Lords Sitting of 17 May 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
  2.35 p.m.
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

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

  FOREIGN TRAVEL ALLOWANCES
  EARL MANVERS: 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 (1) whether they are aware that, pursuant to the Exchange Control Act, 1947, rules have been issued by the Treasury that sterling notes in excess of £5, and foreign notes in excess of the equivalent of £10, may not without special permission be taken out of this country except to Eire and the Channel Islands; and that similar regulations have been imposed by foreign nations (for example the French Republic) on unhappy travellers, who are allowed but very small amounts of British exchange; and (2) whether the time has not come when these harassing restrictions might be withdrawn by mutual consent and the pre-war position restored, when cheques could freely be cashed through the Bankers' Clearing House and money supplied through the offices of arbitragers.]
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): His Majesty's Government are most anxious to do all that they can, in co-operation with other countries, to ease restrictions on travel, and, as the noble Earl will be aware, they have recently agreed to an increase in the currency allowances for foreign
  722
  tourism from £35 to £50. The control over the import and export of currency notes and the prohibition on the changing of notes or the encashment of cheques abroad are, however, essential to the protection of our exchange position, and we are not prepared to relax them. Other countries have found similar restrictions necessary, no doubt for the same reasons.
  EARL MANVERS: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for the courteous reply he has given, may I suggest that this system of control, however satisfactory to the controllers, is apt to be irksome to the controlled, and may I ask whether he sees arty prospect of once again being able to "set the people free"?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I have no doubt that the people will one day be still more free than they are new. In saying that, I base myself on the reflection that this Government are likely to remain in power indefinitely.

  EIRE PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH
  LORD VANSITTART: 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 due note has been taken of the abusive, and even threatening, language recently used by Mr. Costello towards this country.]
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord refers to a speech made by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic on May 10. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated on May 11 in another place that he had noted the speech made on the previous day in the Dail.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, is this not another instance of the discourtesy meted out to this country and its representatives, against which I have already protested in this House? Why should we be talked to like that by anybody about anything?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I can only say in reply that in our opinion no useful purpose is served by entering into recriminations.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL
  2.39 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.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Directions by Ministers to boards as respects certain matters
  (5) The Minister may at any time, after consultation with the board concerned, by order revoke or vary any order in force under the said subsection (2) so as either—

  (a) to withdraw the whole or any part of the directions in force thereunder; or

  (b) to vary or add to those directions in any manner which he thinks necessary or expedient in order better to attain the purposes for which those directions were given.

  LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (5) to omit paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: On Report stage in another place the Government substituted for the existing subsections (5) and (6) of this clause the subsection (5) which now appears in the Bill. I do not think that this was a change for the better. The new subsection gives the Minister rather more power than I think it right he should have. Perhaps the better way of explaining the reasons for this Amendment is to take a concrete, if rather far-fetched, example, of how this clause might work in practice. Suppose, for example, that a Tomato Board determined that tomatoes should be sold at a price not less than 5s. a pound, and that the Minister took the view that this price was too high; he would then give notice to the Board that he intended to make an order under subsection (2) of this clause. The Board would then have the power to ask that this matter be referred to a committee of investigation. Suppose, further, that the committee of investigation agreed with the Minister that the price was too high; the Minister could make an order fixing the price at, say, 2s. 6d. a pound. Under subsection (5) (b)
  724
  of this clause, the Minister, having gone through the whole procedure, may at any time vary the order or vary the directions, provided that he considers it is essential in the public interest.
  To go back for a moment to my example, the Minister may at any time after the price has been fixed at 2s. 6d. vary the order and, in effect, fix the price at 1s. 6d. a pound, without reference to the committee of investigation and subject only to a negative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I think that this newt power is wholly unnecessary, and that if the Minister wants to vary a direction the proper course is to start afresh, serve a new order and go through the whole procedure again. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Carrington.)
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): I think that the noble Lord in moving this Amendment has perhaps not quite appreciated the intention behind the clause or, at any rate, paragraph (b) of it. If your Lordships will look at that paragraph, you will see that it reads:
  "to vary or add to those directions in any manner which he thinks necessary or expedient"—
  and these are the important words—
  "in order better to attain the purposes for which those directions were given."
  The only way this subsection would be used would be as follows. As the noble Lord has ably pointed out, the procedure under the Bill will be that the Minister may object to some action of the Board and give notice that he intends to serve an order upon them. They might ask him that the matter should be sent to a committee of investigation. The committee determine whether the Minister is right or wrong, whether or not the point at issue will be against the public interest. But from then on, your Lordships will notice, the Minister is completely free to make what regulation he likes. The regulation which he makes is not for a moment to be considered by the committee of investigation. We may think the regulation is adequate but, after all, Ministers or draftsmen are not infallible,

  725
  and it might be that a regulation would be drawn up leaving a loophole of escape so that the intention of the Minister was not actually achieved.
  To give a possible example of that, one might say the Minister considered it against the public interest to increase the price of straw berries up to 10s. a pound, and an order might be made saying that any strawberries sold by the pound must not exceed 5s. per pound in price. Then some rather clever dealer thinks that, if he sells them by the kilogramme, he will escape the ruling of the order. The Minister could then on his own initiative alter the regulation to block that particular loophole. I think that the safeguards preventing the Minister abusing this power are considerable. First, the subsection is very clearly drawn. It can be used only
  "in order better to attain the purposes.…"
  Secondly, if there is any abuse, this variation of the order can be annulled by Resolution of either House of Parliament. I suggest that those are strong safeguards in view of which this Amendment is unnecessary. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am not sure that the noble Earl has quite met the point put to him by my noble friend Lord Carrington. First, he quotes the last two lines of paragraph (b) of subsection (5):
  "in order better to attain the purposes for which those directions were given."
  In whose opinion will the variation help to attain the purposes? In the Minister's. Therefore, the paragraph leaves the Minister in a supreme position with regard to this point. What is the purpose of Clause 2? As I see it, it is to give the Minister certain powers of public interest over the actions of the marketing board, but also to limit those powers, and to say that he can take a decision only after a complaint has been referred to the committee of investigation. As I see it, paragraph (b) enables the Minister completely to evade the purpose of the whole clause, which is that he should act, not on the recommendations of the committee of investigation—because I recognise that the committee of investigation do not make recommendations on policy—but as a result of the consideration by the committee of investigation of a particular set of circumstances. That means that the Minister can go at once to the committee
  726
  of investigation for their views on the question before them; and thereafter his hands are completely free to take decision after decision, without any further reference of the problem involved to the committee of investigation.
  To suggest that this clause is meant purely to deal with evasions such as selling by the kilogramme rather than by the pound is quite beside the point. Either we want a different provision for dealing with a matter such as that or, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has already said, the obvious thing, if it is a point of substance, is to start afresh and refer the matter back to the committee of investigation. I ask the noble Earl to realise that it is not just a question of varying the formalities of this or that regulation. These may be questions which involve hundreds of thousands of pounds to the marketing board, certainly thousands of pounds to the individual growers. These are points of substance, and I would ask the noble Earl to meet us on this point in our endeavour reasonably to restrict the powers of the Minister to those powers which he needs for the proper safeguard of the public.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I feel that there is a misconception about the intention and the powers of this clause. When the noble Earl who has just spoken refers to the Minister having complete rights, I would point out that the Minister in that sense already has complete power, long before we come to paragraph (b), to do what he wants under the clause. All that the committee of investigation have to decide is the rights and wrongs of the case. They have to decide whether any act of the board would restrict the purposes, would limit the quantity of the product, would regulate the price and so forth. Moreover (and this is the important and, to my mind, fundamental point), they have to decide whether the Minister was right in taking the view that the board's act was against the public interest. Once the committee of investigation have decided on that and agreed with the Minister—and it is only in such cases that the Minister can go forward and make an order—the Minister is then absolutely free to bring out what order he likes. I do not see that policy making can be limited by a committee of investigation.
  LORD CARRINGTON: That is what the board are for; they are the policy-making body.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Upon that I join issue with the noble Lord. The board propose a plan, but it is the Minister who decides whether or not it is against the public interest. I think you must allow that the Minister is the final person to say whether a particular action is against the public interest. The board cannot say that.
  LORD CARRINGTON: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. Of course the Minister has the final say, but surely it is the board who make the propositon. If the Minister disagrees with it, it is up to the committee of investigation to say whether he is right or wrong, and either he takes their advice or he does not.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Again, I think there is a misconception here. All that the committee of investigation can say is whether the Minister is right in his opinion that the matter is against public policy. They cannot say what steps the Minister should take, or whether those steps are right or wrong: all they do is to say whether the Minister is right in thinking that the board are acting against public interest. That is the one function of the committee of investigation. Admitting that that is their only function, the Minister then makes whatsoever order he likes, being that which he thinks is the best kind of order to make, to stop the damage being done. All paragraph (b) does is to say that, after an order has been made, if it is discovered that there is a loophole, or if it is discovered that it is not working in the way the Minister intended it to work, then he has power to alter the wording of the order.
  The noble Earl did not like my example, which perhaps was a little farfetched. A more serious kind of case which might arise would be if a board were accustomed to sell a particular product through fifty or sixty dealers in the North of England and suddenly the board brought in a regulation saying that in future they would deal with only one person. In such a case the Minister may say that the board's action is against the public interest, and therefore he may make an order requiring the board to sell as before, through all the registered dealers. If the board continued to deal
  728
  with only one person, it might be necessary to alter the order so that in fact all the registered dealers succeeded in getting their produce. That is merely and entirely to stop a loophole. I submit to your Lordships that the wording of this clause would stop the Minister going outside his powers and not, as the noble Earl has suggested, allow him to bring up different cases again and again. I am sorry if I have been rather long in this explanation, but it is rather a difficult technical point.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble Earl for his explanation. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on having a Parliamentary Secretary who has such an extraordinary capacity for glossing over important matters. He talks about regulations and the channels through which products are sold; but that is really not the point. We are dealing here mainly with horticulturists. They have to earn their living, and they are concerned primarily with prices. What we are particularly concerned about is this variation of price. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave a good example. He asked us to suppose that a tomato board have announced that they are going to sell their tomatoes at 5s. a pound and, after the matter has been referred to the committee of investigation, the committee decide that 5s. is excessive. And on their report the Minister reduces the price to 2s. 6d. Then why should he ever after have power to vary that decision and bring the price down to 2s. 3d., 2s., or whatever it may be? Thereafter, he is completely freed from going to the committee of investigation. I suggest that this clause goes a great deal further than the noble Earl himself appreciates. I am sure he would not try to evade this problem in any way, and it must be the case that this subsection goes a great deal further than he thinks. Therefore I do ask him to look at this matter again, and see whether he cannot meet us upon it.
  LORD O'HAGAN: I would suggest that the whole object of this Bill is to encourage the producers of these various products; but, instead of giving them confidence in the success of the working of these various boards, the powers that have been indicated by the noble Earl are likely to run the grave risk of discouraging these people, and therefore may

  729
  defeat the object which I am sure the noble Earl has in mind. I add my voice to that of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in asking that this matter should be considered further. I believe that there is more in it than would readily appear from what the noble Earl opposite accepts. Therefore I add my voice in the appeal for reconsideration.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I would like to point out one thing particularly to the noble Earl—namely, that in the beginning of subsection (5) there is this very important provision, that the Minister can do this only after consultation with the board. The idea that the Minister can go on reducing the price, supposing that he has reduced the original price from 10s. 6d. to 2s. 6d., because he thinks it is in the public interest so to do, is not feasible under this subsection. He cannot do that. That would be a matter which would have to come up again before the committee of investigation.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Where is that stated? This is a very important point. Would the noble Earl explain that?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In paragraph (b), which says:
  "in order better to attain the purposes for which those directions were given."
  Those original directions might bring the price down to 2s. 6d. If there were new directions, a new case would arise, and the Minister would have to consult the committee of investigation. We are dealing only with the original directions and if, for example, we find people evading the directions we may wish to alter the wording of the order.
  LORD CARRINGTON: I do not quite follow the noble Earl there. Surely, if the Minister reduces the price from 5s. to 2s. 6d., and then after three months, he thinks 2s. 6d. is too high, there is nothing to prevent him reducing it to 1s. 6d.?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not see that it can possibly be done because it would not be in the original order. This refers only to the original order. The Minister makes an order if the board put up the price to 10s. 6d. when it is in the public interest that it should not go above 5s. It is only where someone can find a loophole in
  730
  that order that the Minister will have to alter the wording so that the board still cannot go up to the 10s. 6d.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I think we have advanced somewhat, as a result of this discussion. The noble Earl has said quite definitely that in his view the interpretation of this subsection is that if there is a further price variation it will have to be the subject of renewed consultation with the committee of investigation, and that there will be a fresh start. We are without the facilities at his disposal, and we rather doubt that interpretation of the subsection. May we take his statement as an assurance that that is what the subsection is intended to mean? And if, between now and Report stage, after suitable inquiries between the two parties, we find that he is wrong, will the appropriate words be inserted to carry out what the noble Earl himself suggests that the subsection now means?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I shall be happy to agree with the noble Earl in that respect.
  EARL DE LA WARR: That is a definite undertaking?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes, that is a definite undertaking. I would also point out, however, that the Minister can make an order under this subsection only in relation to the original act of omission of the board. Any other matter would have to go to a committee of investigation.
  LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Earl has said that we have some misconceptions on this subject. At any rate, I do not misconceive his intentions; I am sure they are of the best. But I would ask him to bear in mind that until such time as some Government or other tackle this question of marketing, in the future, this measure will be in force as an Act of Parliament. I still believe that the powers which subsection (5) (b) give the Minister are greater than the noble Earl says, but at the moment I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Saving for, and amendments of, s. 9 of the principal Act.]:
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Although this is rather long it is really a drafting Amendment, and is consequential

  731
  on an Amendment moved in another place. I do not suppose noble Lords will wish me to say any more about it than that. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, leave out lines 1 to 18 and insert—
  ("(2) So much of subsection (4) of the last preceding section as requires the Minister to publish the conclusions of a committee of investigation shall apply in relation to reports of a committee of investigation under the said section nine as it applies in relation to reports under the last preceding section.
  (3) Subsection (5) of the last preceding section, and, so far as concerns orders under the said subsection (5), subsection (6) of the last preceding section, shall apply in relation to orders under paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of the said section nine as they apply in relation to orders under subsection (2) of the last preceding section.").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  3.2 p.m.
  Clause 4:
  Temporary directions by Ministers
  4.—(1) Where—

