Lords Sitting of 20 April 1950

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Ennisdale—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
4.6 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given for the Lord Fairfax of Cameron's Motion (now standing for Thursday, May 4 next) to be advanced to Thursday next.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL
4.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, I rise to move the second reading of this very short but important Bill. Its purpose is to amend one provision of the Diplomatic Privileges Extension Act of 1944 and also another provision of that Act as already amended by the Diplomatic Privileges Extension Act, 1946. If your Lordships find the amendment of the two Acts confusing, I hasten to say that it is proposed, as soon as this Bill is passed, to consolidate the three Acts under the consolidation procedure and, further, that your Lordships will find conveniently set out in the Second Schedule to the Act of 1946 the relevant portions of the 1944 Act which have already been amended by the Act of 1946.
The occasion for the introduction of the present Bill is the special circumstances and characteristics of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of
1044
Europe. But for the Council of Europe perhaps these amendments would not have been proposed at the present time, but they are of general application and are also desirable, if not absolutely necessary, because of the Constitutions of certain other international organisations. Before, therefore, I endeavour to explain the actual terms of the Bill, I will indicate briefly the peculiar features of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe which have rendered the introduction of an amending Bill imperative at the present time.
Hitherto, in connection with representatives on international organisations we have chiefly had to consider representatives of countries who represent their Governments, in the sense that they act under the instructions of their Governments; but up to now we have never been under any obligation to grant any immunities in the United Kingdom to any person who represented the United Kingdom, whether as a delegate of the Government or not. In the case of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, the persons who sit as members of this international body are emphatically not persons who represent their Governments and who act under instructions from their Governments in the manner in which they speak or vote in that Assembly. They represent their countries, but not their Governments.
Further, in order that representatives on this international consultative body may enjoy the same freedom of debate as Members of Parliament do in their own countries, it becomes for the first time necessary to grant to persons who represent the United Kingdom an immunity in the United Kingdom itself. The British representatives on this Assembly, as well as foreign representatives, must be free from prosecution or suit in the United Kingdom in respect of their speeches and votes. It is not sufficient in this case, as it has been in all the other cases, for the United Kingdom to grant privileges and immunities only to representatives on international organisations who represent foreign countries.
The privileges and immunities which have to be granted in respect of the Council of Europe are set forth in the General Agreement which has been published as a White Paper, Cmd. 7780. This is an

1045
Agreement which was signed on September 2 last on behalf of the United Kingdom, but which cannot be ratified until this Bill is law. It is the desire of His Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should be able to ratify it before the next meeting of the Consultative Assembly, which will begin on August 7. This General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe is on the ordinary lines of similar Agreements applying to other international organisations, in so far as it deals with the Council itself as a juridical person, or with the Committee of Ministers, or with the officials of the Council. No new legislation would be required to fulfil those portions of the Agreement. It is only when we come to Part 5, Article 13 to 15, which relate to the Consultative Assembly, that we find the completely new feature, which I have indicated earlier.
Noble Lords may like to have in their minds what are, in fact, the immunities that have to be granted in respect of this Consultative Assembly. I need not spend any time over Article 13, because its provisions can be fulfilled by ordinary executive action. This Article prohibits administrative restriction on the free movement to and from the place of meeting of representatives on the Assembly and provides what facilities they are to have in the matter of customs and exchange control. It is Article 14 which is the key Article—the safeguard of freedom of debate—and this Article provides that in respect of words spoken or votes cast in the Assembly representatives shall be immune from all official interrogation and from arrest and all legal proceedings; and this immunity continues, as indeed it must, not merely while the Assembly is sitting but indefinitely. Article 15 provides for another immunity, which operates only during the sessions of the Assembly itself and during the period when representatives are travelling to and from the place of meeting. Under this Article we have to give to foreign representatives on the consultative Assembly an exemption from arrest and prosecution, but exemption does not apply when the representatives are found committing, attempting to commit, or just having committed, an offence. Further, the Assembly can waive it. In the case of our own representatives on the Consultative Assembly, we have to give
1046
them during this period the same immunities that Members of Parliament enjoy here.
This Bill follows the pattern of its two predecessors. This pattern is that an Act of Parliament prescribes the maximum limit of privileges and immunities that can be granted, and within this limit Orders in Council, which have to be laid before Parliament and are subject to negative Resolution, provide what is to be granted in detail, having regard to the obligations of His Majesty's Government under the relevant international agreements. The maximum allowed by the Acts is in many cases far in excess of what the Orders in Council actually grant, but His Majesty's Government do not use the powers granted to them by Parliament more widely than relevant international agreements require. They have never done so in the past and have no intention of doing so in the future, either in connection with the Council of Europe or otherwise. However, as a result of the debate in another place, it is my intention to move at the Committee stage of the Bill an Amendment making this practice obligatory by Act of Parliament.
I now turn to the Bill itself. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 makes a purely technical amendment to the statement of the qualifications, with which an international organisation must comply to come under the Acts at all. It amends the Acts by making them apply to organisations of which the constituent members are States, as well as those of which the constituent members are Governments. Sometimes the constitutions of international organisations are framed in terms which indicate the members as being Governments, in other cases which indicate the members as being States, and in some cases, of which the Council of Europe is one, in terms which are ambiguous on this point. We should hardly have thought it necessary to include subsection (1) in this. Bill if it were not for the fact that when we come to subsection (2), dealing with representatives, a distinction has now to be drawn between persons who represent their Governments and persons who represent their States but not their Governments, and the distinction drawn in this connection might have been held to have repercussions on the interpretation of Section 1 (1) of the Act of 1944, which, as I have said, deals with the qualifications

1047
of international organisations which are necessary before the Acts can apply to them.
In the second subsection of the first clause of the Bill lies the real substance of the Bill. If noble Lords will look at the Second Schedule of the Act of 1946 and at paragraph (b) of Part A of that Schedule, they will find the words
"confer upon … any person who is a representative of a member Government …"
and they will also find at the end of Part A of this Schedule a proviso which reads that
"the Order in Council shall not confer any immunity or privilege upon any person as the representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom."
Now, as I have already stated, up to the present time it has not been necessary to construe the words "representative of a member Government" in the existing Acts in any narrow and technical sense. No difficulty has been found in interpreting these words as covering, for instance, the workers' and employers' delegates on the International Labour Office who represent their States but not their Governments. This distinction between States and Governments was present in nobody's mind in connection with the existing Acts, and there was no need in construing the Acts to make a distinction which was clearly not intended. But we cannot at one and the same time put a broad interpretation on the words "representative of a member Government" in paragraph (b) and a narrow interpretation on the words "representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom" in the proviso.
We could not, under the existing Acts, grant any immunity to a British representative, whether he represented His Majesty's Government or the United Kingdom as a State, but now in the case of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe we have to give an immunity in the United Kingdom to persons who represent the United Kingdom but who do not represent His Majesty's Government. Therefore this Bill amends paragraph (b) of the Second Schedule of the Act of 1946 by making it apply (I quote from line 22 of page 1 of the Bill) to
"representatives (whether of Governments or not)"
1048
but it leaves the proviso unchanged, with the result that under this Bill immunity in the United Kingdom can be given by Order in Council to a person who represents the United Kingdom but does not represent the Government of the United Kingdom: but immunity in the United Kingdom still cannot be granted to somebody who represents His Majesty's Government. In case noble Lords should ask why we say in the Bill "whether of Governments or not" instead of saying "whether of Governments or States," the explanation is a peculiarity which has only recently come to light in connection with the I.L.O. In the case of the governing body of the I.L.O. (that is, so to speak, the executive committee of the I.L.O.) it is held that the workers' and employers' representatives do not sit on this governing body as representatives even of their States, but rather as representing the interests of the collectivity of workers or of the collectivity of employers.
To turn again to the Bill, noble Lords will see that the second Schedule of the Act of 1946 uses the words
"on the governing body or any Committee of the Organisation."
That is in line 7 of paragraph (b). Now these words were first drafted in 1944, when U.N.R.R.A. was practically the only international organisation whose constitution had been drawn up, and have since been found inappropriate not merely for the Council of Europe but also for other international organisations. Let me take the I.L.O. as an example once more. In the existing Acts the words "governing body" were intended to cover the large Assembly of the organisation on which all member States were represented. That this is so is very clearly shown by Section 2 of the Act of 1946 which adapted them to the special case of the United Nations and makes the words "governing body" apply to the General Assembly.
But under the constitution of the I.L.O., the name of the wider body is the "conference" and the words "governing body" are used for the smaller and, so to speak, executive committee; and here we have a source of confusion, since "governing body" in the Act means the large assembly and in the I.L.O. constitution the smaller organ. If we turn to the Council of Europe and have to apply the words of the existing Acts, we should

1049
have to say either that the Committee of Ministers was the governing body and the Consultative Assembly was a committee, or vice versa; and whichever way we put it, it would be equally wrong and equally contentious. So our present Bill, which is drafted not merely with the Constitution of the Council of Europe in mind but taking acount of the form which the constitutions of the other international organisations have taken, uses the words "on an organ of such an organisation"; and I should like to say here that this word "organ" has now become merely a term of art in connection with international organisations to describe the constituent elements of the organisation.
One further point. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill continues, in lines 23 and 24:
"and members of any committee of such an organisation or of an organ thereof."
The word "committee" in the existing Acts has had to be much over-worked to make it fit the constitutions of the different international organisations. It has had to be used in the first place to cover all the organs of the organisation apart from the principal one which was referred to in the Act as the governing body, and it has had to be used in the second place to cover committees which these organs set up to carry out their work. To take one illustrative example: it is well known that the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is one organ of that body, has set up committees which work when the Consultative Assembly is not sitting. Therefore, in order to cover the position adequately and conveniently we need the words "members of any committee of such an organisation or of an organ thereof."
My Lords, I have now explained the Bill (Clause 2 is formal and the Schedule is merely consequential and drafting) and I hope I have succeeded in making my explanation reasonably clear. With these amendments to existing Acts we shall be able, by Order in Council, to give, for instance to members of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, precisely those privileges and immunities which the General Agreement requires. We shall not give them more, and indeed if the amendment which I propose to move at the next stage is accepted, we shall be debarred from
1050
giving more, because Parliament will have laid it down by Statute that no Order in Council is to go beyond what is required by the relevant international agreement. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Henderson.)
4.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, it often happens in this House that, after the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has moved the Second Reading, we express to him our thanks for the explanation which he has given. Certainly, on the present occasion we owe a double measure of thanks to Lord Henderson, because this is, in fact, a very difficult Bill to understand in detail, and he has, I think, for the first time in the history of the Bill, given a consecutive account of it which we shall all wish to study. I hope I do no injustice to other noble Lords here when I say that, even in spite of this very carefully prepared and well-delivered explanation, I doubt whether there are many of us who would be prepared to say at this moment that we understand what it is all about.
That leads me to observe—it is only a passing observation—that I should have thought this was exactly the sort of Bill which ought to have been prefaced by an explanatory memorandum. You may read this Bill from one end to the other and you will not find out what the noble Lord, with his knowledge of the matter, told us at once—that it really arises out of the General Agreement that was made in Paris in connection with the Council of Europe, I think on September 2 of last year. There is not a single word in the text of the Bill that gives one an inkling that that is the case. All the same, the noble Lord has contributed most usefully to what must be a careful study of the measure, and I hope I may observe that I much prefer the way in which he has presented it to the way in which it was presented in another place, when I saw with some surprise that the Minister who moved the Second Reading, in his very first sentence, said that it was a simple Bill—sancta simplicitas! The truth is that it is one of the most complicated measures in detail that I have ever had to look at. I say that, notwithstanding that I, as Lord Chancellor, was responsible

