pasteurisation is a sort of safety valve. It does nothing else but knock the milk about in such a fashion that it cannot be recognised as milk. Every man or woman of common sense knows that a pint of milk taken under proper conditions from a clean cow is the finest food that one can possibly have, and I say that in the main the only people who will be pleased about pasteurisation will be some of the "cranks" calling themselves doctors and those who manufacture the machinery.
On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (Privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROPOSED NEW TOWN AT BRACKNELL
5.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF LINDSAY THE EARL OF LINDSAY rose to ask His Majesty's Government why, when non-agricultural land which is suitable for housing purposes is available in the neighbourhood of Bracknell, the Draft Designation Order for the new town to be built there includes over 1,000 acres of good agricultural land and will cause disturbance to no fewer than thirty-six agricultural occupiers, and what principle governs the decision of his Majesty's Government in this and similar cases. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I ask it because I believe that the site which has been provisionally chosen for the new satellite town of Bracknell will cause unnecessary hardship to the farming community there—the owners and the farm workers—and also because I believe that an unnecessary loss will be caused to our food production.
The site which has been chosen for the new town amounts merely to an extension in every direction of the boundaries of the present Bracknell; in other words, the limits of the new town and those of the present town form, roughly, two concentric circles. The ground which has been taken in by the new boundaries includes a proportion of good agricultural land. I will come back to that point in a moment. The first question that I ask myself (although I do not ask His Majesty's Government) is: Why should we support a Ministry of Town and Country Planning if this is a fair example of its planning, because surely this is just the natural development that one would have got had there never been any such thing as organised planning—houses creeping out from the edge of the town, engulfing good farming land, just as a builder speculator snaps up land with a view to getting a quick return on his money, without any idea of the proper use to which that land should have been put.
Surely the underlying principle, the raison d'être of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, is the conservation of the land. Its job is to see that the very limited land resources of this country are put to the best possible advantage.

609
The only real difference between the bold, bad days, and the present time, would seem to be that in the old days the farmer did not have to sell if he did not want to, but now he has to go if he is ordered to. Any one who is unfamiliar with the country around Bracknell might well say that if we must have a satellite town in that vicinity then the farmers and the farm land somewhere must suffer. But that, in fact, is not the case and would show an ignorance of that part of the world because, starting within a mile or two to the east and south of Bracknell, there are large tracts of scrub and heath country which have no value to the nation at all other than as possible building sites. They are just miles and miles of nothing—nothing, in fact, but heather, bracken, birch trees and fir trees—with not a human being to be seen.
The only thing that can be said for them is that from the point of view of satellite towns these areas have a certain amount to recommend them. They are healthy, with gravelly soil and a hard pan underneath to facilitate building. There is no one to be interfered with, and there would be unlimited scope for planning. The areas are all on main roads and near to existing railways. Six alternative sites within a very few miles of Bracknell, in the general area of Bracknell—Easthamstead, Crowthorne, Bagshot, Sunningdale and Ascot—have been suggested to the Ministry by the Berkshire Executive of the National Farmers' Union. None of these sites includes any agricultural land. Up to the present, they have all been turned down. I will not go in detail into questions relating to all these sites. Obviously, every such question has many pros and cons, but it would seem, generally speaking, that the reasons why they have been turned down are based on the matter of cost, difficulties of sewage disposal, the expense of building roads, providing essential services and so forth, whereas if the present Bracknell were used as a foundation existing services would be available to make a start.
It is not for me to encourage extravagance or needless expenditure on the part of Government Departments, but at the same time I feel that in this particular case, if the extra cost results in the saving of good food-producing land for the nation, it may be well worth while. One reason for the choice of this arable land for the new town of
610
Bracknell—a reason which has never been given officially, though I believe it may possibly have played its part—is the desire to get attractive gardens for the future inhabitants of this town. I do not in the least begrudge these people nice gardens, but I do say that whereas you cannot make a farm out of poor ground—or at least it would be extremely uneconomic to try to do so—you can make a garden. A few loads of good soil, some fertiliser and some hard work are all that are needed. Given those you will have a garden. That cannot be said, however, in the case of farms. If this is a reason for the selection of this arable land for this town, I confess that I do not regard it as a good and sufficient reason.