  (a) the Minister serves any such notice as is provided for by subsection (3) of section two of this Act; or

  (b) the Minister, under subsection (3) of section nine of the principal Act, directs a committee of investigation to consider a report made by a consumers' committee or any complaint made to him as to the operation of any scheme,

  the Minister, if he considers it necessary to take immediate action for the purpose of preventing injury to the public interest from any change made or intended to be made by the board in their course of action in any matter which is relevant to the subject of the notice or, as the case may be, of the report or complaint, may, at or after the time of the giving of the notice or direction, make a temporary order giving to the board such directions as to their course of action in that matter as he may think necessary for that purpose, and it shall be the duty of the board to comply with the order:
  Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising or requiring the board to do anything which they have no power to do under the scheme.
  (2) A temporary order under this section made by the Minister in connection with the service of such a notice as is provided for by subsection (3) of section two of this Act shall be limited so as to expire on such date as may be specified in the order, not being later than four months from the date of the making thereof:
  Provided that if there is any such reference to a committee of investigation as is provided
  732
  for by the said section two and, at the date so specified in the order, not more than three months have elapsed since the publication by the Minister of the conclusions of the committee, then, subject to the following provisions of this section, the temporary order shall not expire until the expiration of the said period of three months.
  (3) A temporary order under this section made in connection with a direction given by the Minister to a committee of investigation under subsection (3) of section nine of the principal Act shall be limited so as to expire not later than twenty-eight days after the date on which the Minister gives to the board such a notice of the action which he intends to take as is provided for by paragraph (iii) of the proviso to subsection (5) of that section; and where a temporary order is made under this section in connection with such a direction as aforesaid to a committee of investigation, it shall be the duty of the Minister, not later than two months after the publication by the Minister of the conclusions of the committee, either to give such a notice or to revoke the temporary order.
  (4) The Minister may by order revoke or vary a temporary order under this section but not so as to extend the duration thereof beyond the periods prescribed by subsections (2) and (3) of this section.
  (5) Any order under this section shall state the general nature of the reasons for the making thereof and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to omit Clause 4. The noble Earl said: Clause 4 is really an extension of the principle that started with Clause 2—the principle of the right of the Minister to give instructions to marketing boards. Clause 4 goes a great deal further than Clause 2, because it gives the Minister power to issue instructions to a marketing board while a matter of complaint is under consideration by a committee of investigation. That means, virtually, that the Minister can give instructions to a board to alter the price of a certain commodity while the question as to whether or not the price suggested by the board is excessive is still sub judice. That might mean that growers would be refused permission by the Minister to charge a certain price, and the matter would be submitted to a committee of investigation. The committee of investigation might then report that the growers were quite right in the price they proposed to charge. In such a case, many hundreds of thousands of pounds—it might be more in the case of certain commodities—would be deducted from the potential receipts of the growers and there would be no power

  733
  of compensation. The result of this would be a permanent loss to the industry because of a mistaken decision by the Minister.
  I think it is unusual that Ministers should take powers to themselves to issue instructions while a question is sub judice, and it is especially unfortunate in this instance. After all, some of these marketing boards have been in operation for a long time; and while I think it would be hard to justify them in theory, powers such as this clause envisages might conceivably be justified if there were a long record of misbehaviour by the marketing boards—for example, a long record of extortion on the part of the marketing boards against the public. But both on Second Reading and during the Committee stage in another place, the Minister was unable to cite a single instance it which it had been necessary to restrain the action of a marketing board. All he could say was that: "Hitherto the arrangements have proved extremely satisfactory." I would re-echo what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has said. Noble Lords in all parts of the House are most anxious to see this marketing reorganisation undertaken by the agricultural industry. The industry itself is most anxious to embark on these schemes. Why then deliberately insert in this Bill powers that can have the effect only of making producers feel that, if they come under the Agricultural Marketing Acts in the future, they will be putting their heads into a noose of uncontrolled, uncontrolable and unjustifiable powers taken to himself by the Minister? I ask the noble Earl to regard this matter extremely seriously. Feeling with regard to it is very deep in the farming industry, and in my view there is complete justification for that feeling. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 4.—(Earl De La Warr.)
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The last Amendment which we discussed turned rather on the meaning of words. Here, I think, we have a point of much more substance. Obvously, we wish producers to come into the boards and to do all they can to promote efficient marketing. That is one of the greatest desires of the Government. On the other hand, we have to think of the consumer and of the trader who is not the producer. I suggest that this Amendment really
  734
  raises two very important questions. The first is: Are these temporary directions necessary? The second is: If they are agreed to be necessary, should compensation be paid to any producer who suffers loss as the result of that action? The real point behind it all is this. We have given, and we are giving, very large monopoly powers to these marketing boards. The public interest, I think most people will admit, makes it imperative that sufficient safeguards should be provided. If you give very big monopolistic powers you must have adequate safe guards to control those powers, and to prevent exploitation of the consumer or unfair or adverse action against other traders. In the course of his argument, the noble Earl, Lord de la Warr, said just now that the marketing boards had behaved very well, but that is a point which does not really enter into this matter. We do not make any case against the boards on the grounds of their behaviour. At the same time, as I have said, if you give the powers you must have safeguards.
  Under Clause 2, which obviously provides the ideal procedure in this case, the Minister can act subject to a matter going before a committee of investigation and can restrain a board from doing some act which he thinks to be against the public interest. The difficulty which we come up against is this: that if the matter is submitted to a committee of investigation the period during which it is under examination may be a long one. There was one case, if I remember rightly, in which the Milk Marketing Board were involved, which took nine months to examine. During such a period consumers, and possibly private traders also, might be adversely affected. Therefore, it was thought desirable to allow the Minister to restrain a board from taking some new action which might be prejudicial to traders or consumers. For example, a board might suddenly abolish sales on commission, a step which could ruin a very large number of people. It is thought that if such a question were being examined by a committee of investigation we should hold the status quo until we knew wile her the proposed change was desirable. In view of the monopolistic powers given, I hope your Lordships will appreciate the essential nature of these safeguards.

  735
  The second question is more difficult. In the event of the board promoting some action and the Minister stopping it, the matter becomes the subject of a committee of investigation and a temporary direction may be served. In such a case the producer might suffer a loss. In the unlikely result that the Minister was found by the committee of investigation to be wrong, should the producer receive compensation for having suffered loss? I say "the unlikely result" because obviously the Minister has the best expert advice on this subject, and no Minister would take a step like this unless he were confident of being in the right. Moreover, he is subject to Parliamentary criticism for every action he takes. This is simply a question of principle. If we once admit that people who have suffered a loss through an error of judgment on the part of a Minister are entitled to compensation, there will be no end of it. The millions of pounds which would have to be paid out of the Treasury would be staggering beyond belief. Supposing that, in a state of international anxiety, a Minister made an order prohibiting the export of aeroplanes and aeroplane engines and parts, and it was then decided in another place that this action was unjustified and the ministerial order was annulled, could it be claimed that all firms producing aeroplanes, engines and parts, should be paid compensation for this action of the Minister? No Government could possibly accept the principle that when a Minister, acting bona fide, takes a wrong decision and causes a loss of any kind, the loser shall have claim against the Minister? That is why we cannot accept this Amendment or allow what would otherwise seem to be necessary compensation.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble Earl for his reply but he has devoted most of it to the wrong point. I did not ask for compensation. I said it was most regrettable that, if the growers were to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds, as they might well do, no compensation could be given. That is merely the blind alley into which we are driven by a clause of this kind. Why is the noble Earl afraid of compensation if he really believes in the good Socialist-Fascist doctrine that the State is always right?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I did not say anything of the kind.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is the noble Earl's interpretation.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am quite content to leave that to Hansard.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is a new interpretation of Socialist doctrine.
  EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Earl said it was so extremely unlikely that the Minister could ever be wrong that this kind of case was not likely to arise. The noble Earl said it might be necessary for a quick decision to be given; but if it is possible for a Minister to act in a dispute with such lightning rapidity it means that the issue must presumably be very clear. That being so, why is it not possible for the Minister to ask for an immediate decision from the committee of investigation? I cannot see anything in that point. I would ask the noble Earl whether any other industry in this country is treated in a similar way. Some time ago we passed the Monopolies Act, dealing with industry generally. Is there any instance in that Act of the Minister taking to himself power to act while the report of a committee of inquiry set up under the Act is being considered? I do not think any other industry is being treated in this way. Why single out agriculture for saying that though a subject is sub judice, the Minister can issue an order which may cost the person concerned large sums of money.
  LORD CARRINGTON: May I ask the noble Earl a question before he replies? What does he think the growers ought to do if the Minister proved to be wrong and to be acting, not in the interests of the public but in the interests of a particular political viewpoint, and the growers had suffered loss? What should they do? They have no redress at all under this scheme.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: There is always the option open to any producer, if he thinks that the Minister is acting unconstitutionally, unwisely, or unfairly, of promoting the matter in Parliament. Under Clause 4, these directions are always open to annulment by Resolution of either House of Parliament.
  EARL DE LA WARR: The Minister has a majority behind him.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Not in this House. The Minister may be right, but we said that any loss which might be suffered while the committee of investigation were considering the matter might have to be considered if the Minister were in the wrong. The matter might take some time to be investigated and in the meantime the public interest might suffer a great amount of harm. That is what we want to avoid. In this Bill we are giving the producers wide powers of monopoly control, but if we give them these powers, we must have adequate safeguards against their abuse. This is part of that adequate safeguard.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  The disciplinary committee
  (3) Every hearing by the disciplinary committee of a board shall be held in public unless the chairman of the committee for special reasons directs that the whole or part thereof shall not be so held.
  (4) The chairman of the disciplinary committee of a board may direct that any evidence given at a hearing by the committee shall be given on oath and may for that purpose administer oaths.
  EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR move, in subsection (3) to omit "the chairman of." The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, who is unfortunately unable to be present to-day, has asked me to move this Amendment. It is something more than a drafting Amendment. It substitutes for the decision of the chairman; the decision of the committee.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 38, leave out ("the chairman of").—(Earl De La Warr.)
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: On the face of it this is not a very important point. But I would like to point out to the noble Earl that it seems the best thing that the chairman should have the right of declaring when proceedings are to be taken in camera. He has legal qualifications and experience, and it might be better to allow him to decide in this mater. He is more likely than other members of the board to know
  738
  the appropriate time to exclude the public and the Press.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I would suggest that the noble Earl should accept this Amendment if he can. I know that the chairman may have high legal qualifications, but we prefer the good democratic method of settling this matter by the committee's own decision.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: As the noble Earl feels strongly on this matter, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (4), after "any" to insert "witness who gives." The noble Earl said: This is another point which I think goes a little further dual a formal Amendment. The essence of the matter is that while we have no objection to the chairman of the disciplinary committee saying, when someone is presented to him to tender oral evidence, that the man must give his evidence on oath or it will not be accepted, we rather regret that the chairman should be able to say that the case must be proved by sworn evidence, or not presented at all. There is not a great difference, but I think the noble Earl will admit that there is a point of substance here, and I shall be grateful if he will give the point his consideration. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 42, after ("any") insert ("witness who gives").—(Earl de la Warr.)
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I admit that there is a point of substance here, but there is a little more behind the issue than appears at first sight. The main reason why we want the chairman to have this power is in order to protect the individual producer. After all, the cases that will come before the committee are those of individual producers who are being accused by the board of having broken the rules, or something of that nature, and who may be liable to quite serious consequences. It may well be that some written evidence coming before the board would be such that it ought not to be accepted without further examination. We want the chairman to have the right to say: "No: rather than accept this written document I insist that the witness comes himself, so that we can examine him and find out if this evidence is correct." I feel that from a legal point

  739
  of view this is the kind of power the chairman ought to have, and I would ask the noble Earl not to press the Amendment.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.

  NURSES BILL
  3.24 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 Shepherd.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Standing nurse-training committees
  (2) It shall be the duty of a standing nurse-training committee for a hospital area—
  (c) to advise and assist—

  (i) Hospital Management Committees appointed by the Regional Hospital Board for the area;

  (ii) Boards of Governors of teaching hospitals situated in the area;

  in the preparation and carrying out of schemes for the training of nurses in accordance with any requirements of the Council for the time being in force with respect to the training to be undergone by persons as a condition of their admission to the register or the roll; and
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2) (c) (ii) after "area" to insert, "who make a request in that behalf to the Committee." The noble Lord said: The scheme of this clause, as your Lordships may know, is that the standing nurse-training committee for a hospital area shall have certain duties which include:
  "to advise and assist—
  (ii) Boards of Governors of teaching hospitals situated in the area; and
  (iii) any other authority or persons engaged in the area in the training of nurses who makes a request in that behalf to the Committee."
  This Amendment would put the board of governors of a teaching hospital in the same category as the "other authority or persons" mentioned in sub-paragraph (iii). It seems to me that it is no good these nurse-training committees, which will be modern committees, coming to advise and assist the governors of our old teaching hospitals, who have been the pioneers in nursing training, unless those teaching hospitals wish to receive them and make a request in that behalf. It is no good the committee coming along, say, to Guy's or Bart's Hospital and proffering advice to people who are not prepared to receive it. By far the better way is that the request should come, when probably the exchange of information would not be just a one-way traffic. The standing nurse-training committee would suggest one or two things, and the old teaching hospital, with its old scheme of training nurses, would possibly say: "Would you not like to consider whether our way, which has been so successful, will be a good thing for you to try to get adopted in more hospitals?" That is the way in which a measure like this will work smoothly. But if it is thought that these standing nurse-training committees, because they hold the purse strings, are going to dictate to the great hospitals, then I do not believe the Bill will succeed. If the committees are not going to dictate, then there is no possible reason why the words I suggest should not be inserted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 2, after ("area") insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord has suggested that the teaching hospitals should be put in the same position as the other authorities mentioned in the subparagraph which follows the one referring to the teaching hospitals. The Government could hardly do that, for the reason that the other authorities referred to in this clause are not to be members of the committee. The teaching hospitals are specially designated as future members of the committee, and they are therefore in a separate category. It would be well, I think, before I deal with the terms of the Amendment, if I went through the composition of a training committee. If