1051
for the first Bill of the kind in 1944 and took some part in the consideration of the amending Bill which the present Lord Chancellor moved in 1946.
I do not think it would be useful this afternoon, especially as we have other business to attend to, if one went into too much detail. But in the first place, I should like, if I may, to make one or two observations of a rather more general character. I should like us all to be sure that we appreciate that, though this sounds very technical and special, we are not concerned only with very recondite things which do not affect ordinary people. In point of fact, whenever you confer a privilege or immunity upon something or somebody you are depriving somebody else of a right which he previously had. That is the reason why the indefinite extension of diplomatic immunity or privilege ought always to be watched by Parliament with great care. If you say that a particular individual who drives his car furiously upon the road and overruns and injures an innocent wayfarer is to have immunity or privilege, that means that he cannot be made to pay the damages. That is very nice for him, and there may be circumstances in which it is quite right for that to happen; but it also means that the perfectly innocent man who has been injured cannot get damages. Therefore, whenever there is a Bill which deals with immunity and privilege of this kind, it is the duty of us all to look at it very carefully to see whether it goes further in the circumstances than is right. I think that observation is one which it is proper to make here in the debate, because it is so easy to imagine that we are doing only the friendly international courtesies in matters of this kind. But the matter is much more important than that, because it does or may affect ordinary people who may be injured or slandered, or whatever it may be.
The second observation I must make about this Bill—I spent a little time examining it yesterday and to-day—is that while the explanation of its being produced is this Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, entered into in September last, there is nothing whatever in the Bill to limit the privileges and immunities which are granted under it to those which are provided
1052
for in that Treaty. The noble Lord very usefully referred us to the two Articles of the International Agreement which matter. One is Article 14; the other is Article 15. I should have said that neither is entirely easy to construe, but that is not my business. Just look at them for a moment. Article 14 begins:
"Representatives to the Consultative Assembly and their substitutes"—
I pause to observe that I follow the point made by the noble Lord—a very important one—that the Council of Europe representatives in the Consultative Assembly and their substitutes are not there in any sense as representing a Government; they are merely drawn from a country. Their names were read out, I think, by Mr. Attlee at a certain time last year, and among them were the names of Mr. Winston Churchill, Mr. Morrison and others. It is a list which is drawn up by negotiation and agreement. When they went to Strasbourg they did not go as a team with a leader, as a delegation to the League of Nations used to go. Each went with his independent right to take part and say what he thought was just and fair. That is a very important point, and I appreciate the necessity for some new provision.
But see how the Article runs:
"Representatives to the Consultative Assembly and their substitutes shall be immune from all official interrogation"—
that, I should have thought, is easier for a Continental lawyer to understand than for one of us, but I can imagine what it means—
"and from arrest and all legal proceedings in respect of words spoken or votes cast by them in the exercise of their functions."
That suggests at once a very familiar conundrum: How much of that immunity is covered by the phrase: "in the exercise of their functions "? It is not for me, and perhaps not for any noble Lord here, to construe how much, but the whole thing from beginning to end is limited, or may be limited, to what these representatives and their substitutes say or do "in the exercise of their functions." That is a very important limitation and, I think, a very proper one. It does not mean that a representative who has gone to Strasbourg and has chosen, quite apart from the discharge of his duty as a representative, to publish defamatory statements is immune; and it ought not to

1053
mean that. The extraordinary thing, however—and I must call your Lordships' attention to this—is that you may look at this Bill which we are now invited to give a Second Reading, and you will not find that limitation in it at all. So far as the Bill is concerned, it would be perfectly in accordance with the language of the Bill to give an immunity which is far wider than anything in Article 14.
When we come to Article 15, we find that the language is even more surprising. Article 15 is also, I venture to think, extremely difficult to interpret. It begins:
"During the sessions of the Consultative Assembly"—
that seems to refer to the period of time, as one might say "during the Parliamentary Recess"—
"the representatives to the Assembly and their substitutes … shall enjoy:"—
I leave out the next paragraph, it does not matter very much, and then we have:
"(b) on the territory of all other Member States, exemption from arrest and prosecution."
They are to enjoy "exemption from arrest and prosecution." Suppose that a representative has been appointed who is minded not to attend too closely to his duties, and who commits a reprehensible offence during the sessions of the Consultative Assembly. Does it mean that, even though he is not engaged on his job but is taking a holiday from his duties, he is so protected? It is a very curious document indeed.
Then Article 15 continues:
"This immunity also applies when they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the Consultative Assembly."
I will not occupy time by imagining cases in this connection. Anyone who considers these words will see what extremely difficult questions may arise as to the limits within which that phrase is intended to apply. Suppose that a man gets to Paris and there does something which involves an offence that being nothing in the world to do with his work for the Assembly. Is he travelling to a meeting of the Consultative Assembly, or has he to be in motion before he satisfies that condition? I have had some little experience of international documents, and I know how great the difficulty can be in getting reconciliation between what I may call the Continental view and the British view. On the Continent they tend to
1054
express themselves in different phraseology. But I must say I have seldom seen a document more difficult to construe than this. I shall not attempt to invite the Lord Chancellor, if he takes part in this debate, to construe it. I do not imagine that he would feel very happy about making the attempt, and I am sure he will agree that it is far from easy to understand.
The last sentence in Article 15 is really quite amusing. Having first of all given to these representatives this very valued immunity—namely, exemption from arrest and prosecution—which must be very consoling to persons who may be tempted to commit irregularities, the Article goes on to say that this immunity does not apply:
"when representatives and their substitutes are found committing, attempting to commit, or just having committed an offence …"
It apparently means that if they are caught in the act, or close to the act, they may be arrested and prosecuted. But supposing an interval has elapsed; whatever the evidence, however clear it may be, even if they admit the offence, they must not be either arrested or prosecuted. I speak with the greatest respect of international documents but, as I say, I have never seen one so difficult to understand as this. What is so surprising to me is that while it is plain that there are these limitations laid down by the Agreement, the Bill which has been produced to Parliament does not contain a glimmer of an indication that there are any such limitations at all.
Here I must most sincerely recognise and, if I may, commend the candour of the noble Lord who has given us this explanation. He has, it is true, had to do it at the expense of completely overthrowing what was said in another place. He is telling the exact fact, and it is all the more commendable on that account. He says in terms: Of course the language of this Bill world give power to do far more than this International Agreement ever stipulated or agreed to. He further said: You will appreciate, of course, that we should never dream of doing that. On that point, my Lords, I wish to make a general observation. I hope that there are other noble Lords in the House who agree with me when I say that I think it very deplorable that in recent days we should so frequently

1055
have had proposals made conferring powers in terms of the widest langauge, when a much more limited purpose is intended to be served. With great respect to those who give the assurance that though they get these extensive powers they would, of course, never dream of using them, I cannot help thinking that it is much more satisfactory for Parliament to give such powers as are intended to be used and to limit the gift to that.
I should feel quite differently about this Bill if instead of its saying airily that it is
"An Act to amend the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944"
it described itself as "An Act to implement the obligations which His Majesty's Government had entered into in this Agreement of September 2, 1949, for the conferring of certain privileges and immunities on representatives and their substitutes." The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, anticipated that argument and said that much more general language had hitherto been the precedent. I do not think that is quite so. I reminded myself by looking at the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, of 1946, and I see that its title is:
"An Act to amend the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944, in connection with the general convention on privileges and immunities of the United Nations approved at the first General Assembly thereof and in connection with certain resolutions taken at the said Assembly."
Surely it would be far better to make plain in the title and contents of the Bill what it is we really mean to do, rather than that the Government should proceed on the basis that, because there is something which it would be right for them to be authorised by Parliament to do, therefore they will seek from Parliament authority which will cover not only that but a vast number of other things, and then, when that is pointed out, say, "Well, you may trust us; we will use these extensive powers only within limits which are common."
I observe that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, is raising this question of the relation between Parliament and Cabinet in your Lordships' House in a few days' time and to me at least it appears that this Bill is a rather unhappy example of the way in which we are falling into the habit of giving much wider
1056
powers than ought to be given merely because there is a limited object which we are invited to help the Government to secure. I say, and I am sure the noble Lord knows I say it in the most friendly way, that I feel deeply that we are in great danger, both in Acts of Parliament and regulations, of conferring on the Executive wider powers than they ever mean to use. No doubt that is convenient in many respects, but in the end it is destructive of the authority of Parliament. However, the noble Lord said frankly that this Bill goes much wider than the powers which the Government mean to exercise. He has indicated that he will put down an Amendment on Committee stage which will go some way to meet that difficulty, and I need not say that we shall study it with close attention.
There is one other observation of a general kind which I think it right to make. It appears to me to be a striking fact that this Bill, though presented to another place as being a Bill purely for the purpose of implementing the Articles of this Treaty, not only is not that but does not contain anything to show the limitations on the privileges that are being given. Consequently, we have on both hands this remarkable situation. If this Bill is passed in its present form, whatever future organisations of an international kind may come into existence (they may not have been thought of yet), any agreement made between the Government of this country and a foreign Government—between this Government and the Government of Soviet Russia, if you like—if it provides for any sort of immunity, may lead to the Executive that has made that treaty carrying it out by altering the British law without ever coming to Parliament at all. That does not seem to me to be a proper way in which to exercise our Parliamentary powers. I will not say more on that point now, because of course we shall give the Bill a Second Reading, and we shall then want to consider very carefully what the noble Lord has been at such pains to put before us.
I should like to mention briefly one or two points, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor may say a word on them. When we read this Agreement, or any similar Agreement, it is obvious that the intention is that there should be reciprocal rights. This Agreement is made between twelve