I would now say a word about the farm land which it is proposed to take over. It is officially designated as "sixth grade." This, actually, is not so bad as it sounds. It means merely that land is reasonably good agricultural land, without being the best. I would, however, point out that this sixth grade is a general average far the whole area and, of course, includes certain holdings which are of much higher quality, along with other parts that are unproductive. I believe that the low grading of this land as a whole is based upon a Survey and a Report made some years before the war, and that it does not, in fact, give a true indication of the real worth of this ground as it is to-day. The farm land of Bracknell has been greatly improved in the past few years. Market gardeners have recently come into the area, and it has been found that the land there is most suitable for this type of food production.
Incidentally, some of the people who will be dispossessed under the scheme have come into Bracknell after having been dispossessed through development schemes in Middlesex. Pedigree dairy herds have been built up in the past few years since the Report was made. Permanent structures—cowsheds, crop-drying machines, and so forth—have all been built. If this scheme goes through in its present form, 2,600 acres of land will be affected. Admittedly, all of it is not good agricultural land. In my Question I have put the figure as over 1,000 acres. In doing so, I have erred very much on the safe side. In fact, the figure of good farm land is much nearer 1,500 acres. In

611
his reply to a question in another place, the Minister of Town and Country Planning stated that only about half the 2,600 acres provisionally designated is agricultural land, but I feel that this also is an understatement, because in the unproductive half there are some 500 to 600 acres made up of odd fields and small patches of ground which could be developed into market gardens. Thirty-six agricultural occupiers are affected, ranging from owners of farms of over 300 acres to smallholders. Land which was neglected in the years of depression before the war has now been brought into cultivation and is producing abundant crops. Woods are being cleared at the present time, as I have seen with my own eyes in the past week. Yields per acre are now being obtained which in many cases are higher than the national average, and the owners of three pedigree herds who will be dispossessed, if the scheme goes through, have all won first prizes at the Royal and local agricultural shows during the past two years.
Owing to housing and aerodrome development in Middlesex, in recent months, many market gardeners have moved into East Berkshire, and as a result the Bracknell district is now assuming an importance as a food producer for the London area. At least one hundred permanent farm workers—apart from casual workers—are affected. In passing, I would like to say that when I visited Bracknell a few days ago, one of the persons I met who seemed most concerned about what is happening was the representative of the National Union of Farm Workers. One of the most remarkable aspects of the whole affair is that the Berkshire Agricultural Executive Committee were never consulted officially about this matter prior to the Draft Designation Order being made—or so I have been informed.
I will not weary your Lordships with a long list of statistics but I would like to give you just a few figures to indicate something of the annual loss to the food production of the nation which will result if this scheme goes through: Cereal crops, nearly 2,000,000 lb. (860 tons); potatoes, well over 1,000,000 lb.; vegetables, nearly 3,000,000 lb.; cattle food, over 1,500 tons; pigs, about 1,500 reared or fattened (and this number is now being greatly
612
increased); eggs, over 106,000 (this number also is being steadily increased); milk, over 1,084,000 pints, or rations for 8,340 people. In these days, these and other items which I have not mentioned make up a sum total of food which, I submit, we can hardly afford to throw away. It is, of course, possible that it will be some time before this scheme is put into effect, but I would ask your Lordships to consider the psychological effect on the farmers and farm workers of Bracknell. Farming is not a short-term business. The farmer expects to benefit for years to come from what he puts into his land to-day, from the additions he makes to his farm. It is only natural that the farming community in the Bracknell area must suffer from having this sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
In conclusion, there is one point I wish to make abundantly clear; that is, that the farming community of Bracknell do not oppose this satellite town as such. What they seek is that the claims of the farmers should be taken into account and given due consideration when the final choice of a site for the town is made. For the reasons I have given, I beg leave to ask the Question.