  741
  any suggestion of dictation is raised, I think an examination of the make-up of the committee will dispel all such fears. Your Lordships will find the constitution of the committees set out on page 14 of the Bill. It there says:
  "A standing nurse-training committee … shall consist of…

  (a) persons appointed by the Regional. Hospital Board for the area;

  (b) persons appointed by the Boards of Governors of teaching hospitals situated in the area;

  (c) persons appointed by the council;"—

  that is the General Nursing Council—
  "(d) persons appointed by the Central Midwives Board;
  (e) persons appointed by the Minister after consultation …"
  If noble Lords will examine that provision carefully, I think they will appreciate that the committees, when they are established, will be bodies of responsible men and women; they will be men and women of experience and capacity, and in all probability they will consist very largely of persons engaged in hospital work itself. When one has found out of whom the committee actually consists, the question arises as to whether any powers mentioned in Clause 2 should be take from them. If the committee were to be a scratch affair; if the teaching hospitals were to be unrepresented; if there were any doubt about the committee's quality, then something might be said for putting in some kind of limitation. But, being what they are, we think they should be given all that this clause provides.
  We want these training committees to be successful. The only way in which they will be successful is by co-operation between the regional hospital boards and the boards of governors of teaching hospitals. If those two bodies of representatives can get together and discuss carefully the interests of their region, there need be no fear of victimisation from one side or the other: there will be equality. His Majesty's Government and the Minister desire that the relationship of the teaching hospitals to these committees shall be exactly the same as that of the hospital boards. We are not inviting the teaching hospitals to come into this scheme of things merely for the benefits which they will receive, though I think it can be shown, as I hope to show, that considerable benefits will come the way
  742
  of the teaching hospitals. But above everything, what we are anxious to receive is the experience, the knowledge, the influence and the leadership of the teaching hospitals in a new scheme of things which has for its object the production of a better nursing service in this country.
  I do not know whether noble Lords appreciate the width of the field which is opening before them, and therefore perhaps I may be permitted to mention two or three figures from the north western metropolitan hospital board area which will indicate how much greater will be the opportunity of the teaching hospitals than it could otherwise be. In that area, the regional boards have in training at this moment 3,179 student nurses. That is a fairly large number. In addition, there are being trained in that area at this moment 676 nurses for mental cases; that is to say, there is a total of 3,855. I am informed that if the hospital services in that area are to be kept going with an efficient nursing service, there must be an intake every year of 1,200 for the general nursing side and 450 for the mental nursing side. When one remembers that in that area at this moment there are five teaching hospitals for undergraduates and seven or eight teaching hospitals for post-graduates, one realises the tremendous power and influence which can be brought into this scheme of things if the teaching hospitals enter it.
  Now a word about the clause. This particular Amendment seeks out one paragraph which is headed "to advise and assist," but if noble Lords will look at the rest of the powers in that clause and realise that those powers have not been challenged, it will, I think, be agreed that the Amendment is one affecting only a comparatively small portion of the work to be done. The Amendment is somewhat restricted in its scope. There is no power of advice or assistance generally, but only on the schemes of training: and examination which, for the time being, have been laid down by the General Nursing Council, and upon which registration will be made on the completion of the examinations. I have one fear About the Amendment, and I do not attribute the fear or the possibility of it to the noble Lord opposite; I have too great a regard for his integrity and for his statesmanship. I believe, however, that in this matter it will be found that he is wrong. I think

  743
  that if the Government accepted the Amendment the best of the teaching hospitals—those with leadership, experience and efficiency—would volunteer to come in to-morrow; but I fear that a number of hospitals which are not so efficient, who need both help and assistance, might take the opportunity the Amendment provides of remaining outside. I am sure that the noble Lord would not desire that for a moment. I believe we are all anxious that when this scheme is set going, these training committees shall be given every kind of help it is within the power of anyone to give.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has avoided a fundamental point in not indicating more precisely what is the composition of a standing nurse-training committee. He gave us no numbers, whereas rumour has it that the representation of the teaching hospitals upon which he lays such stress is to be very meagre. That meagre representation may be quite satisfactory if it is a matter of using influence, a point upon which the noble Lord has also laid stress. A single representative can bring influence into a committee. But if the committee is concerned with the affairs of the teaching hospital itself, then the situation is quite changed. If this standing nurse-training committee were not labelled throughout as a regional committee, there would not be the same objection to making the amount contributed to a teaching hospital dependent upon the advice tendered by the nurse-training committee, which is a regional committee. There is no getting away from the label, because not only is the regional board to be the headquarters—and I believe considerable representation of the regional board is contemplated—but the regional board is to be responsible for providing accommodation and the officers and servants of the committee; and in my view that immediately makes that committee practically a committee of the regional board.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The sting in the tail of this power is, of course, the fact that under the Bill as drafted these standing nurse-training committees have the powers of the purse-string. If some arrangements are made later whereby they will not have the powers of the purse-string, there is no reason whatever
  744
  why the words I suggest should not be inserted here. If there is this power behind the committee, they can, of course, insist on this particular duty to come in and advise and assist. That is all very well. I have myself advised many people in my time, and I have tried to help many people also; but a good many have not taken my advice and a good many have not wanted to be assisted. It does not seem to me to matter very much whether my words are inserted here or not. The fundamental difficulty we are up against is this. In the Act which we passed only two years ago the teaching hospitals went for their needs direct to the Ministry and not through the regional boards; and that method, so far as I know, has worked extremely well in practice. Now we are going to set up the standing nurse-training committees, to which the teaching hospitals, if they want any sort of grant, must go, equally with the smallest hospital in the land. That is the real point of difference.
  The fear of the teaching hospitals is that the position of great recognition which they very properly achieved in the earlier Act because of their great services to medicine will now he whittled away from them, and they will have to go cap in hand to a standing nurse-training committee on which they may perhaps have one representative. It is a body that will be set up in the offices of a region, and its officers will be provided for it by the regional hospital board. These hospitals will be very largely under the influence—I do not want to use any harsher phrase than that—of the regional hospital board. A great part of the position which they achieved when the Health Bill was before Parliament is being undermined by this Bill. If, when we come to Clause 4, we can make some different arrangement from the one at present provided in this Bill, I think we shall find the scheme will work far better. That can be achieved if we get all those concerned in it to work as willing partners, all trying to make this great nurse training scheme a success without having their own position adversely affected—as they think it will be if the Bill remains as at present. If this matter can be dealt with under Clause 4 there is no reason why I should argue the matter now, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment which I originally proposed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD SHEPHERD: This is really a drafting Amendment. There was some ambiguity in the clause, owing to the use of the word "them," giving the impression that the committees were being referred to. The body which is in fact referred to is the Council, and we therefore seek to substitute the words "the Council." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 17, leave out ("them") and insert ("the Council").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: This was a matter about which some of us felt apprehension on behalf of the Council. Everybody I think is agreed that the proposed arrangement may work extremely well if the people at these examinations are only invigilators, who arrange the room and the supervision of the examination. Everyone is agreed that the Council ought to lay down a standard for the examination which shall be the same throughout the country. I think this Amendment makes it clear, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for moving it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Experimental training of nurses
  3.—(1) If the Council are of opinion that it would be advantageous that a trial should be made of a scheme of training and examinations to be undergone and passed by persons as a condition of their admission to the register or, as the case may be, the roll, being training and examinations differing from the training and examinations for the time being required by rules made by the Council to be so undergone and passed, they may, with the approval of the Minister, by resolution adopt the scheme for such period as may be specified in the resolution and in relation to such institutions situated in such hospital area for which a standing nurse-training committee is constituted under this Act as may be so specified, being institutions appearing to the Council to be suitable for the purpose of carrying out the scheme therein.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1), after "differing from" to insert:
  "but appearing to the Council to be no less efficient than."
  The noble Lord said: It has been suggested that in Clause 3, which deals with the experimental training of nurses, there should be a provision inserted so as to ensure that nurses who go through training under an experimental scheme
  746
  shall be given opportunities of becoming really efficient, and that the schemes which are approved for this purpose shall give that guarantee of efficiency. We hope that the words which it is proposed to include will achieve that purpose. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Here again, I think that the matter is made clearer than it was before. There are many of us who are glad to see the experiment made, so that there can be trials of different ways of training nurses, so long as it is quite clear that in the opinion of the Council it does not in any way lower the standard of training. I am glad, therefore, that the noble Lord has seen fit to put in these additional words. I think they will allay the doubts that some people felt in the matter.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved to add to subsection (1) "and willing to do so." The noble Lord said: Clause 3 gives powers to the General Nursing Council to carry out experimental training. While we all welcome those powers, it is thought by other people as well as myself that the experimental training should not be carried out within these great hospitals if the hospital authorities are not willing to have them carried out there. Therefore my Amendment seeks to ensure that the hospital authorities are willing to agree to such arrangements. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 37, at end insert ("and willing to do so").—(Lord Wolverton.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: I trust the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, because it appears to be quite unnecessary. The purpose of the clause itself is to make sure that the bodies which will undertake experimental training will be willing to undertake it. In any case, there is nothing in the Bill to authorise or to empower the General Nursing Council to force experiments on anybody, and we hope the noble Lord will see fit not to press his Amendment.
  LORD WOLVERTON: In view of what the noble Lord says, it seems clear that there will not be any attempt to force

  747
  these hospitals to have this training if they do not desire it, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Expenditure on nurse-training by Hospital Management Committees, &c.
  4.—(1) Where a standing nurse-training committee is constituted under this Act for a hospital area, expenditure by a Hospital Management Committee appointed by the Regional Hospital Board for the area or by the Board of Governors of a teaching hospital situated in the area, being expenditure—

  (a) wholly or mainly for the purposes of, or in connection with, the training of nurses; and

  (b) of such description as the Minister may specify for the purposes of this subsection;

  shall, so far as it is incurred in accordance with estimates approved by the standing nurse-training committee, instead of being defrayed in accordance with section fifty-four of the National Health Service Act, 1946, be defrayed by that committee.
  (2) Any question arising under this section shall be determined by the Minister.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSONhad on the Order Paper an Amendment, in subsection (1) to omit "or by the Board of Governors of a teaching hospital situated in the area." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships may recall that, in speaking on the Second Reading, I used these words:
  "I am sorry that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is not now present, because I would have liked to see how he took the suggestion that something comparable to the University Grants Committee, for the creation of which he was largely responsible, would be a more suitable body for this purpose."
  As there is an Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, which raises that issue, I do not propose to move my Amendment.
  3.51 p.m.
  LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved to leave out Clause 4 and to insert the following new clause:
  Expenditure of nurse-training and hospital management committees, &c.
  ". The Minister may, by order, constitute in accordance with the Schedule of this Act, (Constitution of Hospital Grants Committee) a Committee, (in this Act referred to as a Hospital Grants Committee) for the purpose of approving expenditure by a Hospital Management Committee appointed by the Regional
  748
  Hospital Board for the area or by the Board of Governors of a teaching hospital situated in the area, being expenditure:

  (a) wholly or mainly for the purposes of, or in connection with, the training of nurses; and

  (b) of such description as the Minister may specify for the purposes of this subsection.

  Such expenditure shall, so far as it is incurred in accordance with estimates approved by the Hospital Grants Committee, instead of being defrayed in accordance with section fifty-four of the National Health Service Act, 1946, be defrayed by that Committee."
  The noble Lord said: We seem already to have approached this subject under Clause 2. I was wondering whether my noble friend Lord Llewellin was going to continue so far (that I would not have anything to say on this clause. But I think that here we have a fundamental issue and a principle. This matter was spoken of strongly by my noble friend Lord Moran, and by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, on Second Reading. I noticed particularly that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said nothing about it when moving the Second Reading; nor did he answer this particular point which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Webb-Johnson; but he touched on it when he spoke on an Amendment to Clause 2.
  It seems rather illogical to depart from the principle established in the National Health Service Act, of regarding the teaching hospitals as being in a separate category and giving them a certain amount of independence. This Bill seeks to "put them down a peg," as it were, and give them their monies at second-hand, instead of, as at present, direct from the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said just now that under the provisions of this clause, as the Bill now stands, there would be greater co-operation between the teaching hospitals and the nurse-training committees, and so forth. But has there not been, under the National Health Service Act, co-operation among all concerned, between the teaching hospitals and others? I should like to know why we are now departing from the principle laid down in that Act? In this Amendment, we seek to set up a hospital grants committee to administer the funds required by every institution in respect of the training of nurses. This hospital grants committee, the constitution of which will be dealt with in the Schedules,

  749
  would have the advantage of providing that the people concerned with the finances would be on that committee and not on the standing nurse-training committee and the General Nursing Council, thus leaving those two bodies entirely free to concentrate on nursing standards.
  There would, of course, be full consultation between the hospital grants committee and the standing nurse-training committee, and I do not see why there should not be the full co-operation of which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke. It may be argued, of course, that here we are trying to set up another committee, and that there will be a multiplicity of committees. I would answer that by saying that I think principles are more important than the fact of having too many committees. In view of our strong feelings about the principles involved in this matter, I beg to move this Amendment, and I hope that noble Lords will support me.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 4 and insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Luke.)
  LORD GIFFORD: I should like to say one sentence in support of this Amendment. For a number of years I happened to be the secretary of a large teaching hospital in Australia, and experience in Australia was that it was essential that all monies that came to teaching hospitals should come from a central authority, from the Minister, and not be provided regionally.
  LORD SHEPHERD: After the endless discussions that have taken place in your Lordships' House during the past few years on the subject of remote control, I am somewhat surprised that to-day we should have a proposal of this kind from the noble Lord, Lord Luke. What he is proposing is really control of finance by a body of people, who may be in London or in some other centre, a body without official representatives of its own in any other part of the country, a body reaching its decisions at a distance. There are several reasons why the Bill is making the proposals that are contained within it, the most important being these. There is a desire that the training of nurses should be carried on more independently than has been the case in the past—that is to say, instead of the training being provided entirely by the hospitals for their
  750
  own servants it should be carried through by a body representative of the nurses and of other bodies, but acting independently. In order that such a body may be given a degree of independence, the expenditure to cover the training of nurses, instead of being obtained direct from the Government or from the hospital authorities themselves, comes from the Government, through the General Nursing Council, to the training committees and the training committees, in their turn, meet the expenditure on training of the management of the hospitals.
  The Bill, if adopted, should give that degree of liberty of independence so greatly prized by many people in the medical and nursing professions to-day. The first point I should make in reply to the noble Lord's speech is that it would not be right to compare the payment of moneys for hospitals in this way with the method adopted by the Government in the case of the universities. When the Government decided to place money at the disposal of the universities for development purposes, there was no national organisation in existence for that purpose. Therefore, a body had to be created to carry out the business of allocation on behalf of the Government. Such is not the case now, because in the General Nursing Council, which is established by Statute, we have a body which has been in existence for almost thirty years, a body which can well undertake the business of superintending the allocation of Government aid. And that is the proposal. If the General Nursing Council were acting by itself, and had no representatives in the areas, its difficulties of allocation might be just as great as would be those of the hospital grants committee proposed by the noble Lord. There are at this moment 600 training schools in existence in this country, and if they were to approach the General Nursing Council or this grants committee for an allocation towards their expenses they would create for both very great difficulties indeed. These bodies would be unable to assess properly whether the demands for money were accurate, or whether fair value had been given for the money that had been expended.
  In the case of the General Nursing Council, there is to be established under this Bill a series of standing nurse-training