1057
Governments—the Governments of Belgium, Denmark, the French Republic, Greece, Holland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom. If these privileges are intended to be given reciprocally, I should have thought that we might find something in the Bill to secure that we do not grant them to the representatives from another country unless the other country does the same by us. There is nothing in the Bill about that. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will not accept it from anybody that what we are advising is an impracticable proposition. I would remind him that in the Act of 1944, the one for which, as Lord Chancellor, I happened to be responsible, Section 4 said this, and I think it showed very good sense:
"Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act shall be construed as precluding His Majesty from declining to accord immunities or privileges to, or from withdrawing immunities or privileges from, nationals or representatives of any Power on the ground that that Power is failing to accord corresponding immunities or privileges to British nationals or representatives."
Surely that is a proper provision, but there is nothing about that in this Bill.
LORD HENDERSON: Section 4 of Act of 1944, will still continue when this Bill is passed.
VISCOUNT SIMON: If that is so, that meets entirely my comment, and I am glad to be corrected. The noble Lord will agree that it should be clear, and if it is made clear in that way, I am wrong and I am glad to be put right.
In regard to my second point I do not think the language in Clause 1 is at all consistent. I know how difficult the matter is. When I look at what the noble Lord rightly described as the operative part of the Bill—namely, subsection (2) of Clause 1–I see that it is proposed that what we are doing should apply to
"representatives of member governments on the governing body or any committee of an organisation to which section one of the first-mentioned Act applies and their official staffs.…"
I cannot find anything in the Agreement of September 2, 1949, about "official staffs." I find that there are privileges and exemptions granted to "representatives and their substitutes," but I can see nothing in that Agreement about the official staffs of any country. Consequently, here we have an example of the
1058
Bill appearing to go beyond what the General Agreement itself provides.
Lastly, I think it would be of interest to know whether these immunities, whether granted to British or foreign individuals, extend to immunity from paying British taxes or local rates. It seems to me a very doubtful proposition to say that these immunities are granted to those appointed to go to Strasbourg (and Strasbourg is the seat of the council of Europe, by its own constitution) if it will have the effect that they have some privilege when they pass through the Customs, either going or returning. Why should they? When I was Foreign Secretary and went to Geneva, if I brought back anything when I returned I declared it at the Customs, and paid the duty on it like anybody else. Why thould there be any immunity of that sort granted? At the moment I only ask the question, because I do not know.
All this leads me to my conclusion, which is this. I feel we ought to have a reasonable interval before this Bill is taken in Committee. It is a most difficult Bill. Everybody will want to do what is right and fair about it. I am not in the least opposing the Bill on any abstract principle but, if I may repeat myself to this extent, I feel most strongly that Parliament ought not to grant to individuals additional immunities and privileges one scrap wider than are justified by the case. Every time that is done some perfectly decent citizen is deprived of a right which he might otherwise have. If a man is taking part in the Consultative Assembly at Strasbourg and makes a speech in which he defames some individual, it is right to say that he ought not therefore to be made liable in an action for defamation. It is essential in bodies of that sort, as in both Houses of Parliament, that when people are speaking in debate they should feel free to say what they think without fear of the consequences. But once you go beyond what is really necessary you are conferring upon people, rather light-heartedly, advantages which are not justified in themselves, and which have the effect only of depriving other people of their ordinary rights.
I do not think that what I am saying will be resented by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I sincerely hope that we may have time to consider this Bill
1059
carefully, in the light of what he has said. We will consider the Amendment which the noble Lord says he is going to put down and which I dare say will meet a great deal of the difficulty which I have felt. But that will be for the future, as will be any Amendments that we on our part may care to put down. With those observations, I conclude as I began. We are very much indebted to the noble Lord for the care with which he has provided us with this explanation, elaborate as it inevitably is, and I greatly envy the quickness of the apprehension of any noble Lord who has been able to follow Lord Henderson's speech, sentence by sentence, and can say that when the noble Lord sat down he fully understood this matter.
4.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I shall occupy your Lordships for only a short time, and that because this topic is one intimately connected with my professional career, and I should like to assist the Government, if I may, in producing an impeccable Act of Parliament from the Bill that is now before the House. I have already had an opportunity of considering the points which have been made by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, and I should like to say that, as at present advised, I think they are sound ones which will require the greatest consideration on the part of the Government. I certainly do not intend to take up your Lordships' time in going through in other words the points which he has made with his usual clarity. I want only to be sure that, before a Second Reading is given to the Bill and we go on at a later stage to consider what Amendments, if any, ought to be introduced, we are at one in what we are discussing to-day.
Like everybody else who has tackled this Bill, at first I was surprised at some of the words in it and found great difficulty in knowing exactly what they meant. Let me give an illustration of that, because, incidentally, it helps me in asking the question I propose to ask of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. The Bill is entitled:
"An Act to Amend the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944."
To an ordinary man—I will not say to an ordinary lawyer—those words are misleading, because the Bill is not "An Act
1060
to Amend the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944." The Acts mentioned by my noble and learned friend (and the present Bill is, too) were measures to enable the Crown by Order in Council to give various immunities to a certain number of people who are supposed to deserve them because of the office which they occupy.
The whole question now, as I apprehend it—and I should like to be sure that the noble Lord opposite agrees—is what powers we are going to give to future Governments, whether they come predominantly from the other side or this side of the House, to give certain immunities to certain people. That, I feel, is fundamental in the consideration of what we are going to do to amend this present Bill. From that there emerges a point which again is a simple one, and it is this: Are we desirous of so amending the rights of the Government to grant immunities to certain people that we will cover anything other than the people who are mentioned in the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, which was signed on September 2, 1949? In my view, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon was right in pointing out that in the other place it was clearly stated that that was the whole object of the Bill. What I want to ask the noble Lord opposite—or my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, if he cares to deal with the matter—is whether I am right in supposing that, or whether there is something else which it is desired to provide. If the matter is discussed in Committee as to whether it does only that, the answer is that it clearly goes beyond that. The Bill is not confining itself to the question which has been discussed by my noble and learned friend. It goes further over a number of details. On that there is the question of principle which will have to be discussed on the Committee stage.
I venture to doubt very much whether this House will think it right to give a power to the Government—it may be a Conservative or a Labour Government—to do the various things which are suggested in the noble Lord's speech—namely, that, whatever the nature of an organisation with which we may be concerned at some future date, the Order in Council may confer immunities without Parliament having any say on

1061
whether or not they are proper. The question of the propriety of general rights
of immunity has been dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, and I do not wish to add anything to what he said. But I believe there is a very strong feeling throughout the country, and certainly in this House, against unnecessarily granting powers to the Government to give wide immunities to members of a future body which we have not in our minds at all, and who are not deserving of immunity. Therefore, on that question of principle, it may be that this House will come to the conclusion that the Bill before us ought to be limited to giving in plain language the immunities which are necessary, having regard to the nature of the Agreement of September 2, 1949.
With regard to the question of reciprocity, my noble and learned friend has pointed out that Section 4 of the Act of 1944 provided for the question of reciprocal treatment, but the only point I should like the Government to bear in mind when they are dealing with that—if not on this Bill then certainly on the Bill to consolidate—is that Section 4 does not exactly meet the case, because it is limited to the immunities or privileges which might be withdrawn from nationals or representatives of any Power. Perhaps that is not wide enough, having regard to the extension which is proposed by the present measure. It is only a question of form, because there is no difference of principle between us there. Having said that, I repeat that I agree with my noble friend Lord Simon in the criticisms he has made, and I hope that the Government will be able to come to the conclusion that, at the present time, they do not want anything more than the immunities mentioned in the Agreement of 1949.
5.4 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is easy to make heavy weather of a Bill like this which amends two previous Acts, and which refers principally to an Agreement in connection with the Council of Europe. It is easy to pretend that we are extending vast immunities, privileges, exemptions and all the rest of it to an unspecified body of people who, apparently, in the view of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, are not quite respectable. The simple fact is
1062
that ever since the end of the First World War there has been a continuing extension of international conferences and international relationships over and above the former and established diplomatic usages—a very good thing which we all support. It has been officially supported by members of all political Parties in this country which, taken with the League of Nations and its various organs and machinery, and now the United Nations, has been and is to the great advantage of everyone concerned.
Since the Second World War we have greatly extended the international negotiations and instruments of exchanging views and so on, not only by the United Nations Organisation but now by this Council of Europe. That has necessitated giving a minimum—I repeat "a minimum"—of safeguard and immunity to the people who, very often at great personal sacrifice, are attempting to carry out the functions of these various bodies. The old idea, of course, of an Ambassador representing his Government is now vastly extended by
having people who represent their countries. Take, for example, a body about which your Lordships will know a great deal, the International Maritime Conference, under the auspices of the International Labour Office. That has been of tremendous value to seamen all over the world, and the various meetings are attended by representatives of ship owners and officers' and seamen's unions of all these different nations, together with the Civil Service and the representatives of the Governments to advise and assist.
It is only fair that these gentlemen who represent these bodies, many of whom are nothing to do with Governments (I take this particular case because it is a very clear one)—the representatives of Chambers of Shipping, on the one hand; the ship owners or the seamen's organisations or Unions on the other—should at least have the same privileges and immunities as the civil servants sent directly by their Governments. They are doing good work for their nations and for the whole body of seamen in this particular case. I think it is not generous to cavil and raise suspicions and object to the fact that they pre given these very limited—I repeat "very limited"—immunities and privileges. Now what do we seek to do in the case of people who are acting on behalf

1063
of their nations—not necessarily of their Governments—on the Council of Europe? In the words of the instrument, the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe of the September 2, 1949, which has already been quoted:
"During the sessions of the Consultative Assembly, the representatives to the Assembly and their substitutes, whether they be Members of Parliament or not, shall enjoy: (a) on their national territory, the immunities accorded in those countries to Members of Parliament; (b) on the territory of all other Member States, exemption from arrest and prosecution."
Let us see what are the immunities granted in this country to Members of Parliament. We are free from prosecution or arrest for anything we do in the course of our Parliamentary duties, and that is precisely all. If any of your Lordships leaves his motor car to-night in an unauthorised place the police will prosecute, and the fact that he has a House of Lords badge on the car does not matter in the least.
It is made perfectly clear in the words which I thought the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, rather made a joke about, that these immunities do not apply when representatives are found attempting to commit an offence. That same principle applies, of course, to the privileges which we insist on passing at the beginning of every Parliament in this country. They do not exempt us in the case of ordinary civil offences committed outside this House. All we are inviting Parliament to agree is that we ratify and support the Government in agreeing with all these other Governments in granting these representatives to the Consultative Assembly and their substitutes immunity from official interrogation, arrest and legal proceedings in respect of words spoken or votes cast by them in the exercise of their functions.
VISCOUNT SIMON: As the noble Lord has referred to me, may I just make one observation? With the greatest respect he is completely misunderstanding the point that was made. If it were true that this Bill did what he has rightly said is reasonable, nobody would dream of criticising it. The whole point is that the Bill does a great deal more than that. The noble Lord will find that the Government are so conscious of this that they
1064
intend to introduce an Amendment designed to make the Bill correspond more exactly to what is intended. I have no objection to the language of the Agreement; all I pointed out was that the language of the Bill does not correspond with the language of the Agreement—it is very much wider.
LORD STRABOLGI: I was relying on the clear and concise statement of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, which explained what I have been trying to elaborate. It does not really go any further than that. It is, if I may use the word, ungenerous, when we want to improve the machinery of international relations in these difficult times, to cavil and object to the simple privileges and immunities which we are seeking to grant to these gentlemen who are doing their work in this great cause.
I should like to say one word with regard to the immunities of Members of Parliament. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has mentioned the Customs and so forth. My experience is this—and I speak both as a former Member of another place and as a member of this House—that when I have passed our own Customs in this country I have been put through a very careful search, of which I have made no complaint at all on the ground that I was a Member of Parliament—and I think that that is the general experience; but as soon as I get to the frontier of a foreign country (and I have travelled a great deal during the last twenty-five years) I am waved through without formality and nobody thinks of opening my bags or asking any questions: I am a member of the British Parliament, and that is quite enough. That is the kind of spirit I think we should show. Let us keep an eye on our own nationals and see that they do not break the law; but let us stretch the law a little and be courteous and hospitable to others who come to these shores in their endeavours to mend the great wounds in international relations which we all want to see healed.
5.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for explaining during his speech a phrase which puzzles me—one of many things which puzzle me—in the Bill. He described the term "organs of organisations" as a term of