5.20 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Earl has made so powerful a case that he needs very little support. At the same time, the matter to which he has called attention is one which, on the face of it, requires so much explanation that perhaps any further material that can be directed towards the Government may serve at least to elicit a more ample reply. There was a time, I am afraid rather long past, when I used to know this particular area reasonably well, and during the war years I had cause frequently to revisit it. The reason that I had to revisit it was that the area around Bracknell contained an extremely large ammunition depot. The reason that it contained that large ammunition depot was that there was there the biggest uncultivated area suitable for the purpose which could be found, I think I am right in saying, in the whole of the South Eastern Command. Apparently it is now necessary, in order to establish the satellite town, for the Ministry to take over farming land and not to avail itself

613
of the very considerable areas of uncultivatable land which exist in the immediate vicinity.
During the war the pressure to produce, and to put every acre of agricultural ground to full use, was certainly not less than it is to-day. Yet during those years not even the most optimistic Minister of Agriculture made any attempt to turn this barren area into cultivatable ground. It was left to the tender mercies of the ammunition depot. Now it continues to be left, although during the war it was found to be perfectly suitable for standing camps and could be easily prepared for their reception and, therefore, may perhaps be regarded as habitable territory. It is left to continue under heather and bracken, and for the purpose of establishing a satellite town it is apparently thought necessary to annex the very considerable area of highly productive land to which the noble Earl has drawn attention. We shall await with some interest the Government's explanation of this proposal.
5.24 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think the public conscience is now, in the year 1949, at last aroused on the subject of the constant draining away of agricultural land. Your Lordships' House is to some extent the keeper of the public conscience in this matter. Such instances as my noble friend has raised have been going on all over the country for a long time now, in connection with new towns, aerodromes and roads. We had hoped that with the creation of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning there would be some end to what I might call the wilful drain; but it was not to be. I am not raising any specific case. I am considering merely what one might call the sting in the tail of the noble Earl's Question, and what principle governs the decisions of the Government in this and similar cases. I do not know what answer the noble Earl will receive. I presume it will be that every case is considered on its merits; that every Department of His Majesty's Government is consulted, and not least the Ministry of Agriculture.
Of course, that conjures up visions of omniscient boards of gentlemen, sitting round tables, judging every case according to its merits on the wise principles of Confucianism. In practice, it means
614
"inter-tribal" warfare in Whitehall, and we all know that the victory goes to the "tribe" led by the most powerful and most cunning chief. I am not fully satisfied that to-day agriculture is led by the most powerful and most cunning chief in Whitehall. At best we receive a wise personal judgment, and at the worst a compromise based on unholy opportunism. The judgment would have to be based on purely immeasurable factors. Is it conceivable that we can introduce some yardstick which would be of assistance in measuring these things? Could we introduce the principle of money, which noble and altruistic Lords opposite sometimes tend to spurn? It seems to me that we might. At the moment there is no inducement—or relatively none—and no deterrent, to the use of good agricultural land, as against poor land, for building or other purpose. The price is relatively the same; the development charge, so far as I am aware, is relatively the same. There is no price deterrent to taking the best agricultural land. It makes small difference to the user.
I submit that if we wanted to introduce a money yardstick, it could be done probably on the existing grading of land by levying on the use of the land a charge calculated to bring up to the agricultural level of the land that is being taken an equal area of land which is comparatively waste. In this country, alongside a lot of good land there is also a lot of waste land which, by immense toil and immense sums of money, can be improved considerably in fertility. We should achieve the result that there would be a fund which would be spent on replacing good land that went out of use with an equal area of bad land being brought into use. If good land is vital to the purpose of the man who wants to use it, he should first of all have to satisfy the Ministry of Agriculture, if he can, and if the Ministry agree that his enterprise is vital, let it bear the additional burden of the cost of replacing that land in our national heritage. It is rough justice. What the man has despoiled, let him replace. If there were some sort of money yardstick, as well as a personal judgment, people would have more confidence that these matters would be judged in the best possible manner. I support my noble friend in asking this Question.