  751
  committees. Whilst I am on that name, may I say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in connection with his remark on the other clause? Personally, I do not like the term "'standing nurse-training committee." I do not think there will be objection to a change in name, if a suitable one can be found which will show the difference between the Council on the one hand, and the regional hospital boards on the other. If there is objection to the term "regional" that is a matter that can be considered. But I would not condemn the committee merely because it has a name we do not like.
  These committees will act in matters of finance as the agents of the General Nursing Council. They will look at the estimates that are submitted; they will be in a position to consider whether value for money has been earned, and they will then be able to report to the General Nursing Council who will provide the money to enable the committees to pay it over. We suggest that in these times, in view of the widespread nature of the training schemes, something more than the proposal of the noble Lord is required. If, for instance, the Committee were to agree to the appointment of a grants committee, that grants committee would be duplicating the work of the General Nursing Council, and it might, then, in its turn, have to duplicate the work of the standing nurse-training committees in order to carry out its work properly. Co-ordination is, I think, required in every direction in the training of nurses. We should not get co-ordination merely by refusing money. If co-ordination is to be achieved and money saved, then a body that can bring about co-ordination and at the same time administer the supply of money has the better chance of doing it. We therefore suggest that it would not be advisable to change the proposals in the Bill, which have been very well thought out, about which many people have been consulted, and which we are certain would ensure that justice is done.
  One final word. It would be entirely wrong to suggest that, in the methods we are proposing, teaching hospitals will go cap in hand to these committees for the money to pay their expenses. That is not the position under the Bill. That is not the position of the nurse-training committees.
  752
  The representatives of the teaching hospitals, with the representatives of the regional hospital board and those of the other institutions that I have mentioned, will, as members of the training committees, sit round a table with estimates from all quarters in front of them; discussions will take place thereon and decisions will be reached in accordance with their findings. We would ask the Committee to remember, that by these training committees we are not establishing bodies which are to "rule the roost," but organisations that will enable different authorities to come together to argue out their respective cases and then reach common decisions. I hope the committee will not give support to the Amendment; indeed, I hope that as a result of the discussion the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw it.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I was hoping that before I spoke one of the noble Lords in this House with much more experience of the medical profession than I have would have given us some guidance on this matter.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I shall be glad to do so.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I give way to the noble Lord.
  4.6 p.m.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I feel very diffident in having not unseated but unbalanced the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. In point of fact I would like to intervene at this stage; and that I did not do so at once was only in deference to the noble Lord. I would like to remark—and this will be good tidings to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—that of all the creations of a Government, I should say that the University Grants Committee, which was his child, has probably been the most conspicuous in its success. It has been a success because it has adopted a judicial attitude in the matter of making grants for education. Those grants have enormously benefited the medical schools and medical faculties of the universities.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that that procedure has not been followed in this case because there is already a central body, the General Nursing Council, who can take it on. In our profession we should have been very sorry if we had seen the distribution of funds for the benefit of medical education

  753
  placed in the hands of the General Medical Council. We should have regarded the Council as an unsuitable body, because it is concerned with discipline and regulations. The Government have shown consternation at the idea of the teaching hospitals and the other hospitals being treated differently although I should have thought they would welcome a proposal that was acceptable to all hospitals. I should not have any anxiety about the teaching hospitals being treated in exactly the same way as any other hospitals, provided that they came under a judicial committee and not a regional committee. Even if the name of the committee is changed, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, suggests, in my view it still remains a regional committee, and is bound to remain so. It is on those grounds that I support the noble Lord's Amendment. It would provide a central body to deal with regional boards in respect of the general number of non-leaching hospitals in the region, and also with the teaching hospitals for their particular needs.
  LORD MORAN: The original decision to keep the teaching hospitals outside the region was a decision made deliberately so that they might continue their work in giving a lead in medical education. Every argument that was used in favour of this course at that time on the Government side is applicable at the present time to the issue now before the Committee. That course had one disadvantage. Admittedly, it might lead to a certain amount of ill-feeling or even friction between what are called teaching hospitals and the non-teaching hospitals. But as the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, has just said, if this Amendment is accepted, it gets over that difficulty because the hospital grants committee would be the body giving grants alike to the teaching hospitals and to the non-teaching hospitals. I would like to endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, said about the complete success in the past of the University Grants Committee. I was head of a medical school for twenty-five years, and the University Grants Committee were our financial master. Everyone, from first to last, agreed that they were judicial and fair; I never heard a contrary opinion expressed by anyone concerned with medical education.
  754
  The analogy between medical education and the training of nurses is extremely close. I think it is irrelevant to remark that whereas the teaching hospitals are solely responsible for medical education they are not solely responsible for the training of nurses. We are concerned to-day to see that the great hospitals, which in the past were mainly responsible for the progress in the training of nurses, do not lose their opportunities to advance the art of nursing, just as we ensured, when the Act was passed, that these hospitals were safeguarded in their task of medical education. I believe that this Amendment is a suitable compromise which would give satisfaction to both the teaching and non-teaching hospitals, and I very strongly support it.
  4.10 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I think it is wise that we should at this moment discuss the whole of this clause. We seem to be here concerned with three possible methods of making these grants. The first is that the Ministry make a wholesale grant, if I may so describe it, to the General Nursing Council; the General Nursing Council, I suppose, split that up and allocate the parts to the regional nurse-training committees, and the regional nurse-training committees then deal with each hospital alike. That is a position which the teaching hospitals feel goes quite against the trend manifested in the Health Act. Then there is the way in which the matter would be dealt with under the Amendment that appears in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Webb-Johnson and Lord Moran: that is, that the non-teaching hospitals should get their grants from the standing nurse-training committees but the teaching hospitals should get theirs-direct from the General Nursing Council. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that was treating them differently, and in the case of nurse-training the Government wanted all hospitals to go to the same source for their grants. The point is that the teaching hospitals largely feel that with these standing nurse-training committees, meeting in the regional hospital headquarters, with personnel constituted as provided for in the Second Schedule, the arrangements will, in effect, bring the teaching hospitals into the regional machine for this purpose of nurse-training grants.

  755
  Then there is the compromise suggestion which is contained in the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, which we are now discussing. Its purpose is that the grants shall be given to this other body, which is like the University Grants Committee; that they shall sit and receive the recommendations, perhaps, of the General Nursing Council and of the standing nurse-training committees, and, in accordance therewith and having informed themselves about what is going on in the different hospitals, they will allocate the grants, just as the University Grants Committee allocate grants in various proportions to the different universities after they have found out what is happening in them. That is the way a number of noble Lords, especially noble Lords with direct experience in these matters, advise us to take. We all know of the two noble Lords who have spoken to us on this matter—Lord Moran and Lord Webb-Johnson. Lord Luke, as the Committee are aware, has given a great deal of his time to the service of voluntary hospitals. Therefore I view the matter in this light. Here is a scheme—it is quite true it is a different one from that which has come from the Ministry—which we are advised by a number of noble Lords will give satisfaction to those interests with which they are so closely in touch. They consider it a scheme which will work better than the other.
  We are in this happy position in regard to this measure: that, whatever we do here, we shall not be raising a difference with the House of Commons, because this is our Bill or rather the noble Lord's Bill. No one wants unnecessarily to cross swords with the noble Lord, but when the Bill leaves this place, it will be our Bill. It is not as though we were amending a Bill which had gone through all its processes in another place. So I suggest that we accept Lord Luke's Amendment, get the principle established and then we can discuss between now and the Report stage who will be the right people to form the membership of this body. But that is a minor point. I would suggest to your Lordships that we should try this way, so that from the start this most important job of training nurses may be carried out with complete harmony between both the ordinary run of hospitals and those great teaching hospi-
  756
  tals which have always been the pioneers in this work.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene for a minute or two in this very interesting discussion. It brings to my mind personal reminiscences of years gone by, and I feel sure that, whatever happens to this Amendment the business of these committees and of these grants will be carried out in an entirely harmonious and sensible way. I would like, if I may, to indulge in a little reflection. As the noble Lord behind me was good enough to say, I had a good deal to do with the origination of the University Grants Committee, and I am very greatly comforted by the tributes which the noble Lord the President of the Royal College of Surgeons and the other noble Lord the President of the Royal College of Physicians have paid to the operations of that Committee, because I may tell your Lordships that, being in charge of the business in the initiation period, I met a committee of Deans of the teaching hospitals of London and they, with one accord, exhorted me not to go on with the "dreadful thing." They said: "It will mean that we shall have your fellows from the University Grants Committee coming into our hospitals, poking about, seeing whether we do our work properly and generally being obnoxious, inquisitive and all that sort of thing." I said: "That is just ' gammon and spinach.' What they will do, probably, is that if your laboratories are not properly equipped they will make a grant so that they can be properly equipped. They will see that you pay your professors properly—as you did not pay me properly." That was perfectly true; I was grossly underpaid, but I was a full-blooded University professor.
  Anyhow, there was the attraction of cash in the background, and, of course, these reluctances gradually disappeared. The University Grants Committee, being composed of sensible and experienced people, have not done any of these obnoxious things. They knew about the business, being of the same ilk themselves, and both noble Lords, speaking with such immense authority, now testify to the immense benefit of the University Grants Committee to the teaching hospitals and to the fact that they have not undermined their independence. Of course they have not—they have never tried to do so.

  757
  To-day we have the same kind of apprehension. Neither of the noble Lords will accuse me of any lack of loyalty to my ancient institutions, but I say that this is carrying isolationism too far. There is a considerable difference between the position here and the position under the National Health Service Act. There are about thirty-six teaching hospitals. They are not all of equal quality; some are better than others, to put it no higher than that. These thirty-six hospitals were brought under the National Health Service Act because they are teaching hospitals, but teaching is allied with other health services and is an integrant part of them. If they were the only hospitals that taught nursing, something of the same kind might appear in this Bill, but they are not. There are 600 institutions which teach nursing. In a great national scheme like this, why should we not get the benefit of the experience and direction of the people who have been pioneers for so long? Why should they want to be isolated from the rest? It is a different proposition from the ordinary health services under the principal Act. Here we would have institutions other than teaching hospitals trying to teach nurses, but isolated from the institutions which are the guides and mentors of die whole profession. That is not the right thing to do. It is not statesmanship, it is folly.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The idea is not to isolate them at all, if I may suggest that to the noble Viscount. Under the Schedule they would still be able to proffer their advice because they would still be represented on the standing nurse-training committee as well, as on the General Nursing Council.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, who is always exceedingly persuasive, that that is not really at the bottom of this Amendment? Its purpose is to put these hospitals in a separate category. That is the only object of the Amendment. It puts them into a separate isolated class and they are only thirty-six out of 600 institutions which teach nurses. It is not the right method of approach. I agree that they will be represented on the Council, as set out in the Schedule, and I have no doubt that these experienced people would direct and dominate the whole body. We want
  758
  them to do that, and we want the benefit of their guidance and experience in the whole scheme. It is completely different from the National Health Service Act. I exhort your Lordships to get away from this isolationist spirit. It would not be right to isolate thirty-six hospitals out of 600 and treat them differently. Their independence would not be interfered with in any way, but I have no doubt at all that they would influence and guide the whole scheme, because they are the people who know best. It would be a first-rate blunder to isolate them. It would not be statesmanship, but short-sighiedness. I hope the noble Lord will not pursue his Amendment.
  4.25 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount the Leader of the House speaks with some practical experience on the subject of medicine. I am afraid I do not. My only connection with medicine has been as a patient, not as a practitioner. Having listened to this debate, I deeply regret that the Government close their minds to this Amendment. They have had the advice of three noble Lords as qualified as any men in England to speak on this subject—the noble Lord, Lord Luke, who has had a family and a lifelong connection with the organisation of hospitals; the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, who is President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who is President of the Royal College of Physicians. Their views on this point are identical. It is no use the noble Viscount the Leader of the House trying to "blarney" us, as he did so charmingly. I think most noble Lords would be ready to trust the opinion of these three men against the opinion of the Ministry of Health who produced this clause. I am not saying this in any criticism of the Ministry of Health. They have been drawing up a scheme which they think will be a useful Framework for the future health schemes in this country, but the noble Lords are speaking about the great craft of nursing, of which they have a lifelong experience. They know perfectly well, and we know perfectly well, that the great teaching hospitals are the whole basis of the high standard of nursing that exists in this country.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is why we want them in.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have no objection to their giving advice, but we do not wish to adulterate the very high standard which is kept up only with great difficulty. If we assimilate these thirty-six hospitals into the other 600, there is no doubt that there will be a lowering of general standards. By all means let experts go from these teaching hospitals and spread their standard in the outer world. That is a very good thing. But keep this standard of quality, which has been one of the glories of our country. Let us regard these hospitals as universities where nurses are trained and from which they can go out to educate others. I am sure that is the right basis. As I say, it has been recommended by three great experts, and I believe we all know it to be true that unless we keep this as the element of our high standard, there will be a general slackening all round. That is exactly what we want to avoid. For that reason, I recommend the Committee to make this Amendment. I regret very much that the Government have not felt capable of accepting it. They have had all the expert advice they possibly could find. As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said, we are not disagreeing with another place, and it would have been perfectly possible for the Government to accept this Amendment. I believe it would not be altogether palatable to the Minister of Health, but the Government, at least, might have considered the possibility of talking over the matter further. I think the noble Lords who introduced these Amendments would be ready to consider having conversations before Report stage. If the Government are willing to consider that, I have no doubt it could be done. If, on the other hand, they cannot give us any hope, then we have no option but to take the matter to a Division.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: That request is new. We have given this question an immense amount of consideration, and I can assure the noble Marquess that it is
  not something new. We are, of course, willing to consider the matter further, but in expressing that willingness I must not be taken to be giving an undertaking of any sort. We are convinced (I am convinced, and I have a good deal of experience in this matter, too) that the right thing is to have the great teaching hospitals, the thirty-six, thirty-nine or whatever the number is, with the hundreds of others. We are willing to have further discussions, but it must not be understood that in accepting the suggestion of the noble Marquess I am giving any indication whatever that we shall fail to think our suggestion is the right one. I do not wish to be unreasonable, and I hope I shall not be misunderstood. We are satisfied that the machinery of this proposal in the Bill is the right machinery.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, was good enough to see several of us. On a number of points in the Bill we have come to an agreement, which is most gratifying to all concerned. However, this is a point on which we found we were not in agreement, and I myself rather doubt whether we should reach agreement if we talked every day between now and the Report stage. I am quite in accord with the noble Viscount's attitude on the position.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: threw out the suggestion merely to avoid a Division, because this should be a non-controversial question. From what the noble Viscount has said, I do not gain the impression that he has much hope of any alteration.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, I have not.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I think it would probably be wiser for the House to take the matter to a Division, and settle it now.
  On Question: Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 48.