1065
art. We must respect terms of art and I will content myself with saying that if this is a term of art in diplomacy, it confirms my belief that diplomacy is a somewhat decadent art. But, after all, we are not drafting a diplomatic document: we are drafting an Act of Parliament Are we quite certain that it is necessary to insert so cumbrous and infelicitous a phrase as this in an Act of Parliament? Is the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack convinced that its elevation to a term of law is going to be wholly satisfactory to His Majesty's Judges? I would beg His Majesty's Government to consider on Committee stage whether some more elegant and more precise term could not be substituted. I gather that it is the hope of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, to substitute for "organisations" the simple phrase "the Council of Europe" and to make this Bill apply to the matter in hand rather than to give the omnibus powers which the Government are seeking.
I perfectly understand that if we grant these powers any extension of diplomatic privileges will have to be made by Order in Council, and, of course, those Orders in Council will be capable of being challenged in either House. But I think it will be very difficult and embarrassing for us to challenge such Orders in Council. They will arise as a result of treaties made by the Government with foreign nations. I suggest to Lord Henderson that it will greatly strengthen the hands of His Majesty's representatives abroad if those representatives are able to point out that this or that new treaty will require an Act of Parliament and not merely an Order in Council; I am quite sure that our Foreign Service realises the dangers of an indefinite extension of diplomatic privileges.
Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that if I criticise the great extension in the number of persons entitled to receive diplomatic privileges and immunities, I am no foe to the improvement of international relations. I would claim that international relations are rather jeopardised by an indefinite increase in the numbers of persons entitled to diplomatic immunity. Is it not obvious that the more persons there are entitled to such privileges, the more vulnerable those privileges become? Is it not the fact that the high repute borne by diplomatists
1066
arises largely from the fact that they are a carefully selected class and are the best representatives of their nations, and that that high status cannot easily be retained if the class is extended?
And how much it has been extended! Figures were given in another place recently of the present size of the Corps Diplomatique in London. If they are wrong, I am sure His Majesty's Government will be happy to correct them. Those figures stated that the Corps Diplomatique in London now numbers 1,795 persons. Let me put those figures in a form which will be readily comprehensible to your Lordships: two infantry battalions plus an attached company. And now we are to extend this immunity further, not only to the representatives mentioned in the Bill but to their official staffs. I do not think Lord Henderson gave us much light on what was meant by "official staff" or how that term might be construed. It is capable, I suppose, of a fairly wide construction. It is mentioned in the General Agreement for the Council of Europe that the spouses and dependent relatives of the persons entitled to immunity will also receive certain minor immunities on their own. I am beginning to wonder whether the Corps Diplomatique is not rapidly increasing to brigade strength, and whether the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps will not soon be rising to the rank of Field-Marshal. As Lord Strabolgi has said, we have seen a great increase in the diplomatic contacts among nations between the two wars. I am entirely in favour of the fruitful multiplication of such contacts, but I am doubtful whether the entrusting of them increasingly to a privileged class exempt from so many of the provisions of the ordinary law is really likely to increase the real contact between nations which we wish to see. I humbly submit that diplomatists would be performing an even more useful function if, at any rate in some respects, some of them were subjected to the ordinary hardships which all other mortals have to endure.
5.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I do not in the least complain of the careful and critical examination to which this Bill has been subjected. I think it right and proper that the House should consider

1067
most carefully any question of the extension of diplomatic immunity. We pride ourselves, rightly I hope, on living under the rule of law, and of course it is true, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, that when immunity is granted to A it necessarily results in a deprivation of rights to B and C. Therefore, the House is fully justified in looking carefully at the matter to see whether there are, in the public interest, corresponding advantages which make it desirable to do that which at first sight we may think should not be done.
Here let me say with regard to the Corps Diplomatique, that one reason why we are more ready to extend their privileges is that we have been exceedingly fortunate in the past in the members of the Corps and in the traditions which they have maintained and have so worthily upheld. We know that in practice the difficulties which one might fear would arise, never do arise, or arise very infrequently. As we all know, where, for instance, a member of the Corps does get himself involved in some unfortunate accident with a car, or something of that nature, he always behaves with the utmost generosity; so that, in fact, trouble has been avoided. Still, I quite agree that in spite of that fact we must examine this matter carefully.
I have had one very unfair advantage over the rest of your Lordships: I have seen the Consolidation Bill in its draft and somewhat embryonic form. I want your Lordships to realise that the real object of this Bill is to do what we cannot do in a Consolidation Bill—for we cannot introduce any major Amendment in it at all—that is, to get our tackle all in order so that we can forth-with proceed to prepare our Consolidation Bill. May I remove one misapprehension? It is not quite right to say that our intention in introducing this Bill is merely to deal with the immediate problem of the Council of Europe. Perhaps that is the occasion for the Bill and, in one sense, it may therefore be said to be the object of the Bill; but whilst we are introducing a Bill to deal with that matter, we have thought it right to use phraseology which is wide enough to enable us, when we come to our Consolidation Bill, to deal, amongst
1068
other matters, with the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, indicated with regard to the International Labour Organisation. Therefore, although it is true to say that the matter of the Council of Europe was the occasion for the Bill, we have quite deliberately drafted it in somewhat wider phraseology for the reason I have indicated.
The Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that he intended to
move in committee needs to be clearly understood. He is suggesting that there should be an Amendment—which really arose out of discussions in another place and a promise that was given there—limiting the scope of these Orders in Council. Let me say what the machinery is for the Act of 1944, which was amended by the Act of 1946 and which is now to be further amended. The machinery is this. You set out in a Bill, which becomes an Act of Parliament, a list of the immunities which you may give; and then, when a particular organisation is set up and you come to the conclusion that that organisation is one which ought to have a certain immunity granted to it, you then by Order in Council declare which of the immunities specified in the Act of Parliament are to be granted to that particular organisation.
May I now answer a question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh? It would really be quite intolerable if there had to be a Bill each time a new organisation was set up. Do your Lordships know how many organisations there are which have these powers? There are nine to-day, each of which has its appropriate Order in Council, conferring in each case whatever immunity was thought appropriate. Of course, Parliament has control over the matter by means of a Resolution, although it is quite true that a negative Resolution is required. I could understand the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh—though I do not want to put ideas into his head—if he put forward the argument that there ought to be an affirmative Resolution. But to say that in each case a separate Bill must be introduced would be, I suggest, an intolerable way of dealing with the matter. Not only are there nine such organisations to-day, but there have been a further nine in the past which have now passed away, each one of which

1069
had its appropriate Order in Council. The course that we are proposing to follow is first to pass this Bill; then we shall introduce a Consolidation Bill to make the whole question simpler, for I agree that it is very complicated to-day; and then we shall have an Order in Council which will set out what the powers are to be in relation to the Council of Europe. Of course, that Order in Council will be subject to a negative Resolution (the form of Resolution which, frankly, I prefer) by which this House can say that a certain immunity must not be granted. This, I believe, is the right way to deal with the matter.
Your Lordships will remember that the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is to the effect that each Order in Council is to be limited in two respects. First of all, it cannot, of course, go beyond the phraseology of the Act of Parliament: it cannot confer any powers save those scheduled in the Act. Secondly, the Amendment proposes that the Order in Council shall not grant any immunity other than those which are called for by the international agreement itself. For instance, let me consider what would be the effect on the Council of Europe of the Amendment if it were passed. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, asked a question about income tax. If I understand it aright, the Order in Council could not grant any concession with regard to income tax, because the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe (which is the international agreement to which we have been referring) does not itself contain any concessions in regard to income tax. I think I am right in saying also that the General Agreement does not contain any concessions for the staff of the Assembly. That being so, if we pass our Amendment, it would be impossible for the Order in Council to confer any immunities with regard to income tax or any immunities upon the staff of the Assembly. In that respect, I hope I have made the matter clear.
May I say one other thing to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, whilst I have it in mind? He asked me about the phrase "the organs of an organisation." He said he had heard it was a term of art. I do not know what sort of art. It is very modernistic, undoubtedly. I think it is about the clumsiest phrase I have ever had the misfortune
1070
to read. But it is the fact that if you read Oppenheim, the great authority on International Law, you will find that the word "organ" is frequently used. If I may venture to say so, it is one of those rather vague words which are so dear to the heart of the international and Continental lawyer, and it may be that Lord Iddesleigh can act as the arbiter elegantiae in this matter and can find a less clumsy phrase than that. If he will be good enough to co-operate with me and give me his ideas, I will see what I can do to turn them into something nearer to the English language.
With regard to reciprocity, of course, the question becomes perfectly plain when you look at the Consolidating Bill. I know where Lord Simon fell into a temporary error about it on this Bill; I did myself until my attention was drawn to the point. It is a fact that the provision in the 1944 Act will continue, and will apply and extend over the whole field. As Lord Maugham said, it may be necessary to look at the wording of the section to see whether it is quite appropriate. It is the fact that the General Agreement itself does not come into force until seven Governments have ratified, and of course no Order in Council can take effect until they have ratified.
Lord Simon asked me whether there would be adequate time to consider this matter before the Committee stage. The Leader of the House, to whom I referred his question, said that I could certainly give him a reassurance on that point. Indeed, I should very much welcome it myself, because I think we all want to do the same thing here, and we all think that it is necessary, as it is a very difficult question, to look at the language with care, and to see that we do not do more than we have to do.
Finally, I was asked some questions about Articles 13, 14 and 15 of the General Agreement. It is very easy to criticise other people's drafts, but I know how difficult it is for a body of international lawyers, looking at things from very different angles, to arrive at a formula, and I must say that the language is not at all happy. On the face of it, Article 14 contains several ambiguities; but I am told that it is plainly understood by everybody to mean that it applies only to acts done by representatives

1071
in the exercise of their functions; and the phrase about arrest and legal proceedings applies, and applies only, to words spoken by representatives in the exercise of their functions. That, at any rate, is what is meant, although I agree on the construction of the words there are two possible meanings, one of which is very different from that.
We have to consider Article 15. I suppose it is possible that during the session of the Consultative Assembly, or perhaps during the period of time that he travels to the Consultative Assembly, a representative might be accused of a crime—it might be murder. It might be that a member of the Consultative Assembly whilst in England during the session of the Assembly is accused of a murder. It might be that he has not been found committing it; a long investigation might have been necessary to track him down. Well, the meaning of Article 15, as I read it, is that such a man would be entitled to say that he is exempt from arrest. That is a fact; there is no getting away from it, as I read these words. Of course, the same applies to every diplomat, and although you get into all sorts of theoretical difficulties about these things, in fact, diplomats do not go about murdering people. If they did, we should very quickly devise some method of coping with them. But to my mind it is quite idle to deny that that is the plain effect of the words of Article 15.
Now that, it seems to me, is a matter which we must consider from the point of view of the balance of convenience. Shall we or shall we not, with our eyes open, take the risk that that sort of thing may happen in order that we may get greater international co-operation? On the whole, I think the risk is a slender one and I think international co-operation is a vitally important matter, particularly, if I may say so, in the Council of Europe. I am one of those who firmly believe that the Council of Europe has a great work to do, and that, in view of the dangers which confront it, the sooner that Europe gets together the better for all of us. Therefore, on the balance of convenience I say quite frankly, that it is a risk that I am prepared to run. I shall be very grateful if any of your Lordships who have ideas about this Bill will take an opportunity of seeing me between now and the Committee stage. I will see that
1072
there is ample time allowed for consideration of these matters, and I do not doubt that together we shall be able to produce the best Bill which the circumstances permit.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL [H.L.]
5.36 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 Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Discharge and variation of maintenance orders registered in summary or sheriff courts]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (1) to insert as a new subsection:
"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a court in any part of the United Kingdom may take notice of the law in force in any other part of the United Kingdom."
The noble and learned Viscount said: In rising to move this Amendment may I say that I am sorry my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman is unable to be here because, as the Committee know, he has been seriously ill. I am glad to say that he is on the mend, and he has asked me to say that he wholeheartedly supports this Bill. Those of us who know him realise the vast experience and knowledge that he has of this matter.
This particular Amendment is supplemental to subsection (1) of Clause 22, which gives a summary or sheriff court in which a maintenance order is registered for enforcement under Part II of the Bill power to make a variation in the amount payable under the order. Briefly stated, the principle of Part II is that, when an order has been made in a court of one part of the United Kingdom and the defendant is, at the time when enforcement is sought, in another part of the United Kingdom, the order may be registered in the court of the other part of the