5.30 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl has put down this Question and enabled this subject to be raised in the House to-day. I do not know whether it will be a refreshing change for the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government to get away from foreign affairs, and come here to put the best face he can on what seems, on the face of it, to be a serious error of judgment in the planning of one of these new towns. It is just the sort of thing that we thought would be avoided if an effective Ministry of Town and Country Planning was set up. The normal way in which our towns increased was by spreading out more and more from the centre. Under good town and country planning we were told that that would cease. But that is the very thing that is going to occur here—just a spread out from the centre of the town of Bracknell, taking willy-nilly all the agricultural land it likes in its course. This kind of action, if it is allowed to continue, will bring the Ministry of Town and Country Planning into disrepute.
I know that the Minister went down to Bracknell, and his visit produced, at any rate, one good result—namely, a fine picture of the site in the next day's edition of The Times, for which I think we were all extremely grateful. It was clear that some very good agricultural fields were going to be taken for this new town. I suspect that the noble Lord who is to reply will tell us that there is to be an impartial inquiry on February 23, and that all relevant factors will be taken into consideration when the special man goes down to conduct that inquiry. It will not be a bad factor if he takes into account the fact that some quite well-informed people in both Houses of Parliament feel, in the absence of some good reason to the contrary, that a mistake has been made in this case.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture has remained in the House for this debate, because I do not think the Ministry of Agriculture are fighting hard enough to preserve agricultural land. If you are going to stop aggression, you have to fight, whether the aggression comes from the noble Lord, Lord Reith, or wherever it comes from. I do not know whether it does come from Lord Reith, but he looks after the general control of these
616
towns. You have not only to fight against it because we cannot afford to lose any more ground, but also because of the psychological effect it has on the good farmer and the good farm worker. If you are always telling them to produce more food, and at the same time letting good agricultural land go, you discourage them from putting that extra effort into their work. As the noble Earl who raised this question told us, several of the farmers on this site have already been displaced in order to make way for the London Airport, or for some other reason. They have gone to Bracknell to start afresh, and within a couple of years—unless this debate, the inquiry or general public concern about the matter has some effect on the Government—they look as though they will be moved on again.
Why not build this town around this railway on the heathland which is so close to the town of Bracknell? It will not be any further from London. Some good towns in this country have been built on heathland. One of the best instances I can give is the town of Bournemouth, which was built entirely in the pinewoods and on the heathland round that part of the shore of our South coast. One would have to go a long way to find a healthier and better planned town than Bournemouth. Why not build it on the heathland? I believe the short simple answer to be that the land in question belongs either to the Commissioners of Crown Lands or to the War Department. If you try to take that land, then you may have to fight with the Commissioners of Crown Lands or with the War Department, and in the Civil Service "dog does not eat dog." That is why the farming land which belongs to private owners has to be taken.
I hope that, spurred on by my words, the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, will put up a fight in order that the farms may be preserved, and that this town may be put on other land which is quite suitable land for building. Whatever reply we may get from the noble Lord to-day, I hope that as a result of this debate, and of other public opinion that has been aroused, eventually we shall see some other land taken for this new town, even though that land may at the moment be in the hands of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, or may be part of the land

617
that the War Department seized near by. After all, it is not on every question that you get the county agricultural executive committee, the National Farmers' Union, and the National Union of Agricultural Workers all agreeing, as they do in this particular case, as the noble Earl opposite well knows. I hope that in future the Ministry of Town and Country Planning will work on the lines of taking for these developments the poorer agricultural land, which is still good land for houses, and that more of our agricultural land will not be sacrificed when we are having such difficulty with our food supply.
5.37 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, having known the Bracknell area since the year 1904, having administered the first two Town and Country Planning Acts for many years, and having also been responsible for the administration of an agricultural estate for twenty-five years. I would warmly recommend His Majesty's Government to listen to what has been said this afternoon in this debate, and to give a sympathetic and practical answer. If the noble Lord who is to reply cannot give a final answer, I hope he will give us an assurance that careful consideration will be given to the matter of changing the threatened decision of the Minister of Town and Country Planning in relation to this new town.