  CONTENTS

  Jowitt, V. (Lord Chancellor.)

  Amwell, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Chorley, L. [Teller.]

  Milverton, L.

  Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Pakenham, L.

  Henderson, L.

  Quibell, L.

  Hall, V.

  Holden, L.

  Rochester, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Kershaw, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Winster, L.

  Aramon, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Reading, M.

  Swinton, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Kenilworth, L.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Killearn, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Llewellin, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Borwick, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Carrington, L.

  Luke, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Cawley, L.

  Moran, L.

  Rothes, E.

  Charnwood, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Cherwell, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Clwyd, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Clydesmuir, L.

  St. Just, L,

  Elibank, V.

  Cunliffe, L.

  Schuster, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Digby, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Hailsham, V.

  Ennisdale, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Gifford, L.

  Wardington, L.

  Monsell, V.

  Hacking, L.

  Webb-Johnson, L.

  Simon, V.

  Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

  Wolverton, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  4.40 p.m.
  Clause 5 [Contributions towards expenses of other persons in respect of nurse-training]:
  LORD LUKE: The next three Amendments standing in my name are consequential upon the new Clause 4. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 27, leave out ("standing nurse-training") and insert ("Hospital Grants").—(Lord Luke.)
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: It must be understood that although we are not dividing on these Amendments, we are still of the same opinion about them.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I think that is quite understood. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for relieving us of the necessity of walking round the Lobbies again.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 27, leave out ("for a hospital area").—(Lord Luke.)
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 28, leave out ("in the area").—(Lord Luke.)
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
  Expenses of Hospital Grants Committee
  "All expenses incurred by a Hospital Grants Committee shall be defrayed by the Minister out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: This is also a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Luke.)
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not quite follow that this is consequential, but if it is, the same remark applies.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I think it is consequential. Your Lordships will see that although it is not an additional expense, the expense will be incurred by a different body. Just as you still need Clause 6 to cover any other expenses which the standing nurse-training committees may incur, so for the other part of the same amount of money you have to have the consequential clause which the noble Lord has now moved.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Registration of nurses trained abroad]:
  LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has tabled a number of Amendments to Clause 8. The Government accept these Amendments in principle, but prefer the wording of the Amendments which stand in my name. We hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will see his way not to move his Amendments but to support those of the Government as meeting his case. I should, however, say a few words about the Amendment to page 5, line 36, because that is an Amendment which is consequential, but which does not arise out of the noble Lord's Amendment. The words which I shall move to omit:
  "… is not entitled by virtue of the foregoing subsection to be registered …"

  763
  are extremely loose, but, as the Bill stands, are sufficiently accurate to describe the circumstances—namely, that the person in question has not fulfilled all the standards of training mentioned in subsection (1). The addition to subsection (1) of the words, "and that he is of good character" ought not to be caught by the words, "is not entitled," for the test of character will come later on in subsection (2). It is therefore necessary to redraft more precisely the passage in subsection (2) relating to the extent to which an applicant falls short of the requirements. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Pace 5, line 29, leave out ("and").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for putting down his Amendments. It is true that these Amendments meet points which I made, and which can be summed up under two heads. First of all, a British girl or man has to be of good character, and I thought that should apply equally to a foreigner who is brought on to the Register. Just as the British man or woman has to pay fees, so, I thought, should the foreigner if he came on to the Register. Those are the two points which my Amendments sought to cover. I am rather pleased that in one case I have hit upon exactly the same words as those who have great skill in Parliamentary draftsmanship. In the other cases I am quite willing to accept their words rather than my own.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 30, after ("recognised") insert ("and that he is of good character").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 31, after ("manner") insert ("and on payment of such fee, if any, as may be prescribed").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 36, leave out from ("is") to the second ("the") in line 37 and insert ("unable to prove that he has been so trained in accordance with a scheme of training recognised by the Council as being satisfactory for the purposes of the foregoing subsection and that he underwent his training in an institution so recognised").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 41, after ("may") insert (", if they are satisfied that he is of good character").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 44, at end insert ("and pays such fee, if any, as may be prescribed").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  4.51 p.m.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON LORD WEBB-JOHNSON moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new Clause:
  Council may prescribe or approve training of registered nurses in specialised branches of training
  ".—(1) The Council may if they think fit make rules prescribing or approving courses of training and prescribing or approving and for conducting or regulating the conduct of examinations to be undergone and passed by registered nurses desirous of specialising in particular branches of nursing and may insert in the entry in the register relating to any registered nurse who has undergone the course of training and passed the examination prescribed or approved as aforesaid with respect to any particular branch of nursing such special signification as the Council may determine.
  (2) The provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of section sixteen of the Act of 1943 shall extend and apply to any rules made under this section."
  The noble Lord said: There is great anxiety, particularly in certain fields of nursing, that the closing of the supplementary parts of the Register may lead to discouragement in the specialist branches, and anxiety lest nurses sent to these hospitals for short periods during the course of their training should be regarded as being expert in those particular branches. It is really in the fields of nursing at present covered by the supplementary parts of the Register that anxiety is felt: that is in fever hospitals and mental diseases hospitals, and in the nursing of children. If at this late hour the Amendment may not be receiving the support of the great concourse which might be acclaiming it in other circumstances, then perhaps the occasion may arise to put the question at a later stage. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Webb-Johnson.)
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I hope the noble Lord will not persist with this Amendment at this stage. He and I have had long and intimate experience of the people who hand out certificates; and I am sure we both have the same strong prejudice in favour of a sound training with a proper certificate. We do not like tub-thumping, and I am a little afraid that this clause, so far as I understand it, would tend to bring about that sort of thing. As the scheme stands, the Council will be operating and gathering experience as it goes along; and I would not say that in the course of time it might not encourage specialised courses. But most of the considerations I am sure the noble Lord has in mind as well as I: that, for example, there should be comprehensive training with a proper certificate, rather than a lot of odds and ends of so-called qualifications which are not altogether convincing to those who know and may be positively misleading to those who do not know. What we want is a good standard qualification, and if in the course of time these extras are found to be necessary, then they can be promoted. But at the present time I am quite sure it would not be wise to incorporate these provisions in the Bill. Better let the thing get started and feel its way, and then see what should be done later if conditions are desirable.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Would the Council have power to do these things under the Bill as it exists, apart for this Amendment? There are some cases, I quite agree, where there is too much "qualifying," as if people were girl guides or something of the kind, wanting to get a number of badges on their arms. But I am told that in some cases it is thought to be essential to get one or two additional certificates; and this particularly applies to the nursing of infants. Would it be possible for a special certificate to be given for that particular branch? It seems to me we should have some short provision, even if it had to be done with the Minister's consent. If this need is likely to arise later, it would seem to be a pity to have to amend the Act rather than make an Amendment to the Bill now.
  LORD AMWELL: May I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the feeling with regard to hospitals that specialise in
  766
  treating children is that comprehensive inclusion in the Bill is hardly sufficient and that there is a need for an extension of time; and that this should be recognised by means of a certificate? Perhaps it might be possible to raise the issue in larger terms later.
  LORD AMULREE: May I put in a word about the training of nurses for sick children? At the present time in most of the big training centres for children's nurses—that is, the Hospital for Sick Children in Great Ormond Street, the one at Manchester and I think the one at Liverpool—the training of nurses who go there to be trained is practically complete. These particular hospitals are at present recognised as full training schools for children's nurses. I think it would go a long way to meet their apprehensions about this Bill if they could get some assurance that there is no proposal at present to change the status of these children's hospitals as full training centres for children's nurses.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not wish to prejudice any future developments of something which I am quite sure is sound, which is that we should require a good general training for admission to the Register. My prejudice is very strongly against the multiplication of what I may call "trimmings." I think the right thing is to allow this body to get well established and gain experience and then, if in time these additional certificates are felt to be a wise provision, I should welcome the innovation. But I am sure that we should view with misgiving people who are collecting large numbers of letters after their names and who, in fact, have only a smattering of training. Although we hope the future will show developments, I am sure that at this stage it would be unwise to press this matter.
  LORD LUKE: I take it from what the noble Viscount says that the desire is general.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: That may be so, but I am sure it would be wrong at this stage to clutter the scheme up with odds and ends. But it may be desirable in the future.
  LORD HACKING: Surely there is a little misunderstanding as to whether it would come in under the terms of this Bill or whether it would mean fresh legislation in order to make this change.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: It depends what the proposal is. As I understand the proposal, it would mean fresh legislation.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: The noble Viscount the Leader of the House keeps saying "at this stage," which is a little misleading. I am surprised at the delicate way in which the noble Viscount would lead us into paths which are not quite those that we want to follow. As he has been so able an exponent of an exact science, that is hardly consistent with his training. Moreover, his remarks about post-graduate hall-marks seemed to fall on my ears without any response, because he was the most exacting examiner for those who wished to receive the hallmark of being a surgeon, as distinct from being a general practitioner. Perhaps the noble Viscount will give us an assurance that this will be carefully considered between now and Report, instead of implying that by "at this stage" he means "during the consideration of this Bill until it becomes an Act of Parliament, and until it has had several years on trial"—in which case I think he is putting off the decision too long. I would like him to give us an assurance that there will be discussions on this particular problem between now and Report.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite willing to give that undertaking. I gave a considered reply to the noble Lord. I think it is a thoroughly sound reply, but I am willing to discuss it further with him. In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, I can, of course, give the assurance which he asked.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: All that one wants to know, at any rate in dealing with children, is that a nurse or a sister appointed to take charge of a children's hospital ward has had the appropriate experience in a teaching hospital for children's nursing. That is what many of us have at the backs of our minds. Will there be any way of finding that out? Will there be any way of ascertaining that she has had that necessary period of training before she is taken on, say, as the head sister of a children's ward in a hospital in the country? Can the authorities find out whether she has had any experience at Great Ormond Street, or somewhere else like that, before they take her on for a particular position?
  768
  That is the kind of thing we want to know: whether there will be a part of the Register where they can look her up, whether they will have to get into contact with the General Nursing Council and whether or not that kind of qualification will still be recognised. I think it is an important point to consider. None of us wants this rushing in to get every degree under the sun, but one does want to know how the governing body of a children's hospital can be sure they are taking on a qualified sister to be in charge of their children's ward and whether she has the necessary experience of nursing children. That is the kind of thing we want to know, and whether the authorities can get it under the clause of the Bill as at present drawn.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: There is nothing to prevent the nurses in a children's hospital from becoming qualified nurses. They will continue to be recognised. However, I have the greatest possible misgivings about any scheme which will dispense with a sound general comprehensive training. The physiology of the child is the same as the physiology of the older person, although there are certain differences in the ailments to which they are liable. I have the greatest possible misgivings about saying or doing anything at this stage which would encourage what I call the collection of "trimmings." We do not want that. We want a sound, general training. At the same time, between now and Report I will gladly discuss this point with the noble Lord in the light of these discussions.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: On that assurance, I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.6 p.m.
  Clause 10:
  Provisions relating to the approval of training institutions
  (2) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the Council to approve an institution for the purposes of the training rules or by the withdrawal of approval given by them for those purposes to an institution may, by notice in writing served on the Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, appeal against the refusal or withdrawal, and, upon receipt of the notice, the Lord Chancellor shall nominate a person or persons to determine the matter of the appeal and the person or persons nominated shall, after considering the matter, give such