1073
United Kingdom having jurisdiction over the defendant and enforced by that
court. As regards the discharge and variation of orders so registered, the Bill provides that in general these matters shall be dealt with, not by the court in which the order is registered but by the court which made the order. But an exception has been made with regard to the variation of amount in summary and sheriff courts, since experience has shown that this is so closely connected with enforcement that the court which enforces the order (that is the court in which it is registered) should have power to vary it as to amount.
Under subsection (1) of Clause 22 this power is subject to the restriction that no such variation shall impose on the person liable to make payments a liability to make payments in excess of the maximum rate, if any, authorised by the law for the time being in force in the part of the United Kingdom in which the order was made. In Scotland there is no legal maximum in the amount that may be ordered by a sheriff court, but there are maxima in the amounts that may be ordered by a summary court in England and Northern Ireland. For example, in wife-maintenance orders a summary court in England may award up to five pounds a week for the wife and up to thirty shillings for each child, but no more.
This Amendment enables the court in which the order is registered and which is making a variation in amount to take judicial notice of these maximum rates. The Amendment overcomes the difficulty that as the maxima are matters of foreign law they would otherwise have to be proved as matters of fact by expert witnesses. These particular matters are not in the least likely to be the subject of controversy, and the adduction of the evidence of practitioners of the country in which the order was made before the court in which the order is registered, which would be necessary in order to prove them as questions of foreign law, would give rise to inconvenience and expense such as the importance of the matter hardly justifies. It would, for example, be rather ridiculous to call an expert in English law in a Scottish court to prove to a Scottish judge, what he knows quite well, that there are maxima in England—such as that limiting payment to £5 per week in the case of a
1074
deserted wife. That is the object of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules, agreed to.
House resumed.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL
5.43 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

QUALITY OF FLOUR
5.44 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE rose to call attention to the present unsatisfactory quality of flour used for bread-making; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have no personal interest in this Motion which I have put down. There is no Party matter attached to it, and when I put down the Motion I was not aware of the strong feeling that existed at the time among bakers and millers. My approach was purely that of the consumer. Why do I claim that flour to-day is unsatisfactory? It produces a dirty-coloured bread with bad keeping quality; its taste is not good; it is indigestible and it requires adulteration for technical reasons. What is the reason for this? The answer is that the extraction rate is too high. As your Lordships are aware, the extraction rate is that percentage of the wheat seed which is ground into flour. The whole balance goes into animal feeding stuffs, and there is no waste. In the matter of this extraction rate, there is a very ancient controversy. There is a school of thought which says that in order to be properly nourished man should have a very high extraction rate of flour. There is another school of thought which says: Why fill flour with indigestible husks when the nourishing vitamins, and so on, can be obtained in other ways? Probably the truth lies somewhere between the two. If man depends almost entirely on bread for his nourishment, then his bread should be made of flour of a high extraction rate, whereas if he

1075
has a more generous diet he can afford to have a lower extraction rate.
To-day, judging from some of the names of noble Lords who are going to speak in this debate, I anticipate that there may be some slight controversy in this matter. I suspect that certain noble Lords may attribute their fine physique, their health, and even, possibly, their longevity, to the particular nature of the bread which they patronise. I suggest that there may be another reason and I quote the words of Lord Horder as published in the Sunday Times in 1945. He said:
"Take care of the mixed diet and the vitamins will take care of themselves."
No truer estimate of the situation has ever been made. It is possible that noble Lords will cite the case of those sprightly ancients of the Balkans who achieve a ripe old age of about 130 on black bread. The answer upon that point is that they eat nothing but bread and therefore they have to have it black. In any case, any person who is tough enough to survive the vicissitudes of life in a Balkan village up to the age of about 70 may well go on to better things. I hope noble Lords who are good democrats at heart will not approach this matter from a totalitarian angle. By all means let the people have access to those particular elixirs which they recommend, but let their methods be those of persuasion and not of totalitaria. Let the people chose their own food.
Before the war we had an extraction rate of about 70 to 72 per cent., producing a white bread which was very acceptable to the people. In the war, it was found that shipping was saved by increasing the extraction rate and importing animal products, bacon and eggs, separately; so in March, 1942, the rate was put up to 85 per cent. In December, 1944, it was reduced to 80 per cent., probably as a result of improved milling technique. In 1945 a strong committee was set up, and they considered the question of the post-war loaf. Lord Horder was a member of that committee. As I read their findings, they were to the effect that the committee recommended that there should be a specification for flour and that the specification they recommended could be produced by an 80 per cent. extraction rate, owing largely to the fact that in the war years there
1076
had been great advances in the technique of milling and the 80 per cent. rate was able to attract into the flour elements which previously required a higher rate. They further considered that it was possible that a lower extraction rate would be nutritionally satisfactory provided that it was fortified with the necessary vitamins and so on. The medical members of the committee were not prepared to recommend a fortified flour without having the results of further experience and experiments. I hope that the noble Viscount who is going to reply at the end of the debate will be able to tell us whether there have been such experiments. In May, 1946, the extraction rate was put up to 90 per cent. as the result of a world wheat shortage, and that, of course, had a very unfortunate effect on the animal feeding stuffs position. In September of the same year, however, it was reduced to 85 per cent., and it has remained at that level ever since.
Now a word about adulterants, or rather the chief adulterant. With the higher extraction rate there is more of a certain substance known as phytic acid in the flour, and to set off this phytic acid it is necessary to insert in the bread some chalk-like substance. We are assured that this is harmless to human beings, but there are many people who suffer from diseases which take the form of a deposit of chalk in various parts of their anatomy, and in spite of the assurances of science they do not view with any great delight the presence of chalk in their bread. It is further thought that salt is going to be iodised. Salt is an important ingredient of bread, and people who happen to be allergic to iodine will have this further disquiet in their minds, notwithstanding the assurance of medical science. At any rate, the result of this high extraction rate is an unsatisfactory flour, and I suggest that the time has arisen when we ought to revert to an 80 per cent. extraction rate and, indeed, should consider a lower rate in the light of any experiments that have taken place in regard to fortification.
What advantages should we get from a reduction in the extraction rate? We should get a better colour, a better keeping power, a better taste, a greater digestibility, and a lighter, bulkier loaf; and we should have less of this chalk added. We should be coming nearer to

1077
what the general public have been accustomed to and like. What stands in the way? I believe the only thing that stands in the way is dollars, Canada being our residual source of wheat. Let us consider for a moment whether quite so many dollars as one might imagine are involved. The provision of the same weight of flour at the lower extraction rate, I suggest, would require about 900 tons of wheat more a day. In a year that would cost us in the neighbourhood of £9,000,000 worth of Canadian dollars. But are we sure that the same weight of flour would be required? If the same weight were required, we should need these extra dollars but we should be able to compensate for that by getting an extra 900 tons a day of animal feeding stuffs.
But, as I say, our loaf would be bulkier and the same number of slices would weigh less. And since only about half the wheat removed by that extra 5 per cent. extraction is digested by the human interior the 80 per cent. loaf would have more calories a pound. If everybody ate the same number of slices as before, or sought only the same nourishment as before, we should not require anything like the full extra quantity of 900 tons, but only something between 400 and 500 tons, representing £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 worth of Canadian dollars a year. But do we want even that? Our pre-war consumption of flour was in the neighbourhood of 80,000 tons a week. Nowadays, it has been running in the neighbourhood of 100,000 tons a week. Of course, we have a slightly larger population, and we have a slightly smaller choice of protein foods, but I am convinced that a great deal of this extra bread goes into the dustbin. Everybody knows that there is a tremendous waste of bread going on all the time, largely because the present loaf is a bad keeping loaf. I suggest that if more effort were made to bring this matter home to the people we might well save those extra dollars. I have seen posters all over the country with all sorts of slogans, relevant and irrelevant, but I have never seen one saying "Bread costs dollars. Don't waste it." The answer to the question, "How many extra dollars should we need?" is that nobody knows. Marshall Aid has been given to us to allow us room to manœuvre. The dollar crisis is not with us to-day; it will come in 1952. This Aid is to enable us to manœuvre so that we can find out the
1078
most economic methods of spending dollars. Between now and 1952 we have the time and opportunity for experiment.
Here is another argument. To-day the rôle of Joseph is a dual one. The supply of wheat is arranged by international agreement between the producing countries and the consuming countries. It is the business of the producers to store their surpluses. We are the largest importer, and it is to our interest to keep our claim on the pool as large as possible in case there is a shortage. In 1946 Mr. Strachey rather relinquished our position. If he has not sold the pass, I think our advantage to-day lies in making the biggest claim we possibly can on the pool while wheat is in comparatively plentiful supply. It is like the wise business man who in good time exercises his overdraft facilities so that they will still be there when times become bad. In my humble opinion, the purchase of coarse grains in the world market is going to be difficult. It will be difficult to persuade people to grow them to export regularly. Would it not be to our advantage to make a habit of buying up as much as possible for animal feeding, along with our human bread grains? Then, when times get bad and the needs of humans are paramount, we may sill continue to get our animal feeding stuffs; whereas, if we did not do it that way, when it became difficult to buy coarse grains our animals would suffer.
At the moment, we are spending dollars on wheat and we are not getting the best value for our money. We are not using the wheat to the best advantage. A certain percentage is being fed to human beings who cannot digest it, whereas that same proportion fed to animals would be satisfactory to them. An 80 per cent. extraction rate would use this wheat to better advantage. It would produce a better loaf and a sufficient number of vitamins to meet the requirements laid down by the Committee that sat in 1945. Those who do not like a lower extraction
rate, some 10 per cent. of the population, can always buy brown bread in the
shops, or do without. The 90 per cent. who want the whitest possible loaf would be able to buy what they always liked. And farmers would benefit by the additional animal feeding stuffs. The only stumbling block I can see is the question of dollars—and that is quite an unknown factor.