5.38 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with a good deal of sympathy to the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in support of this Question. He has given expression to the strong opposition which we all know to exist regarding the proposal to construct a new town at Bracknell, in so far as it will involve the use of good agricultural land. As one who was associated with the discussions on the New Towns Bill when it went through your Lordships' House, I know there was general support and approval for the great social conception which it embodied. At the same time, I realise that it is perhaps impossible to plan a project of this character without encountering opposition from one interest or another which may be affected. In
618
saying this, I do not wish to be understood to suggest that such opposition is necessarily unreasonable. Indeed, I readily recognise that agricultural occupiers will show reluctance, if not strong opposition, to being dispossessed for any reason, however necessary or desirable it may be on broad public grounds. I am well aware, too, that agriculture and the proper use of agricultural land are of special interest and concern to your Lordships in all parts of the House. It is not surprising, therefore, that the proposal for a new town at Bracknell should be closely scrutinised and criticised from the standpoint of its possible effects upon agricultural land.
It would perhaps be useful if I were to give briefly some of the main facts, in order to explain why a new town at Bracknell is proposed, and to help to remove any misunderstanding of the nature of the proposal. No new town has yet been established to the West of London which can Word relief to the overcrowded areas in Middlesex—Brentford and Chiswick, Southall, Heston, Hayes and Twickenham.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do not think anybody from this, side of the House has suggested there should not be a new town somewhere in that neighbourhood. We are not against that. We are against the site which has been selected.
LORD HENDERSON: I am just indicating why a new town is necessary in that part. The trouble is that in all these areas there is not sufficient housing accommodation; nor is there housing land upon which to build houses. The present population of these areas cannot be accommodated within their own districts unless they are to be condemned to live permanently in unsatisfactory conditions, under the shadow of the factories in which they work, without proper open space, parks and sports grounds, with schools and playing fields for the children, and social amenities generally. That is the broad reason for the need of a new town in that western part of London. The noble Lord has asked what are the principles which govern the Minister's decision in respect of new towns. Let me say that the selection of a site is not just a matter of chance. Certain primary requirements have to be satisfied, and these apply to Bracknell.

619
If the noble Marquess will allow me to state the case, he will find that I am answering some of the criticisms.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: If I had meant to interrupt the noble Lord, I would have done it standing. If it was a remark he overheard I am sorry.
LORD HENDERSON: Perhaps I may proceed. There must be ground suitable for building. Adequate water supply must be available; drainage must be practicable without risk of polluting water supplies elsewhere; there must be road and rail amenities, capable of every improvement if need he: the location must be attractive to population and industry, and there must be room for the new town to develop without merging into neighbouring communities. These are requirements which apply to Bracknell.
LORD HAWKE: Do they apply not to the suggested new site of Bracknell, but only to the agricultural land site?
LORD HENDERSON: If the noble Lord will allow me to finish, I will give him the answer. The reason why some of these other sites are unacceptable is that they do not possess those qualifications. It is impossible to find a site where no interest is adversely affected. The choice of Bracknell was prefaced by an exhaustive inquiry and detailed consultation with other Government Departments, including the Ministry of Agriculture. We had to look as far out as Bracknell because all the inner districts of Middlesex suffer from the same deficiency of housing land, and in the outer districts four main considerations preclude large-scale development. First, a large amount of land has had to be set aside for the development of London Airport; secondly, there are large areas of good market-gardening land which must be preserved; thirdly, there are also important deposits of sand and gravel which must be kept free of building development, and, fourthly, the Metropolitan Green Belt must be preserved. The particular district centred on Bracknell was only chosen, however, after the study of many others. Here may I say, in reply to the noble Marquess, and to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that as regards Crown Lands and War Department land, they are not excluded from designated areas merely because they are
620
Crown land and War Department land. There is no objection, in principle, to making use of this land in designated areas if the land is necessary for the new town.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I said there was the difficulty in practice of getting anything like consent out of the War Office or from the Commissioners of Crown Lands.
LORD HENDERSON: I appreciate the point. I want to make it clear that there is no objection in principle.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Not in principle.