  769
  directions therein to the Council as he or they think proper and the Council shall comply with them.
  LORD LLEWELLINhad given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (2) after "may" to insert:
  "within twenty-eight days of the service of the notice of the final determination of the Council."
  The noble Lord said: Since I put down this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put down an Amendment which meets the position. I accept the words of the Parliamentary draftsman as fitting into the Bill better than mine do, and in those circumstances I thank the noble Lord, and will not move my Amendment.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2) after "Lord Chancellor" (where that term first occurs) to insert:
  "before the expiration of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which notification of the determination of the Council to refuse or withdraw their approval, as the case may be, is received by the persons responsible for the management of the institution."
  The noble Lord said: I beg formally to move this Amendment, which is really an alternative to the one standing in the name of Lord Llewellin which has not been moved.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 5, after ("Chancellor") insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is not consequential on the one which we have just passed, although it is an Amendment to the same clause.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: It is quite acceptable.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Under the clause, if recognition of an institution is refused by the General Nursing Council, there can be an appeal against the decision taken, and the appeal lies to the Lord Chancellor. Under the Bill, the Lord Chancellor may appoint "a person or persons" to hold an inquiry; the Amendment proposes that there shall always be more than one person. So it will read "two persons or more" instead of "a person or persons." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 7, leave out ("a person or persons") and insert ("two persons, or more,").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 8, leave out ("person or").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: This again is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 10, leave out ("he or").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11:
  Fees and contributions in respect of training institutions
  11.—(1) The Council may charge the persons responsible for the management of institutions approved by the Council for the purposes of the training rules, not being institutions vested in the Minister, such fees, by way of contribution towards the expenses of the Council in inspecting and approving institutions for those purposes, as may be prescribed.
  (2) The Minister may make to the Council, out of moneys provided by Parliament, contributions of such amounts is he may determine towards the expenses of the Council in inspecting and approving for the purposes of the training rules institutions vested in him.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1), after "rules" to insert:
  "and the persons responsible for the management of institutions the approval whereof by the Council for those purposes is sought by them."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to give power to the General Nursing Council to charge a fee to organisations asking for inspection and consideration, even though finally they are not given recognition by the Council. It must be remembered that the General Council, although they will receive money from the Government for the purposes of nurses' training, have to carry through a number of functions upon their own income and their own funds. The General Council do not like to do work of this kind without some payment to cover the expenses. This Amendment is to serve that purpose. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 24, after ("rules") insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment and the one following are consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 24, after ("being") insert (", in either case,").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 25, after ("fees") insert ("respectively").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON LORD WEBB-JOHNSON moved, in subsection (2) to omit "may make" and insert "shall reimburse." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment and the next, which run together, is to ensure that the complete cost shall be borne by the Minister. We have already heard that the General Nursing Council are in some difficulty in making ends meet, and since the duties proposed to be carried out under the Bill are duties on behalf of some function of the Minister it seems only reasonable that he should pay the cost. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 28, leave out ("may make") and insert ("shall reimburse").—(Lord Webb-Johnson).
  LORD SHEPHERD: I am sorry to inform the noble Lord that we cannot accept the Amendment that he has just proposed. In addition to being an agent of the Government in respect of the training of nurses, the General Nursing Council is a professional organisation which looks after the interests of registered nurses. Therefore it has two forms of expenditure, one which it incurs on nurse training and one which it incurs in performing its own business. The Government are perfectly willing to take a generous view of the expenses that may be sent to them for payment but they hope the Committee will not put them into the position of having to accept willy-nilly any expenditure that may be claimed. I want the noble Lord to accept our assurance that the General Nursing Council will not be in any difficulty in respect of these payments, but we cannot accept full responsibility for everything.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I did not expect the noble Lord to open his purse so that anybody could have a dip in it, but I hoped that perhaps the insertion of the words "the ascertained expenses" might have reassured him. In view of his diffidence in committing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to an unknown expenditure, which is so unlike his attitude in some other matters, I readily withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Admission to the list of persons whose due admission was prevented by war circumstances]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in regard to the reopening of the Register, said:
  "I hope that it may be possible by the Committee stage to give some indication whether the lists can be reopened for registration."
  Has the noble Lord anything to add to that now?
  LORD SHEPHERD: I have not forgotten that. There have been discussions, but I cannot give any information to-day. If the noble Lord will see either myself or the Loader of the House between now and Report stage we shall be glad to talk over the matter with him.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I was hoping that we should be able to allow some people who had lapsed from the Register—
  LORD SHEPHERD: That is not the same thing.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: That is going to be met, is it?
  LORD SHEPHERD: It will be met lower down.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: With great respect I thought it was the same.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Perhaps the noble Lord can tell me where it is to be met. Whether this is the appropriate place to mention it I am not quite certain, and the Committee will forgive me if I am wrong. But some of us would like some information in regard to cases

  773
  where membership of the Register has lapsed. Quite a number of registrations have lapsed, perhaps, because the nurse got married. But she may now have become a widow. She is quite eligible to go back on the Register, even though she did not remain on it, or did not register when she was a married woman. We think that there should be some provision in this Bill to allow such people to be readmitted to the Register and become registered nurses. At one time of their lives they did the training and passed such examinations as they had to. They are qualified, and a number of them would be most acceptable in the nursing profession; and they have every right to come back on the Register. I would ask the noble Lord whether he has somewhere on the Order Paper to-day, or whether between now and Report stage he is intending to put down, an Amendment to deal with that class of case.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I must apologise. Owing to the bad light I was mixing Clause 13 and Clause 12, and the reply I gave had reference to that clause. In reply on Clause 12, I can say that there have been discussions and it is proposed that there shall be an Amendment on the Report stage to cover the point which has been raised.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14:
  Information with respect to nurses
  (2) The Council shall cease to be under an obligation to publish the register, the roll and the list, but it shall be their duty to publish in relation to successive periods, in such manner as the Minister may direct, lists of persons who have been admitted to, removed from and restored to the register, the roll and the list respectively during those periods.
  The first of such lists shall be published as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act and succeeding lists shall be published at intervals of not more than twelve months.
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLTN LORD LLEWELLTN moved, in subsection (2) to omit from the beginning down to the end of the first paragraph and to insert:
  "(2) The obligation of the Council to publish the Register, the Roll and the List
  774
  shall be complied with by such a publication being made once every five years. This subsection shall not relieve the Council of their duty to keep an up-to-date list of persons who have been admitted to, removed from, and restored to the Register."
  The noble Lord said: We had some discussion about this matter on Second Reading. It is again a question of the Register. I know that the Central Nursing Council are trying to avoid the expense and responsibility—which they may be quite right in doing; I am not using the word "avoid" in any malicious sense—of publishing this Register annually. I believe that the expense of publishing it amounts to something between £6,000 and £7,000 a year, and very few copies are sold, which I suppose shows that there is not much demand for it. Now they are to be relieved of that duty. It seems to me, however, that somewhere, and not only centrally, there should be some way of seeing who is on the Register, who has been struck off and who has been newly admitted to it. My Amendment suggests that the Register should be published once every five years. I thought that that would help in carrying out the election of the General Nursing Council. Unless there is a Register, it seems to me it will be very difficult to run an election. If there is only one Register it is much more difficult to make out the large number of envelopes that have to be addressed, or to cope successfully with whatever method will be used. So I have put down my Amendment.
  I do not want to anticipate what my noble friend, Lord Wolverton, will say in regard to the next Amendment, but I think a somewhat greater obligation should be put on the General Nursing Council than is at present done by the Bill. There ought to be different places where people can look up the Register—the existing printed Register, if you like, with the amendments made to it at different times. Clearly, from time to time, the whole thing will have to be reprinted, though perhaps a period of five years is too long. I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether he has given any thought to this matter and whether something more can be done than is at present laid down in the Bill to give nurses who have gone through all their training the satisfaction of knowing that their name is in some Register somewhere—not only in London

  775
  but elsewhere also—and that access to it is available. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, leave out lines 39 to 44, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: There is a Register of Nurses always in existence and it is kept at the offices of the General Nursing Council. It can be seen there at any time if persons go to the offices to inspect it. The Bill provides for an addition to that Register in the way of publication, because there will be published from time to time, even though the complete Register is not published, a list of newcomers to the Register and names of those who have been removed from it. The other point suggested by the noble Lord would create great difficulty—I refer to the suggested publication of the Register once every five years. He has referred to the expense of producing a Register annually, but I am informed that if a start has to be made de novo and the Register printed every fifth year, the cost will be almost as great as that of the annual Register. That is one of the difficulties.
  I have, however, a suggestion to put forward on behalf of the Government as they are anxious to do their best in the matter. If this Amendment, and the following one which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, are withdrawn, the Government are prepared to appoint immediately a working party, representative of the organisations involved, and this working party will report quickly, we hope in time to permit of an Amendment being made to the Bill when it reaches another place. If we have such a working party, a number of other matters can be considered at the same time. For instance, if the Register is to be published for election purposes and election purposes determine that the Register must be published in regions, then, of course, a great change in the keeping of the Register would take place. That, with other matters, would come before the working party which would eventually report. And, as I have said, we hope on their report to base a further Amendment.
  LORD WOLVERTON: I have an Amendment following this but I should like to speak at this stage, if the Committee
  776
  will permit me. My Amendment really deals with the same subject. I feel that in the regions of the standing nurse-training committees there should be available up-to-date lists. I would like to see that these up-to-date lists are made obtainable, say once a year or so, in the areas. This would mean that people would not be put to such great expense and trouble when they wished to see who was registered. They would not be obliged to go to the offices of the Central Council in London. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has pointed out, lists will be kept under Clause 14 (2), but there is no liability to print a list every year. My Amendment provides for the making of up-to-date lists available, so that the areas, on payment, can get them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that for a time, at any rate, the lists and the original Register should be available.
  My Amendment states that amending lists should be printed and available as well as the present Register. If the Bill becomes an Act in its present form there will be no further liability for publication of the Register at fixed periods; so I rather like the idea of doing it every five years. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said that it would cost nearly as much to do it every five years as to do it annually, and that the Government are prepared to appoint a working party to look into this matter, I hope that when the time comes he will be prepared to accept my Amendment, which would not entail great expense but would ensure that lists are provided in the areas. It would ensure that, at any rate, people in the areas can have amending lists and the present Register.
  LORD SHEPHERD: First, I may say that a copy of the existing Register can be obtained so long as the copies remain. Therefore, if the nurse-training committees desire to have copies they have only to ask for them and they will be supplied at the usual cost. At the time of our Second Reading debate there were sixty copies of the last issue still on hand. With regard to the other point made by the noble Lord, I am able to reply as follows: that lists of new registrations and lists of names removed from the Register will be published three times a year—not yearly—and the publication of those lists will take place after the four-monthly examinations have been held. I hope,

  777
  therefore, that what I have said will provide the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, with sufficient reason for withdrawing his Amendment.
  LORD WOLVERTON: Will the lists be available for the regions to buy?
  LORD SHEPHERD: Yes.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I understand from Lord Shepherd that the Government are going to get some experts to look into this matter. We talk a new language nowadays. In my youth, when one spoke of a working party it usually referred to an assembly of elderly ladies at the village hall once a week for the purpose of knitting garments for foreign Missions. Nowadays, I understand, it denotes a body of selected people who know something about the job and who are chosen to look into it and give advice. I hope that the instructions given to the working party will be to consider points made in debate in this House, so that it may know what the views held here really are. Before we leave this matter I feel there are two further things which should be said. First, it should be borne in mind that nurses rather like to know that they can go and see their names in a Register somewhere. It may be a human failing, but, at any rate, it is a good thing to be able to see when you go into a particular town that your name is on a Register which is kept there.
  The second point is this. I do not think that in practice it is ever wise to keep only one Register of this sort. I remember how busy we were in the days immediately before the war, duplicating a great number of records. It would be very unfortunate if there were only one Register and the building in which it was kept was burned down. Surely more than one of these Registers must be kept in different places. If that is going to be done not much more effort would be entailed in typing a sufficient number of copies to enable each region to have a copy. Those are the two additional points which I would make, and in view of the action which the Government have agreed to take to set up a working party I will, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
  5.30 p.m.
  Clause 17 [Expenses of the Council]:
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON LORD WEBB-JOHNSON moved, after committees to insert:
  "and all sums paid by the Council in pursuance of section fifteen of this Act."
  The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that expenditure under Clause 15 is covered by Clause 17. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 27, after ("committees") insert the said words.—(Lord Webb-Johnson.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: The effect of this Amendment would be to require the Minister to reimburse expenses incurred by the Council in paying travelling and subsistence expenses, and payment for the loss of remunerative time, to their members and to the members of the assistant nursing committee. This item is part of the general administrative expenses of the Council which are met from fees. It is dealt with in this Bill in order to bring the Council's practice into line with other comparable bodies. There is, however, no good reason for singling out this item of expense to be met by the Minister instead of from fees. The general principles on which the Bill is based is that the Minister will meet expenses connected with training, including such proportion of general over heads as can be attributable to that purpose. In view of that, the noble Lord will understand that I am not in a position to accept his Amendment. I can only assure him that where expenses of this kind are incurred, and subsistence allowances have to be paid in connection with the training of nurses, those will be met by the Minister. I cannot accept responsibility for what one might consider to be professional expenses.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am not sure that on the next stage of the Bill we ought not to leave out Clause 15. I think it is too much that all these expenses of the General Nursing Council and the nurse-training committees are to be taken out of the registration fees of young nurses. That is what is going to happen, according to what the noble Lord has just said.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not understand that.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that this would have to be paid out of registration fees; that except in so far as they were connected with training, expenses would not be paid by the Minister. That is how I understood the noble Lord, but I do not wish to distort what he said.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I may have been at fault, but I thought I had made it clear that, of the expenses occurred by the General Nursing Council, some would be attributable to professional purposes and others to the expenses incurred in training nurses. In the latter case the Minister would be prepared to meet these, as he must do because he has undertaken the expense of training. But in the other case, where they are purely professional expenses, the Minister thinks they should be borne by the General Nursing Council out of their own funds.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Yes, but the funds are derived from the fees. I am not at all sure that the people appointed to these committees should not be prepared to undertake to pay any necessary expenses themselves, because I do not believe the finances of the Council will be too strong, and this additional expense might necessitate an increase in the fees which nurses have to pay. I had hoped that the Minister would be prepared to undertake these expenses, just as he pays the training ones, because the General Nursing Council will be his instrument for doing many things. I see the difficulty of our inserting an Amendment such as the noble Lord proposes, because it would mean increasing the charge on the Minister. But I hope that before the Bill leaves another place the Minister will accept this small additional amount, rather than that it should be put on the fees which the nurses have to pay for registration and examination and which I should like to see reduced rather than increased.
  LORD SHEPHERD: It should be said that the expenses of all persons who become members of nurse-training committes will be met ultimately by the Minister, and that the training expenses of the General Nursing Council will also be met. Other expenses met from fees relate to the disciplinary powers of the General Nursing Council and to other professional matters. As I have already indicated, these are expenses that fall
  780
  properly upon the Council's own funds and not on the Government. I will undertake to make representations of what has been said by your Lordships, but I am afraid that if we were to give way on this matter we should be opening up for the Exchequer demands from other sources where similar conditions might obtain.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord will see that Clause 15 applies only:
  "in respect of any loss of remunerative time and in respect of travelling and subsistence expenses."
  So far as I can understand it, loss of remunerative time, and travelling and subsistence expenses incurred in attending a meeting to discuss training matters, would be paid by the Minister; but if those expenses are incurred in attending a meeting to discuss disciplinary matters then they will have to be paid from the other funds of the General Nursing Council. I should have thought there would be very few meetings at which some training matters were not discussed at the same time as professional matters, and if the secretary of the General Nursing Council does not arrange that, he will not be a very efficient secretary. I am obliged to the noble Lord for saying that the Government will take another look at this.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I am glad to have the noble Lord's assurance that for any meeting arranged at which training matters are discussed, expenses will be met by the Exchequer. In view of his assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new clause:
  Reports to the Minister
  ". The Council shall annually, at such date as the Minister may direct, make to the Minister a report as to the discharge by them during the preceding year of their functions with respect to the training of nurses, and the Minister shall lay every such report before Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Crook suggested that there should be included in the Bill a provision that the General Nursing Council should report annually to the Minister on the work in which they had