1079
The advantages seem to me so obvious that I suggest the time has arrived when we ought to take a little risk and see. We should give the consumer the better loaf for which he has asked for so many years. I beg to move for Papers.
6.0 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for raising a subject of great importance, and raising it in such a thoughtful and constructive manner. It is obvious that any proposal put before Parliament for an increase of dollar expenditure has to be examined carefully. I am sure we should all agree that the noble Lord, in stating his case, has done so with great moderation and attention to the difficulties. There are a number of your Lordships who desire to speak, and it seems to me it would be better for those of us who are venturing to address your Lordships to restrict ourselves to the particular points on which we feel we have the best contribution to make. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not roam over the whole subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will deal with the question of dollars, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has already dealt with the medical and nutritional side. I should like for a moment to deal with the matter from the point of view of what the farmer could contribute to the food supplies of this country if the step the noble Lord has proposed were taken. Before doing so, I would make this one point. What the noble Lord has said about the bad keeping quality of bread throws some light on a point that has been worrying me for some time. Ever since I started farming—I was going to say some twenty years ago, but I am afraid we are all getting older—some thirty years ago, I have had a fairly considerable number of pigs. Up to quite recently we have, as many pig breeders are doing, been making great use of swill from the towns, both processed and otherwise. It has always puzzled me why there was such a tremendous amount of bread in that swill. Are we sure that one of the reasons is not that the bread that we are having to-day is of such had keeping quality that inevitably a large proportion of it gets wasted and thrown away?
1080
In speaking on this question from the farmers' point of view, let me make it clear that the farming community are not asking for anything to be done on this subject. They are anxious to be dollar savers, not dollar users. It is true that if something is done it will ease their task. Therefore, I want to speak to your Lordships, not in the form of making a plea on behalf of the farmer but of informing you of the contribution the farming community feels that it could make if it were given a larger supply of offals. Your Lordships will agree that this matter is of immense importance from every point of view. After all, the greatest shortage in the feeding of the nation to-day is in the proteins that are derived from such products as meat and eggs. Perhaps I may mention something even more important than proteins—namely, the palatability and interest of the diet that the people of this country do or do not enjoy at present. I see in the House to-day noble Lords of the medical fraternity, and I believe they will agree with me that food is not only a matter of proteins and calories but that a great deal of importance is to be attached to the interest and variety of the diet.
If you take one ton of offals—middlings, bran and so on—you can assume that something like three to three and a half hundredweight of bacon can be produced from it, or 240 dozen eggs. I need not stress to your Lordships that those are theoretical figures, in the sense that no one in his right senses ever feeds a pure ration to an animal—it is always mixed. But in this case that strengthens the point I am going to make, because the merit of having these extra offals is not merely that it gives us an extra quantity of feeding stuffs but it enables us, by its consistency and by its protein content, which is double what is in whole grain, to make better use of those other feeding stuffs that we are already feeding to our pigs and chickens. Therefore, it enables us to make a more efficient use (the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, is here, and I know that he will agree with me) of the rest of the diet by getting a properly balanced ration. But it has more value than that. Farmers are frequently lectured on the desirability of producing and marketing their products in a better state. There is no question that with this more efficient ration it would be possible to produce a very much

1081
better quality of bacon, and something more palatable to the people, as compared with the foreign bacon which we are now importing.
There is the further point of price. At the present moment the price of maize meal—a low-protein food—is in the neighbourhood of £26 to £27 a ton. Wheat offals, which contain double the protein can be bought for approximately £19 a ton. That should definitely lead to the possibility of some price reduction in what is produced at home. Incidentally, are we really so sure of our supplies of maize? Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, can tell us something of the position with regard to the Argentine crop. After all, Argentine is one of our main sources for the supply of maize. My information is that it is doubtful whether we shall receive any appreciable amount of maize from the Argentine this year.
I have ventured to give your Lordships a figure based on what can be produced from one ton of offals. One would like to apply that to the national picture, but it is difficult to do so, since there are so many variable factors. For instance, there is one factor about which we have only a limited amount of information—namely, the proportion of our cereals that we are importing to-day in the form of grain and the proportion in the form of flour. Up to a couple of years ago the tendency undoubtedly was to import more and more of our cereals in the form of flour instead of grain, leaving behind the offals. Now, I am glad to say, the tendency is the other way. But if we assume for a moment a return to the pre-war situation—it is only an assumption, but it helps to present a picture—then we can say that we might, on a 72 per cent. extraction rate, produce 166,000 tons more bacon per year, or 238,000,000 dozen eggs. In order to give your Lordships some idea what that means, I can tell you that it means virtually doubling the present ration of bacon or eggs. Of course, we cannot claim that anything the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is suggesting is likely to have that effect, because he is not asking for a return to 72 per cent. He is asking for a return to 80 per cent. from 85 per cent., which is only just over one-third of a return to pre-war.
There are other circumstances which are also different, and therefore if we returned to an 80 per cent. extraction it
1082
would give us something between a 25 and 30 per cent. improvement in our ration of bacon or eggs. I am giving these figures in terms of bacon and eggs, because at the moment we are not worrying so much about the production of milk. The actual figures to-day of possible increased production of bacon or eggs arising from the request which is being made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, should be in the neighbourhood of 60,000 tons of pig-meat or 80,000,000 dozen eggs. When we mention eggs, we should realise that we are not making the most of our case, because the laying life of the hen does not go on for ever, and then it becomes a bird fit for slaughter and to eat. My calculations are not taking that into account. Purely on my own figures I work it out that it amounts to rations for 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 people, either of bacon or of eggs, for a whole year at the present rate.
I think your Lordships will agree that this is an important consideration. After all, our pig population is still very heavily down. We had about 4,500,000 pigs before the war, and we have well under 3,000,000 to-day. There is no question that certainly the quickest way of increasing our meat and fat ration would be by increasing our pig population. There is another advantage. I should certainly hope to see any increase in feeding stuffs rations allocated with in even greater degree of favouritism than it is to-day to the small farmer. Before the war, the economy of countless small farms in this country was based on cows which the husband managed, and pigs and chickens which his wife and children managed. There is a great deal of under-employment on these farms because there is not sufficient for the women and children to do without pigs and chickens to look after. Therefore, a special allocation of feeding stuffs to the small farms would lead to a considerable increase of food for the country without any call on manpower whatsoever.
Surely these are factors for the Government to weigh. I know that there are points of great importance that they can advance on the other side. They can argue, for instance, that our supplies of coarse grain from both Argentine and Russia—our two main suppliers—are in rather doubtful hands. They can say that at any time America and Canada might have a drought, and that that

1083
would revolutionise the whole feeding stuff position; that we should have done something unwise in building up our livestock population too high, since we are dependent upon these admittedly insecure sources of food. I know that can be argued, and personally I feel that factors such as these must be borne in mind. Finally, I say this to the noble Viscount who is to reply. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has put before us a very moderate demand, but to all noble Lords in the House there must seem to be an extremely strong case on health grounds, on nutritional grounds and on grounds of food production. I think the figures which other noble Lords are going to produce, even on the doubtfulness of some of the dollar arguments, call for an undertaking from the Government that they will re-examine the whole question. I do not think we can ask the noble Viscount to give us a definite reply to-day. I am quite sure that he will not. Personally, however, I should be satisfied—and I think many other noble Lords would be satisfied—if the noble Viscount would say that in the light of new conditions the Government are prepared to re-examine the whole position and see whether they cannot now make this very small concession for which the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is asking.
6.18 p.m.
LORD PALMER: My Lords, I have seen the courtesy which prevails in this House, and especially is this courtesy displayed towards one speaking for the first time. I therefore claim your kind indulgence to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has called attention to the present unsatisfactory quality of flour used for bread-making, and I hope that it may not be out of order or inopportune to make a few remarks as to the quality of flour that is now used in biscuit-making. Incidentally, it may be of interest to your Lordships to know—although I expect many of you are aware of it—that whereas the flour which is used in bread-making is milled from hard wheat, the flour that is most suitable and is used in biscuit-making is milled from soft wheat. That is done for this reason. The large majority of the flour which is used in biscuit-making is milled from home-grown wheat and, except for certain specialities, very little imported flour is used.
1084
As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said, the question of the rate of flour extraction is of great importance to the bread-making industry, and I submit that it is equally important to the biscuit-making industry, although of course the amount of flour used in biscuit-making is infinitesimal compared to that used for bread. But bread and biscuits can, I think, be regarded as alternative diets; and while pleading for an improvement in the palatability and attractiveness of bread, I hold that a similar case can be made out for biscuits. In addition, biscuits have to bear a longer shelf life than any other baked product, and for this reason the ingredients selected for biscuit-making have to be very carefully selected—and that, of course, applies more to flour than to anything else, since it is the principal biscuit-making ingredient. I therefore endorse all that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said about the unsatisfactory quality of the flour that we are using to-day in biscuit-making. Biscuits occupy a not insignificant position in view of the importance of the export trade; and it is notable that, for the overseas trade, the Ministry of Food provide us with flour of 72 per cent. extraction—because, of course, with an 85 per cent. extraction it would be impossible to compete with biscuits made overseas of a 72 per cent. extraction. The reason is not far to seek, if the attractiveness of the flavours of the two products are compared.
In the few comments which I have to make about this 85 per cent. extraction flour I shall confine myself to quoting facts indicating why, owing to the large amount of wheat offal contained therein, it is so unsatisfactory for biscuit-making. The Ministry of Food are aware of all these facts, but we are not certain that they still realise the adverse effects which accrue from using this
flour. Flour of an 85 per cent. extraction deteriorates in storage; the baking behaviour is erratic; and there is an irregularity of product, and wastage, as your Lordships can well imagine. Therefore, from the point of view of the manufacturer this flour is very unsatisfactory. From the point of view of the consumer it is equally unsatisfactory, because, as I have said, the biscuit deteriorates in storage and acquires a musty flavour which is accentuated as the life of the biscuit goes on. Moreover, it naturally shortens the shelf life of the

1085
biscuit. Therefore, from our point of view, it is thoroughly unsatisfactory. One of the great merits of biscuits, of course, is their food value, but owing to this 85 per cent. extraction flour their shelf life is largely impoverished. I need not add to these examples to show that this high-extraction flour is unsuitable material for the manufacture of high-class biscuits.
I want to make one final point. To have two flours of a different extraction in a factory creates enormous difficulty. It means that there is a change-over every time from the home to the overseas product, and that means processes which are uneconomical. It is common knowledge that the meticulous standard of purity required in goods intended for the United States calls for a particularly hygienic standard of flour and other ingredients. We get this improved hygienic standard of flour but it is a fact that when goods for the home market have been made on a machine, very great precautions have to be taken in order to clean that machine so thoroughly that goods made for the United States can pass the high standard required. If these precautions were not taken, there would not be a hope of producing the high standard of goods required for the United States. As I have said, the Ministry of Food are aware of these things, and we now have an appeal before them to permit us to use 72 per cent. extraction flour all round. Only thus can a more attractive and better-keeping article be produced, and the many difficulties of wastage overcome. I have great pleasure in supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said.
6.26 p.m.
LORD HORDER: My Lords, I am sure I voice your view when I offer congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for the contribution he has made to this debate in his first address in your Lordships' House. I may add the hope—which, again, I feel sure your Lordships will share—that we shall benefit in the future from the expert experience that the noble Lord has had in his business career. We are all grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for his moderation in language and in tone and for the light vein which ran through his speech. I think it was my friend and colleague Sir Jack Drummond who commented once upon the sad fact that:
"There is something … about food and especially about bread … that seems to
1086
arouse the worst traits in those who become interested in putting their views before the public. In few other controversies has there been more bias, prejudice and ignorance reflected in public statements. It is scarcely surprising that the man in street is heartily sick of the whole business."
I have always tried to approach this subject in as unbiased and objective a manner as possible.
My own view about the matter which we are discussing to-day is a very simple one. I have expressed it more than once. In my estimation, there should be made easily available for every citizen the best bread that modern milling and baking can produce. What do I mean by the "best bread"? I mean a bread that contains a maximum amount of essential nutrients compatible with acceptability in respect of taste, colour, texture and digestibility. As to digestibility, my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson was remaining here in order to try to convince any of your Lordships who might be in a state of doubt that he has never met a case of intestinal obstruction arising from eating bread, of however high an extraction. We went into this matter during the war, and came to the conclusion that, provided a patient could eat bread at all, he could eat and digest the national loaf—that is, the 85 per cent. extraction loaf—equally as well as the pre-war loaf. I hold no brief for the person who has "views," "ideas" or "prejudices." There are some people who have an afflatus which enables them to eat anything. As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, says, with very little logic in their argument they attribute their state of good health or longevity—and as to the former, one finds sometimes that they are not so fit as they think they are—to the bread they eat.
As I say, I hold no brief for the person whose soul rather than body is what determines the bread that he eats or likes, but this question of acceptability is an important one. It has been touched upon more than once to-day. It is important for two reasons. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, touched upon both
reasons. The first reason is that, if bread is acceptable, you digest it better and you eat more of it. That is a point to which I shall return in a moment. The second reason for the importance of bread being acceptable (I am using that word in the psychological sense) is that less of it is