LORD HENDERSON: And not in practice, if I may say so. If I may proceed, I would like to remind your Lordships of Sir Patrick Abercrombie's proposal for a new town at White Waltham. This was rejected because of the very high quality of the agricultural land there, and because it would have impeded the full use of the airfield. I am informed that the effects upon agriculture if this scheme (which was proposed before the war) had been adopted, would have been considerably more serious than the effects upon agriculture of the present proposed scheme. Sites to the east, south, and west had to be rejected because of the difficulty in providing adequate public services and communications, and because their use would have resulted in the merging of existing communities such as Bracknell, Wokingham. Crowthorne and Bagshot. It is true, as has been mentioned this afternoon, that the agricultural and land-owning organisations—the National Farmers' Union, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, the Young Farmers' Club, and the Central Land Owners' Association—have all made strong representations about re-siting the new town. As the noble Earl stated, six other sites have been suggested. They had all been previously examined, but the ground was all carefully gone over again, in collaboration with other Government Departments. Some of these proposed sites had to be ruled out completely, because they came nowhere near satisfying the essential requirements to which I have referred.
I want to assure the noble Lord, and the other noble Lords who have spoken, that scrupulous attention will be given to the objections to the use of agricultural land which have been lodged, and

621
which will no doubt be amplified at the public inquiry on February 23. The necessity for weighing carefully any proposal which entails the use of productive agricultural land for any purpose is fully appreciated. The vital importance of food production has often been stressed in this House, and we are all in agreement about it. Let me assure the House, therefore, that the Ministry of Agriculture will be consulted after the inquiry has been held. Noble Lords will, I hope, regard this as a guarantee that the fullest consideration will be given to the interests of agriculture and the claims of the farmers before a final decision is taken. As I have already stated, the alternative sites were examined, but none of them seemed to the Minister as suitable as the site delineated in the Bracknell Designation Order. It is to be expected, however, that at the coming inquiry alternative sites will again be pressed for consideration and, no doubt, arguments, including those which have been advanced here this afternoon, will be invoked in support of one or more of the proposed alternatives. As additional proof of the Minister's readiness to take all objections into account, and of his concern to arrive at the right decision, he proposes to make a personal inspection, after the inquiry, of the suggested alternative sites and to satisfy himself before he takes a final decision.
I hope that what I have said has convinced noble Lords of the need for a new town in this particular area. I hope also that it will be recognised that the holding of a public inquiry, the proposed further consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Minister's personal examination into the site problem, will ensure that full weight will be attached to the interests of agriculture, which we all regard as of the highest importance. I will only add that I shall be very glad to bring to the attention of the Minister the representations which noble Lords have made this afternoon. I want to make it clear that this is not an empty gesture, because it will be realised from what I have said that the Minister's mind is not closed to argument. The Minister is under a duty to consider all representations made at the inquiry, and I have no hesitation in saying that he will
622
carefully weigh the views expressed by noble Lords this afternoon.
5.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask one question concerning the qualifications to which the Minister refers? Is it a fact that the Minister prefers to take the cheapest site that he can find, in order to create this new township, or does he take into consideration the possibility that it may cost more to take one of the other sites mentioned this afternoon? And, in any case, in order to save agricultural land and save our food will the Minister consider taking the more costly form of creating the township rather than the cheaper?
LORD HENDERSON: I do not think the question of cost is the determining factor. What the Minister has to do is to secure the land which meets the various requirements which must be met if a new town is to be built, and built for the convenience of the community and the provision of new industries.

NATIONAL THEATRE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
TWICKENHAM CORPORATION: PETITION
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Twickenham with reference to the supply of heat and hot water on and in connection with certain lands in the urban district of Feltham; and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto: Read and referred to the Examiners.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL, [H.L.]
SLOUGH CORPORATION BILL, [H.L.]
DOVER HARBOUR BILL, [H.L.]
CREWE CORPORATION BILL, [H.L.]
STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL, [H.L.]
GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL, [H.L.]
OLDBURY CORPORATION BILL, [H.L.]
ROYAL ALEXANDRA AND ALBERT SCHOOL BILL, [H.L.]
ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE BILL, [H.L.]>
Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.