  781
  been engaged in the training of nurses. The Government have accepted the view of the noble Lord, and the Amendment to this effect is now before your Lordships.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 17, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not suppose this will do much harm, but on the other hand I do not suppose it will do much good. A large number of Reports are laid before Parliament and they cost a good deal to make up and print. If the noble Lord, Lord Crook, is very keen on this, I will not oppose it, but we receive masses of Reports and I expect very few members of either House of Parliament read them. I think this is rather a waste of money, because those who are interested can get hold of the facts without a Stationery Office publication. If the noble Lord, Lord Crook, is keen on it and the Government accept it, I will leave it at that. But I would like it to be remembered that we are continuously piling up these little expenses, which all amount to something in the end, and I do not believe a great number of people read these Reports when they are printed.
  Clause 18 [Interpretation]:
  LORD SHEPHERD: The use of the term "chief male nurse," which means a male nurse in charge of the male nurses employed in a mental hospital, has given rise to some little difficulty. We could get over the matter by extending the amount of information that we have given in Clause 18, but we have reached the conclusion that we had better amend the Third Schedule in order to make clear what nurse it is we have in view—namely, the male nurse in charge of the male nurses. We will come to that when we reach the Third Schedule. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, leave out lines 7 and 8.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: So far as I understand it, this is merely transferring the definition from where it is now to the Third Schedule.
  LORD SHEPHERD: There is a slight difference.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: At any rate, I have no objection to the Amendment.
  Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule:

  STANDING NURSE-TRAINING COMMITTEES
  Constitution of Standing Nurse-Training Committees
  1. A standing nurse-training committee for a hospital area shall consist of such number of persons of each of the following classes as may be specified in the order constituting the committee, that is to say—

  (a) persons appointed by the Regional Hospital Board for the area;

  (b) persons appointed by Boards of Governors of teaching hospitals situated in the area;

  (c) persons appointed by the Council;

  (d) persons appointed by the Central Midwives Board;

  (e) persons appointed by the Minister after consultation with the local health authorities in the area;

  (f) persons appointed by the Minister after consultation with the local education authorities in the area; and

  (g) persons appointed by the Minister after consultation with such universities as he thinks fit;

  and the said order may contain provisions with respect to the qualifications of members of the committee.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in paragraph 1, after "order" (where that word last occurs) to insert:
  "shall provide that the majority of the committee shall be registered nurses and."
  The noble Lord said: We had some discussion about the Second Schedule on the Second Reading of the Bill. At the moment its provisions are extremely wide. It does not assign any proportions to the groups mentioned. Some people would like the proportions to be a third from those in groups (a) and (b), a third from those in groups (c) and (d), and a third from those in groups (e), (f) and (g) together. The main thing about these bodies to decide on the training of nurses is that a majority of their members should be members of the nursing profession. The corresponding body, in the case of doctors, is the British Medical Association, which, so far as I know, is comprised of all qualified doctors; in the case of the Bar, it is the Inns of Court authorities; and in the case

  783
  of solicitors, it is the Law Society. I think the nurses should be assured of a majority on each of these regional nurse-training committees. I very much hope the Government will see fit to accept this Amendment, which is very mild but which seems completely justified from the nurses' point of view. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 19, after ("order") insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: I have pleasure in saying that the Government accept the Amendment in principle, but they think the wording will require to be looked at. Perhaps we can have a talk about it between now and the Report stage.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. As he knows, I never pit myself against the Parliamentary draftsmen in selecting the right words or putting them in the right place. I thank the noble Lord very much for accepting the Amendment in principle, and any words that carry it out will be acceptable to me.
  LORD LUKE: I should like to voice my pleasure at the acceptance of the principle of this Amendment, and I do not propose to move the next Amendment down in my name.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: With the leave of the House, I will withdraw the Amendment on the assurance given by the noble Lord.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved, after the Second Schedule, to insert the following new Schedule:
  "THE HOSPITAL GRANTS COMMITTEE
  Constitution of the Hospital Grants Committee
  A Hospital Grants Committee shall consist of such number of persons appointed by the Minister of each of the following classes, as may be specified in the order constituting the Committee, that is to say—

  (a) Persons selected from lists submitted by the Royal College of Nurses,

  (b) Persons selected from lists submitted by the Central Midwives Board,

  (c) Persons appointed after consultation with the Minister of Education, and

  (d) Persons appointed after consultation with such Universities as the Minister thinks fit,

  784
  and the said order may contain provisions with respect to the qualifications of members of the Committee."
  The noble Lord said: The Amendment I now move appears on the Marshalled List of Amendments as being after the Third Schedule. I understand, however, it is more appropriate for it to be inserted after the Second Schedule. I need not say anything about this Amendment. I think the constitution of the hospital grants committee is well chosen, and I hope the Amendment will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After the Second Schedule insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Luke.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: This is consequential on our having earlier put in the Amendment to establish a hospital grants committee. If the Committee has decided—as it has, in principle—that we want a hospital grants committee, let us see that it has the best possible composition that can be arranged. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Luke, is rigidly fixed to the categories of people included in the Amendment, but we want this body to work well, and if it is thought that there should be an addition to the categories proposed we can discuss between now and the Report stage whether a category (e) ought to be introduced.
  LORD SHEPHERD: While we are still uncommitted to the Amendment passed earlier on a Division, we are not desirous that it should go forward to another place short of what it ought to be. Therefore, if there is to be discussion on this Schedule we shall be glad to take part in it.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I imagine the Amendment is agreed to, on the same terms as the other consequential Amendment.
  LORD SHEPHERD: We agree without agreeing.
  On Ouestion. Amendment agreed to.
  Third Schedule [The Mental Nurses Committee]:
  LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is to ensure that a mental hospital matron appointed to the mental nurses committee shall be the matron of an approved

  785
  training institution. It is not necessary for me to make a speech about the Amendment. I commend it to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 31, after ("hospital") insert ("which is an institution approved by the Council for the purposes of the training rules").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: The next Amendment is the one to which reference was made a few moments ago when we were dealing with the last clause of the Bill. This Amendment is designed to secure that the chief male nurse appointed to the mental nurses committee is the chief male nurse of a mental hospital which is an approved training institution, for the same reasons as apply in the case of the mental hospital matron so appointed. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 34, leave out ("chief male nurse") and insert ("male nurse in charge of the male nurses employed in such a mental hospital as aforesaid").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.

  WAR DAMAGE (PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKINGS, ETC.) BILL
  5.52 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the War Damage (Public Utility Undertakings, etc.) Bill. As your Lordships will have observed, this is a Bill of thirty-seven clauses and five Schedules, which it has taken rather more than six years to prepare. It goes without saying that it is not uncomplicated, and it would be an affectation to claim that I am a complete master of every detail. It would be an affectation readily pierced, I have no doubt, by noble Lords who are to follow me. At the same time I have had, as always, the best possible advice open to me, and I hope to be able, if not necessarily to-day, to reply to any points which your Lordships may think it right to raise. I will say at once that
  786
  I have considerable hope that the Bill will commend itself to your Lordships in its present form, a form which I think we should find it difficult to alter without loss.
  In its application to public utility undertakings—that is the main part of the Bill—it represents not only the result of long discussions between the Treasury and other Government Departments, on, the one side, and the interests affected, on the other, but also substantial agreement. As regards other interests affected, these are being put back within the ordinary War Damage legislation of the country, with suitable modifications where necessary; and this we understand has general acceptance. In another place there was full discussion, but no Amendments were moved from the Opposition Benches, and any that were brought forward from the Government side were agreed Amendments. I think, therefore, that following our usual classification in this House this can fairly and confidently be described as a non-controversial measure.
  The need for this piece of legislation arises from the exclusion of public utilities and certain other undertakings from the War Damage Acts, 1941 and 1943. The operative sections, your Lordships will recollect, were Section 40 of the earlier Act of 1941, and Section 70 of the Act of 1943. As the law now stands, Section 70 of the 1943 Act excludes from its purview public utility undertakings and certain other undertakings—for example, mines, brickworks, quarries—rated by reference to accounts, receipts, profits or output as the only means of calculating the rent that a hypothetical tenant would pay. I shall refer to these undertakings as "excluded undertakings." As a consequence of this exclusion, these undertakings are neither liable to contribute towards, nor entitled to compensation for, war damage. There was, therefore, a gap left in the legislation hitherto existing, and the Bill before your Lordships' House fills the gap so left. It provides, in short, for payments in respect of the war damage which the undertakings have suffered, and it provides for the collection of contributions and premiums in respect of their land and goods.
  It will perhaps serve as a helpful background if I now refresh your Lordships' memories (very briefly, I promise) as to

  787
  why the public utility undertakings were excluded from war damage cover in 1941 and 1943. The reasons were practical ones, and they arose out of the peculiar features of the entities concerned. The difficulties and problems are set out fully in paragraph 7 of the White Paper, Command No. 6403, which was presented to Parliament in 1942. To-day I would take only two illustrations of the difficulties which prevailed. First, in the case of public utility undertakings, Schedule "A" Assessments were either not generally available, or were unsuitable, because they were not fully comprehensive. The net Schedule "A" Assessment is the principal basis for arriving at the contributory value under the War Damage Act, so for Schedule "A" Assessments the difficulty in these cases was obvious. Secondly, public utility undertakings (railways, for example) cannot, without immense labour, value separately their land and goods—as, for example, the permanent way and the rolling stock. As your Lordships will remember, there are separate schemes for land and goods under Parts I and II respectively of the War Damage Act. In differing degree, similar difficulties were also thought to prevent the wholesale application of the War Damage Acts to the remaining excluded undertakings of non-statutory character. Those, I repeat, were some of the difficulties which were found to be overwhelming at that time.
  The result of the long discussions and preparations which have taken place since 1942 is the Bill now before us. I would like first to ask how it sets about dealing with the difficulties created by the special characteristics of the excluded undertakings. Briefly, I would point out that it divides these bodies into three categories, for each of which separate treatment is provided. First—I speak broadly, but I hope not inaccurately—we have the main statutory excluded undertakings: railways, canals, harbours, gas, electricity, water, sewage and lighthouses, and so on. Precise definition of these is given in the First Schedule to the Bill. I shall refer to these as Part I undertakings, and they are most important for our purpose to-day. Secondly, there are the remaining excluded undertakings carrying on activities similar to those that I have just mentioned, together with the tramways, trolley vehicles and ropeways, the mineral undertakings, mines, quarries, brickworks,
  788
  and certain specially licensed communication systems. These are defined in the Fifth Schedule, and I shall call them Part II undertakings. Thirdly, and lastly, there are all the refuse disposal undertakings, and those of the drainage authorities, together with undertakings occupying land for purposes such as I have mentioned in the second category, but not mainly or exclusively for such purposes.
  There we have three categories, and I would say at once that the undertakings in the third category are to have the War Damage Act of 1943 applied to them without modification. This is done by Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill, and this embraces all our discussions of them—at any rate during my remarks. We come now to category 1, the most important, including, as it does, public utilities as defined for the purpose of this Bill. The main lines of the treatment proposed for undertakings in this first category are laid down in the first three clauses of the Bill. These clauses, in conjunction with the First Schedule, give the Treasury power to determine the amount of war damage payments and contributions to be made in respect of each undertaking in the first category. The Treasury determinations will be made in accordance with arrangements that I will now venture to describe to your Lordships.
  Take first the question of payment; I will come later to the question of contributions. The undertakings concerned, for this purpose of payments and, I may add, for that of contributions also, were sorted out into eight groups mentioned in Clause 2 of the Bill. I have already read out these groups to your Lordships. The groups can be regarded as being of manageable size and relatively homogeneous membership. That was the aim in drawing them up. The next step was the presentation of claims by individual undertakings. Each individual undertaking, in compiling its claim, followed the instructions issued by the appropriate Government Department. I would emphasise, however—let there be no mistake about this—that these instructions were drawn up in each case by the Government Department and the Treasury, on the one side, in agreement with committees representing the whole group, on the other. It was not a case