1087
wasted. The chief reason for wasting bread is that the person who throws it into the noble Earl's pig-swill does not like it. Therefore, any quality in the loaf which induces the nation as a whole to eat more bread, provided this quality is not attained at the sacrifice of essential nutrients, is to be encouraged.
The idea that bread is just a starchy food is a fallacy. Bread is a very good and very cheap source of protein as well as of other essential nutrients. It is, and it deserves to be, the "staff of life." There are millions of people in this country who depend on it as their main source of nutrition. In an earlier debate even than the last debate—the last debate on this matter was in October, 1945, but there was an earlier debate on February 28, 1945–I pleaded that there should be a specification in regard to what was called the "national loaf," so that the public might know what it was eating and why—by which I mean so that it could be assured that the nutritional value of the loaf was adequate. This idea of a specification was acted upon. Reference has already
been made to the inter-Departmental Committee set up by the noble Lord, Lord
Llewellin, who was then Minister of Food. The Committee was chaired by Sir Henry
French. The object of the conference was to assist the Departments concerned—Health, Food, Supply and, I think, one or two other Departments—in advising Ministers concerned as to any regulations which might be made when war control ceased. The main conclusion which we reached at that conference was that regulations should provide that flour contained minima amounts of three "token" nutrients—namely vitamin B1, nicotinic acid and iron. These were taken as the "token" nutrients because they could be assayed (that is, analysed), and therefore a definite specification as to the nutritional value of any bread, whatever its extraction, could be determined.
The conference dealt with other matters, such as the relative value of a low extraction rate with enrichment as against a high extraction rate without enrichment. I think the noble Lord commented on that and said that no decision was arrived at. That is correct: no decision was arrived at. The conclusion that no decision could be arrived at was
1088
very wise, because knowledge of those matters at that time was inadequate to justify a decision. That point is important in relation to the plea I am going to make presently—namely, that this conference should be convened again so that we may pool the knowledge that has accumulated in the meantime. It is so important that I will crave your Lordships' permission to read a paragraph from the Report which was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, to Parliament in November, 1945. It reads as follows:
"The advantage of natural over reinforced foods is something about which most nutritionists in the United Kingdom are agreed. The high standard of health which has been maintained in this country throughout the war, as already indicated, is believed to be attributable at least in part to this policy and to the consumption of high-extraction flour in which the vitamins necessary for adequate nutrition have been retained. It has yet to be shown that flour reinforced with added vitamins would produce equally good results."
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment? I am quite in agreement with that. I only want to say that I did not actually present the Report to Parliament—it was presented by my successor—because the conference did not report whilst I was still Minister of Food.
LORD HORDER: My Lords, I should like to give the credit to the man who originated the conference rather than to the man who presented the Report. The level of extraction recommended by the conference was 80 per cent., which was the level of extraction actually in existence at the time of its deliberations. But no step was taken to initiate policy on the lines of the committee's recommendations because, as your Lordships will remember, not only were the times not ripe for such a policy, but the world food condition became worsened to such an extent that the then extraction rate of 80 per cent. went up to 85 per cent.—and even, for a short time, to 90 per. cent. Shipping space was much restricted by the destruction of shipping and was badly required for other purposes. But now the point arises: Why should not we in this country implement the recommendations of that committee and pass from 85 per cent. to 80 per cent., a level which gives a more acceptable loaf

1089
and adequate nutritional value? I know nothing about the economic factors, and I must dissociate myself from that part of the question, although I realise that it is an extremely important factor, but, speaking as I can only speak, from the angle of a nutritionist, in my judgment it is very desirable that this change should be made.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to utter a warning against attaching too rigid a significance to this question of the extraction rate of flour when assessing the nutritive value of bread. The Post-War Conference urged that further research should be undertaken in certain directions. Professor McCance and Doctor Widdowson, who had already made several important investigations in the field of nutrition, have recently undertaken tests on behalf of the Medical Research Council with a large number of German schoolchildren, and with somewhat surprising, results. Lest anyone hastily concludes that these experiments were performed on German children because they could not be performed on English children, I would make two comments: first that the conditions under which the German children were living were highly adaptable to an experiment of this sort; and the second, the German children were very much better after the experiment than they were before.
The tests, which extended over some months, were of this character. One group of children were fed with bread of 100 per cent. extraction; another group with bread of 85 per cent. extraction—the extraction of the loaf we are eating to-day; a third group on pre-war white flour, 72 per cent., enriched with vitamins; and finally a group of children were fed on pre-war white bread, 72 per cent., without enrichment. Each child had as much bread of its particular type as it wished, and at the same time had its normal ration, which was very meagre—to wit, 2 ounces of cheese, 1½ ounces of fish, 2 ounces of fats, and from one-half to one pint of milk per week, according to the supply. When the experiment began the children were all about a year behind American children in weight, and one year and four months behind in height. After nine months the children had about caught up to the American standards.
1090
We now come to the extraordinary and unexpected result, as expressed in Dr. Widdowson's own words:
"There was no difference whatever between the five groups … the children on unenriched white bread did as well as the others."
But, my Lords, scientific experiments and research have to be watched very carefully. One must not take an experiment out of the conditions in which it is made, otherwise one's interpretation may be highly fallacious. Professor McCance and Doctor Widdowson, well aware of this possible fallacy, have definitely stated that the results apply only to the conditions in which the experiment took place. I quote these experiments to show what we already knew before—namely, that we are only on the threshold of this important science of nutrition. But our knowledge grows, and it is time that we re-surveyed this important matter of the bread of our people. I hope, therefore, that in replying on behalf of the Government the noble Viscount will be able to give us an assurance that the Post-War Conference will be convened again—and soon, I hope, also, that a full report on this important work by these British researchers (and, by the way, up till now there has been only incidental reference to these experiments in the Report of the Medical Research Council, under whose auspices the work was undertaken) will be placed before this Conference when it is convened again.
6.46 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I feel that I am an exhibit of the type of 100 per cent. loaf. I will deal with that a little later, but I should like to say first that I heartily agree with Lord Hawke when he says that the present loaf is abominable. With regard to colour, surely we cannot bother very much about the colour of our food. It is pleasant to have it looking pretty, but there is plenty of good food which one cannot describe as being pretty. Let us take gingerbread cake. That is not pretty to look at, yet it is very good. I do not pay much attention to colour. My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Horder has referred to the coming report. I am anxious to get the report on milling, and to see the results of the research that has now been going on for many years. Lord Horder referred to the debate which was initiated by myself in this House in February, 1945, and

1091
to the debate initiated by Lord Hankey in October of the same year. We have been waiting a long time to get this scientific report. I should like to hear from Lord Horder whether he would say definitely that what I will call natural vitamins are far better than synthetic vitamins. Perhaps he will say whether in his opinion they are one and the same thing.
LORD HORDER: We have no evidence by which I can say "Yes" or "No" to that question.
LORD TEVIOT: I see. Yet I think that that is very important. We have very great authorities who will say that it is not so much a question of what we do not know with regard to this matter as of what we do know definitely. Reinforcing or adding by synthetic means to a natural product, like the result of grinding wheat berry, seems to me to be an important subject that should be carefully studied, because, being rather a "crank" on the subject of nature, and nature's food being the one thing that produces health in us all, I cannot believe that synthetic food or any percentage of it is good for us in any shape or form.
My noble friend Lord Hawke referred to the fact that in high extractions there was a certain amount of phytic acid. My opinion with regard to that matter is that it is only an infinitesimal amount, and will not affect anybody. I agree with the noble Lord about the keeping of bread at present. It is just appalling, and it does not keep. But if he will allow me to present him with one of the loaves which I eat which are made at my home out of 100 per cent. extraction rate flour, he will find a great difference. Only yesterday morning, for breakfast, I finished off a loaf which was over a week old. It was excellent. I have no doubt that Lord Hankey, when he speaks, will be able to corroborate what I say in this connection. If I put my 100 per cent. extraction rate loaf into a tin for one night with a loaf such as the ordinary consumer eats, my bread is mouldy in the morning. There must be something bad about the other bread that it should have such an effect on the splendid bread I eat. My loaf is just rotten in the morning through contact with it—through sleeping with it as you might say.
1092
Before going further, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on his most instructive and excellent speech. I certainly hope that we shall hear him again in our debates. What he said was most informative. But I should like to ask him this question. It arises really out of a remark which Lord Hawke made to me in private conversation. He said, in effect, that eating whole-meal bread as I did. I would get a scratching effect and would consume a lot of roughage. To that I say it is simply a question of how finely the wheat is ground. My wheat is ground very finely indeed—just as fine as the wheat which is made into any white flour—therefore there is no roughage about it. I wonder if Lord Palmer can tell me whether the wheat he uses for biscuit-making is as finely ground as the wheat which is ground for white flour?
LORD PALMER: In the home trade we use exactly the same flour as that which Lord Hawke has for his bread—it is, I think, of 85 per cent. extraction rate. For overseas purposes flour of 72 per
cent. extraction rate is employed—that is the pre-war rate.
LORD TEVIOT: What I am trying to get at is whether the fine grinding of flour is or is not very material to biscuit-making. I imagine that it would be.
LORD PALMER: I should imagine that it would be.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask whether the wheat which Lord Teviot uses has to be hand-sown, and hand-reaped as well?
LORD TEVIOT: Oh, no; you buy any sack of wheat you like and you get it stone-ground as fine as it can be ground. That is just as fine as white flour. It can be stored for substantial periods, as people who use it to the benefit of their health well know, for its keeping propensities are very great. For years what I have done is this: I get one stone of it periodically from the same place and make the bread at home. The flour and the bread alike keep excellently. What Lord Horder has said with regard to the German children was most interesting. I gather that these children develop well, but a question arises in my mind as to whether their case may not be rather like that of people who take to the bottle, and who find that it