  789
  of the bureaucrat coming along and dictating to the group.
  For example, a railway undertaking in compiling its claim followed instructions issued by the Ministry of Transport, but these instructions were drawn up by the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury, on the one hand, in agreement with the railway group as a whole. The claims of the individual undertaking so drawn up were "vetted" and approved by the appropriate Departments. So we have the individual claims "vetted" and approved. The claims so arrived at were added together, and the Government Departments concerned, with the approval of the Treasury, were thus able to settle the total of the war damage payments which should be made to each group in respect of land and goods. So much for payments arrived at by the method of consultation. In the case of these payments, the group total is built up from the individual claims.
  In the case of contributions, to which I now turn, the group total is arrived at first and then broken down into contributions in respect of individual undertakings. It works the other way round in the case of contributions. The Government decided that, with one exception, each group should contribute an amount equal to 27½ per cent. of the gross payments due to it. The exception was the harbours group, whose percentage was 10 per cent., owing to the exceptionally heavy damage it suffered. The figures of 27½ per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively were agreed with the negotiating committees representative of each group, after examining the relationship of total contributions, plus premiums, to war damage claims under the principal Act. Suppose, therefore, that £1,000,000 was due to a particular group in payments. In that case £275,000 would be exacted in contributions from the group. In the case of the harbours group, of course, the amount would be only £100,000 in that hypothetical case.
  Finally, we come to the allocation of this group contribution between individual undertakings within the group. This was worked out by the negotiating committees of each group, in order to secure an allocation that seemed to them just between their members, and approved by the Government Departments concerned and the Treasury. In the imaginary
  790
  example I have given, supposing that the group contained ten undertakings whose proper contribution was reckoned to be equal in each case, then each undertaking would pay £27,500, whatever the amount of damage suffered, for that would be irrelevant in fixing the contribution.
  The Treasury's determinations as regards payments and contributions are in accordance with arrangements made with the negotiating committees. With possible rare exceptions they will represent amounts which have been individually accepted by the undertakings concerned as just. I need not, perhaps, justify these arrangements by referring to the various statements that have been made in the past concerning them. I would just say that we have followed in many respects the White Paper plan of 1942. And in February, 1946, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in another place that he hoped to settle in advance of legislation the total amount of war damage payment to, and contribution from, each group of public utility undertakings. I would say, in passing, that in round figures the financial effect of the Bill will be as follows. Gross payments in respect of the grouped undertakings will be £91,000,000. From this sum will fall to be deducted payments for damage already made by the War Damage Commission. There will be deducted also the net contributions to be made by the undertakings, making allowance for such contributions and premiums as they may already have paid. The net charge on the Consolidated Fund is at present expected to be about £62,000,000.
  Your Lordships will recall that we disposed earlier of category 3, and we are left now only with category 2. This category consists of Part II. undertakings, whose purposes of occupation are listed in the Fifth Schedule to the Bill, and whose character is not that of a public utility undertaking as defined by the First Schedule. These are the undertakings to which the War Damage Act can now be applied, with certain modifications of its contribution structure. What is involved is that we put back these undertakings under the provisions of the principal Acts as if they had always applied to them. In other words, and subject to the modifications that I will touch upon in a moment, Part II undertakings are to be deemed to have incurred the obligations and acquired the rights that would have

  791
  rested with them had Sections 40 and 70 never been written into the 1941 and 1943 Acts respectively. The modifications found to be required in the application of the War Damage Act to the remitted Part II undertakings are made in Clauses 11 to 16 of the Bill. These are all adjustments of the contribution structure of the principal Act; the provisions as to payments are not affected.
  I would just add, briefly, that the rating valuation, to the exclusion of Schedule A, is to be adopted for purposes of determining the contributory unit. Direct liability for contribution is to fall on the body carrying on the undertaking, rather than on the owner of the proprietary interest. The ultimate incidence of contributions upon landlords, tenants and mortgagees is to be modified in accordance with the Fourth Schedule. These are alterations which flow directly or consequentially from the extensive nature of the undertakings and from the absence or unsuitability of Schedule A in their case.
  I have confined myself to giving your Lordships a very rough sketch of the circumstances which have caused the introduction of the Bill, and to tracing in broad outline the treatment which is to be accorded to the excluded undertakings. This has taken us over the First and Second Parts of the Bill. I would only indicate that there are Third and Fourth Parts. They contain a miscellaneous collection of provisions, amendments, adaptations and definitions of financial and taxation provisions of one kind and another. Although required for the proper and equitable working out of the main scheme, they are not, I suggest, essential to a grasp of its bare outline. This is certainly a complex Bill. It is inevitable that it should be, because the problem was most intricate and most awkward. I hope that noble Lords who are going to speak, and who are infinitely more profound in their mastery of complicated legislation than I can ever hope to be, will agree that in all the circumstances this is the right answer, and that it is an answer in which all concerned, men from different Parties, can take a considerable pride. I hope that the House will feel that it is high time that this measure was sped on its way, and will be good enough to give it a Second Reading this evening. I beg to move.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  6.11 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I feel sure we are grateful to the noble Lord who has just sat down for a most careful and accurate summary of this extremely complicated piece of legislation. I regard the Bill as a very remarkable Bill indeed—remarkable because of the skill with which the draftsman has dealt with a most complicated topic, and remarkable, too, because the Bill represents the bringing together at last in the form of a connected structure of the great many efforts that have been made by many skilled people to fill what the noble Lord has rightly called the "gap" in the War Damage legislation. I have sometimes wondered whether it is more difficult to solve a really difficult cross-word puzzle than to construct it. At any rate, this is one of the most complicated pieces of construction that could possibly be imagined, and, so far as I have been able to follow it and study it, I must say frankly that I think it is most admirably done.
  When I was Lord Chancellor, I had the honour of presenting to this House—and, what is more, of endeavouring to explain to this House—the War Damage Act of the war period, and, although I do not to-day retain as accurate a memory of that legislation as I had at the time, I follow completely the exposition that has just been given. As your Lordships will remember, the War Damage Act was a bold effort to secure that the physical damage suffered as a result of enemy attacks upon this Island should be borne by the community, partly by contributions which would be made by all persons who might be exposed—whether they lived in the North of Scotland or in the East of London, it made no difference—and partly by an equivalent contribution from public funds. A great deal of trouble was taken to construct that scheme. It was carefully examined in both Houses, and I think I can claim now that, as a scheme, it worked very well and gave an amount of relief which was absolutely necessary if the particular owners of property upon which the bomb happened to fall were not to be left to endure the whole of their misfortunes themselves without any contributions from others whose possessions the bomb happened not to strike.

  793
  But, as the noble Lord has said, in that legislation we had to make an exception of public utility undertakings. The reason for that has been briefly indicated by the noble Lord. Perhaps from my own memory I may add one further reason which will appeal to everybody. The scheme of war damage compensation which was then devised made a distinction between cases in which it would be proper to pay what was called a "cost of works" payment, and cases in which it would not be economically advantageous to restore the property destroyed to its former state. We only paid what was called a "cost of works" payment if, when making good the damage by reconstruction, the cost of the work carried out would not exceed the difference between the value of the hereditament when repaired and its value as it was when damaged. It is no good spending money for repairs if, when you have done so, you will merely have lost the money paid as compensation. That was essential to the scheme. But that principle cannot be applied to a public undertaking. You cannot say: "I will leave it to be decided in each case whether the public undertaking shall be repaired or not," because it must be plain that, if a railway is smashed up or a dock is seriously damaged, it is no good spending time in making calculations as to which of two things you shall do. The only thing to do is to restore it. That is quite inconsistent with the fundamental scheme of the main War Damage legislation. Therefore, these public utilities were for the time being left out.
  I must say it is remarkable that, they having of necessity been left out during the war, it should be only now, at this late date and in this Year of Grace, that Parliament should be providing what was to be done with them. It is a most remarkable circumstance. If I may for a moment illustrate it in simple language which does not require an accurate knowledge of the War Damage Act, what is really happening is this. It has usually been supposed that, if you were going to be compensated by an insurance company for a fire on your premises, it was necessary to insure first and wait for the fire to happen afterwards—to pay the premium which was arranged before you knew whether or not there was going to be a big fire or no fire at all. I am not criticising this Bill, for I think it is essen-
  794
  tial, but it is a sort of "Through the Looking Glass" Bill; in other words, what happens here is that you say: "Oh, there has been a war, in the course of which terrible damage has been done to the property of various public undertakings. That being so, they ought to recover something under our system of general insurance. So what we will do is this. Now that we know who has suffered damage, we will produce what is necessary to compensate them. Nobody has hitherto fixed what the premiums for this, valuable cover should be, but now that it is all over we, for the first time, will decide what premium they ought to pay."
  That is a most admirable arrangement which unfortunately cannot be carried into the realm of business. In the case of business, it is necessary to insure first and have your fire afterwards. If I may take a perhaps more simple metaphor, it is usually thought not to be good, according to the rules, that you should lay your bet on the race after you know which horse has won. But war damage for public utilities has to be dealt with in this way, and I must say that I am glad that the time has now come for it to be done. I have been told that no fewer than sixteen different drafts were prepared to try to deal with this most complicated question. I may at times from this Box have said things which sounded a little critical of draftsmen, but in this case I cannot imagine anything more spendidly done than the drafting of this Bill.
  There is another thing which to me is a little odd, but of course we shall all accept it. The noble Lord has explained to us how it is decided in the case of railways, canals, gas undertakings and so on, that the premium ex post facto is to be 27½ per cent. of the damage; they will be paid 20s., and as a premium for that will pay approximately 5s.
  LORD PAKENHAM: That is for the group.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Yes, but that is the principle. But he says that in the case of the harbours the charge is to be only 10 per cent. From the point of view of insurance, it is rather amazing to consider that the reason for that—and it is the reason—is the exceptionally heavy damage which harbours have had to bear. In the world of insurance, if you are exceptionally exposed to danger

  795
  the premium is not on that account reduced; it is more usual to increase it. Still, I quite understand why this is done, and I think it is right. The truth is that the analogy of insurance is not altogether suitable here. We are really dealing with the best and most just way in which the community as a whole can meet the terrible calamities which have been indiscriminately inflicted, hitting one enterprise but sparing another. My own view is that the Bill, so far as I have been able to study it (I have spent a little time on it with the assistance of expert help, for which I am most grateful), is in every respect justified.
  A good deal was said in another place of the particular provisions which deal with compensation in respect of coal undertakings. Your Lordships will observe that there is no coal group, and coal undertakings do not come in the table on page 5, which adds up to something like £91,000,000 gross. The noble Lord has told us that after the necessary deductions, including the deductions for the contribution, that will mean a burden of some £62,000,000 on the Consolidated Fund. Coal does not appear there; it appears later, in Clause 15. It is interesting for us all to see how this works out in reference to undertakings which have become nationalised since the war, largely under the present Government. It is worth while looking for a moment at Clause 15, subsection (3), which says this:
  "The National Coal Board as successors of the Coal Commission in the ownership of the fee simple in coal in Great Britain shall contribute in respect of coal-mining properties therein the sum of one hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds.…"
  and the sum so provided
  "shall be treated for all purposes as an outgoing of a capital nature."
  I may say in passing, that it is perfectly right to provide that this contribution shall be treated as an outgoing of a capital nature. In fact that was the general provision in the War Damage legislation. No doubt, in course of time, these capital burdens will be worked off, but the interesting thing is that the National Coal Board, receiving whatever compensation they do receive because of damage done to undertakings by enemy action during the war, are to have deducted as their contribution £125,000.
  796
  In glancing through the debates in another place, I noticed that two criticisms were made of this provision. One was that it seemed very little; the other was that it seemed too much. There was a certain amount of good sense, I think, in the argument of the Government, that if opposite views are taken about things like that, perhaps the figure is right. I think the explanation of the figure may be as follows, and as I have made some inquiries perhaps I may just put on record what I think. The £125,000, which is the contribution to be paid by the National Coal Board as successors of the Coal Commission, represents the contribution which would have been paid by the owners of the royalties in coal. Of course, the royalties in coal were acquired some time ago by the State and they were held by what at that time was called the Coal Commission. It is obviously right that the complete scheme should cover, amongst other things, damage which would hit the proprietors, whoever they are, public or private, of that interest. Then when the transfer took place from the Coal Commission to the National Coal Board, the contribution was taken into account in settling the terms of the transfer and, consequently, quite properly, the National Coal Board should now bear that same contribution.
  I think I am right in saying that the figure is arrived at by applying the formula that was in the original War Damage Act, by which agricultural land made a contribution of only one-quarter of the contribution that was made by other properties. Other properties paid 2s. in the £ of Schedule "A" assessments; agricultural properties paid 6d. I think that in this case it is the 6d. that is relevant, and as agricultural land contributed at the rate of 6d. in the £ of the contributory value, then that would be right in this case also. Of course, it was plainly correct that the contribution to be paid by agricultural land should be much less than that to be paid by built-up properties, because the damage that could be done by a bomb dropping in the middle of a field bore no relation at all to the damage that could be caused by a bomb dropping in the middle of a hotel. That was right, but I rather think that the contribution should be in two elements—one, for what I may call the royalty element, and the other for the

  797
  minerals themselves, which have since been nationalised under the present Government. This £125,000 really represents the former of those two elements. I believe that it is a penny out of the sixpence because the other part of it has already, by agreement, been worked off and disposed of. Therefore, I do not share in the criticism that this clause has anything wrong with it.
  We are all bound to realise the care and impartiality with which the Treasury have dealt with the matter. I do not believe for a moment that the Treasury would show themselves either too indulgent or unduly harsh when dealing with a nationalised undertaking as against any other. Therefore, my own conclusion is that this Bill should be regarded, as the noble Lord claimed, as an uncontroversial measure. Whether it is the sort of three-volume novel you want to take with you when you go to bed, the sort of thing you can read in bed before going to sleep, is quite another matter. I should have thought it was a very odd taste which really enjoyed going into this performance.
  At the same time I feel bound to say at the end, with some little experience of trying to understand, expound, and sometimes to criticise, legislation, that I do not think I have ever seen a very elaborate Bill which has been so well put together for the purpose intended as is the present Bill. I am sure that a great debt of gratitude is owed to the officials of the Treasury who, I know, have worked so hard at it, and also to the draftsmen. Unquestionably, in these respects, this Bill is a perfect model. It is an elaborate model but a working model, and, if I may respectfully say so, I advise your Lordships to let it work.
  6.34 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount warmly for those generous and most authoritative words. I am afraid
  798
  that most of us when We get into difficulties in the presentation of a Bill are rather apt to blame the draftsmen, just as when we miss a shot at tennis or at golf, we often say it is the fault of our racket or of our club—
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Or of the caddie.
  LORD PAKENHAM: Or of the caddie. Here, I feel that I have been fortunate in being able to present a measure which has won such high and carefully-worded praise from the noble and learned Viscount. I will make sure that his words are conveyed to all those concerned. I have no doubt that they will be particularly grateful, and will value such words coming from him as perhaps they would value praise from no other source.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS
  Second Report from the Joint Committee, being the Report on the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill [H.L.], made, and to be printed, the Minutes of Evidence (together with the Proceedings of the Joint Committee): Laid upon the Table and to be delivered out.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.