1093
does not affect them for a while, but later on there are certain legacies. I cannot help wondering whether the children who eat this starch, this 70 to 72 per cent. extraction rate product, while they may seem to develop well for a time and may look equal to those who have eaten higher extraction rate bread, will not find that there are some legacies which will affect them later on.
Probably in regard to the health of our people this is the most important debate we have had in this House for a long time. After all, bread is vital; it is the most universal food that the people can have. It is of the utmost importance that we should get it right and that we should get it so that the people will eat it. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is, I think, a little anxious lest I, like some other cranks—one is always called a crank if one has any strong feeling about anything—should urge that everyone should eat the sort of bread which I eat. I do not want that at all. I want everyone who wishes to eat starch—that is, bread of 72 per cent. extraction rate—by all means to do so. I cannot eat it myself, because it gives me frightful indigestion. Eating my 100 per cent. extraction rate bread, as I do, I am very fit and well, and I do not suffer from indigestion. We have to recognise that what is one man's meat is another man's poison, and we must take a broad view. I am all for people having the bread they want. But I find—and no doubt other noble Lords who like high extraction bread have had the same experience—that what is called brown bread is in some cases unsatisfactory from our point of view. I do not know what makes it brown, but certainly, in some instances, there is no high extraction about it.
If I go into one or other of the big towns in which some of your Lordships live, I always rise early and call on the baker to see whether I can get some brown wholemeal bread. If I do not get to the shop early, I usually find that every bit of it has gone. I have often heard it said that there is not enough of that kind of bread available, and I want to encourage the baking of that particular bread. I brought up this subject in your Lordships' House in 1945. We have now, and quite properly, children's meals provided in schools. I should like to see that children are fed high-extraction rate bread, and for this reason. Some of your
1094
Lordships may not be aware of it, but I sat for two years as chairman of an inter-departmental committee which considered questions relating to the condition of the teeth of the people of our country and to dentistry generally. The evidence of the dentists was that high extraction rate bread was very beneficial to teeth. I am certain that they were giving the result of their experience. The hour is late, but I wish we had much more time to debate this question, for it is of great importance.
I should like to say something on the question of iron. If your Lordships who, were present at the time will cast your minds back, you will recollect that Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who was Chairman of the Medical Research Council, spoke in the debate in February, 1945. He said that he had some information on the highest authority—he did not mention the name of his informant but I think some of us can well imagine who he was. This is what Lord Balfour of Burleigh said:
"My informant, who is one of the greatest authorities on nutrition in the country says: 'I guess—because this is not yet a scientifically established fact—that it is the difference between 82½ per cent. and 80 per cent. In the 80 per cent. extracted flour—that is the flour at present eaten—there is probably 40 per cent. less iron than in the 85 per cent. extracted flour. I am not allocating the 40 per cent. between the 82½ per cent and 80 per cent., but between the 85 and the 80 per cent.' My correspondent goes on to say: 'I expect an increase in anaemia to result from the reduction to 80 per cent., and I am confident that if the reduction goes on down to the prewar 70 or 72 per cent., there will be a great increase in anaemia."
That comes from a very high authority and one is bound to pay attention to it. Certainly, it shows the tremendous importance or this question.
Then we have other great authorities who say that, to a large extent, duodenal ulcers and so on are often caused by this low extraction bread. I remember that Lord Horder, when he spoke in the debate to which I am referring—I will not quote his words, it would take too long—said that there was no doubt whatever that even if a patient had duodenal ulcers he was more likely to digest 85 per cent. high extraction bread, and it would be better for him than the lower extraction bread. If we look at what has been happening in the last few years, we see the danger in our present bread. Professor

1095
Mellanby discovered the presence of agene in bread. The Americans immediately cut it out of their bread, and we did likewise. But there it was; year after year we had been eating bread in which there was this definite poison. We must do what we can to improve the health of the people, which does not appear to be so very good. Your Lordships and I go about the country and see people looking thoroughly badly nourished—not under-nourished, but suffering from malnutrition. There are any number of people waiting to get into hospital and we are always hearing of people with duodenal ulcers. It is mainly owing to malnutrition that a great many people suffer from that disease. Perhaps your Lordships know of Professor Hancock, who was a sort of "super-vet." of this country. He raised this question of agene in bread a year and more ago, and proved definitely that hysteria in dogs was due to feeding them on our present-day bread. He believed that this was due entirely to the agene in the bread. I think all this is evidence that there is danger, and we should take this matter very seriously and make a thorough research into the whole question of extraction and the making of bread.
It is appalling, when one goes into an hotel lobby, to see the number of slot machines with capsules for this and capsules for that—Macleans stomach powders and so on. Surely, we ought to get away from that. People ought not to have to take these things to be healthy and well. If only we could do something about this, I am sure we should make the whole nation happier. I do not know whether the noble Viscount who is to reply has any information about the question raised by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, but I should have thought that there was ample wheat to enable us to have a flour of not less than 85 per cent. extraction. During the war there were conditions of shortage of shipping space which prevented us from getting sufficient wheat, but that is not so now. We ought to do everything we can to get the whole grain into this country.
There is further evidence from Professor Davidson of Edinburgh, whom we know so well by name. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Horder, he has said that ulceration could be healed more quickly on high-extraction bread than on
1096
anything under 75 per cent. I have always felt that not nearly enough preventive research has been made into the question of food. Everybody is out to cure. Let us try to do what we can to prevent ourselves from becoming ill. In a speech I made in your Lordships' House some years ago, I instanced the extraordinary amount of money spent, both in America and in this country, on research to cure, and the small amount spent on how to prevent. I hope that we can do something in the direction of preventing ill-health. We are up against a tough proposition in the high-percentage extraction. If we were all in the milling trade, we should all be millionaires. We should have the 70 to 72 per cent. flour, and over and above that we should dispose of the other 28 per cent. as Bemax, bran, wheat flakes, and foods of that sort, which are very expensive.
I do not hold with this plea about animals. I cannot agree to interfering with the nutrition of the people in order to feed animals. I do not care what the excuse may be. We must put the human being first, even if we do not get so much bacon and eggs as we used to. I do not know what other people feed their pigs on, but I feed my pigs on barley meal, not on wheat or anything to do with wheat. Once we begin to tinker with the natural wheat berry, there is bound to be great danger. As Professor Drummond has said, there are so many elements about which we know nothing that once we begin to tinker with the whole berry, we upset the general equilibrium of the composition of wheat as a nutrient, and that, in my view, is not what nature intended. On no account should chemical improvisers of yeast be used. I thank my noble friend, Lord Hawke, for bringing this question before the House, and I end with the plea that bread will not be reduced below 85 per cent. extraction rate.
7.9 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, in his moderate, well-argued and amusing speech, the noble Lord who moved this Motion "got me one in the midriff." He took the wind out of me badly. I had expected him to make a demand for 70 per cent. extraction and I came here with a mass of thunder, with bombs of every kind, to knock out that case. But what

1097
does the noble Lord do? He proposes a reduction to only 80 per cent. I was prepared to argue in favour of raising the rate of extraction to 85 per cent., but I had not expected to learn when I came to this House (I am out of the country a good deal nowadays) that bread was already made of flour of 85 per cent. extraction. Nothing has pleased me more for years. That is exactly what we want. It is true that 85 per cent. is not like the 90 to 100 per cent. that I eat myself. If I ate bread made of flour of 85 per cent. extraction I should have to use some of these things mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teviot just now—the brans, and so on. I have to go abroad a great deal, and I always take with me stocks of these brans to make up as best I can for the extremely white bread that I sometimes have to eat. The strange thing is that the people of the country say to me: "How do you keep so fit in these climates?" That has happened not one year but two years. My answer is: "Because I get something near the equivalent of 90 per cent. extraction bread, instead of your white stuff."
We are told that the reason for the 85 per cent. extraction is dollars, and I have no doubt that that is correct. It is a curious thing, but these advances always seem to come from economic causes. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, when he
introduced the 85 per cent. bread was insistent that the reason for it was an economic one—transport, I think it was then, and not dollars. Now we are told that the reason for the 85 per cent. is dollars. The noble Lord, Lord Horder, and I congratulated Lord Woolton on having struck a great blew for health; and I ventured to say then that I thought we should never regret it. I have never regretted it, because from 1942 to 1945 the people of this country were fed upon this 85 per cent. extraction bread, and I think the health was well maintained. Here I take issue a little with my noble friend Lord Teviot. I believe on the whole that the health of the people is reasonably good.
I am fortified in this by the latest report on these matters, a report which Lord Herder sent to me of a committee of the British Medical Association which has been sitting under his chairmanship for two years. I notice they say this:
"… having regard to all the facts and data which have been before the committee it would appear to be a fair conclusion that the
1098
health of the population as a whole, despite the trials and tribulations of recent years, has been well maintained."
The committee do not try and assess exactly how much that is due to the food control methods, but they do say (speaking of the food control system):
"Certain details of that system must themselves have done much to improve the general standard of nutrition."
Among the causes of the comparatively good health we have had which they mention are
"the national milk scheme, the milk in schools scheme, the vitamin scheme"—
and please note this my Lords—
"the raising of the extraction rate of bread and its fortification with calcium"—
which some people do not like—
"the fortification of margarine with vitamins A and D, the impetus given to the consumption of potatoes and vegetables, the whole system of price control."
Most of these things, except the last, I have been advocating and pressing for a great many years.
There is one matter which I particularly want to bring to the attention of your Lordships (so far it has not been mentioned to-day)—namely, that in the debate on October 24, 1945, the following Resolution was agreed to without a Division:
"That the health of the population should be the guiding principle to govern the nutritional policy of the Government, and that in applying that principle to the case of bread the health of the consumer should be the primary factor, and milling and other interests should be developed in harmony with this policy."
That is the main issue. A good many objections have been raised, and most of
them have been answered by the noble Lords, Lord Horder and Lord Teviot. But in this matter of health it would seem that an 85 per cent. extraction is definitely better than 80 per cent. The evidence I cite on that is taken from the report, to which Lord Horder has already referred, of the conference of 1945. The 80 per cent. rate recommended by that conference was based on an estimate by an expert sub-committee, not of the optimum desiderata but of the minimum requirements of four ingredients selected as essential to health. Of those four ingredients one, riboflavin, was dropped for the simple reason that it was impossible to obtain it by milling below 85 per cent. The balance of nature, to which my noble friend Lord Teviot drew so

1099
much attention, was upset, and people were left to get their riboflavin from milk and meat—which latter gets scarcer every day. Even in the case of the other three ingredients—namely, vitamin B, nicotinic acid and iron—the Report, after giving the figures for the minimum percentage of each required to maintain health, stated that
"these minima can be supplied by the present flour of 80 per cent. extraction."
Please note the word "can," my Lords. But, as Lord Horder observed in the debate on the subject:
"It can do so, but it may not."
Or, as a miller informed me, at 80 per cent. the miller is in a position to choose whether he should please the baker, his voluntary customer, by milling for baking quality, or whether he should please the scientific expert by milling for dietetic merit. It also transpired from the debate that the so-called 80 per cent. flour did not make 80 per cent. bread at all, because it was mixed with varying proportions of imported flour, as I think it had to be, so that the net result was 78 per cent. or 79 per cent. If I remember aright, I obtained those figures in answer to a Parliamentary Question. With all those defects, the so-called 80 per cent. loaf was obviously rather a feeble and unreliable staff of life, though it was very much better than the 70 per cent. to 73 per cent. loaf of pre-war days.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord will agree that equally the 85 per cent. loaf has put into it the other flour which is bought in Canada.
LORD HANKEY: Yes, that was perfectly true, and I presume it is true to-day, although I do not know. I should like to be informed about that. I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said about agene in bread, and I should greatly like to know what is the present position. It seems extraordinary that this scandal should be going on under the very noses of the Ministry of Food, and that it was only when Sir Edward Mellanby made these remarkable discoveries that it was brought to notice. I have always been confident that my noble friend Lord Addison, as the head of the Medical Research Council, would see to it that the matter was put right, but I should very much like to be informed whether agenising is being continued.
7.25 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, may I interrupt the House for one moment? It has been represented to me within the last few minutes that we have a very light programme on Tuesday, and I was wondering whether it would be to your Lordships' convenience to adjourn this debate and resume it after the debate on Tuesday. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, has a Motion on the Paper with regard to military courts, which I believe will last only a short time. If it meets with your Lordships' wishes, we could adjourn the debate until then, when perhaps we shall get a fuller House.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I was about to speak when the noble Viscount rose. Certainly, from my point of view and, I
think, those who sit on these Benches, the suggestion made by the Leader of the House is most acceptable. We should get a wider House and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, would have a better opportunity of answering the various points put to him than if he were rushed to-night. Incidentally, I have another Motion on the Paper on Tuesday, but I live in hopes that that also may be easily disposed of.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, in those circumstances, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAND DRAINAGE (SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (HOGSMILL RIVER IMPROVEMENT) (AMENDMENT)) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.