Lords Sitting of 22 June 1950

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury—Took the Oath.
The Earl of Portsmouth—Took the Oath.

SUNDERLAND EXTENSION BILL
Read 2a, and committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

THE GOWERS REPORT
4.7 p.m.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the following Question, of which I have given private notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make on the action they propose to take on the Report of the Gowers Committee on English country houses classed as buildings of historic interest and scheduled as ancient monuments.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, the Report is being published to-morrow and copies are available in the Printed Paper Office. I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of His Majesty's Government, of publicly thanking Sir Ernest Gowers and his colleagues for their extremely able and thorough inquiry into this difficult problem. The Report is under consideration, but it will be some time before any decisions on it can be reached. The Committee's recommendations cover a wide field and raise some large issues of policy, and legislation would be required to give effect to them.

ARMY RESERVE BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate
988
certain enactments relating to the Army Reserve; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

AIR FORCE RESERVE BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments and Orders in Council relating to the Air Force Reserve; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

HIGHWAYS (PROVISION OF CATTLE-GRIDS) BILL
4.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, when one considers the danger to road users of straying cattle, the hurt and injury to the cattle themselves, and also the thousands of acres of land that remain unstocked because of the physical inability of the farmer to look after straying cattle, I think your Lordships will agree that the case for this Bill is made. I do not think that in your Lordships' House I need go to the trouble of explaining what a cattle-grid is. Neither do I think it necessary to explain to your Lordships why gates are ineffective for the purpose for which they are used, except perhaps to say that gates are things which most people use and leave open. But I think I should explain shortly why it is necessary that the existing law should be altered. It is because the highway is a public right of passage, to be enjoyed by all lawful traffic, and if a cattle-grid installed without lawful authority obstructs free passage, action can be taken in the courts. The Bill is not concerned with cattle-grids on private land over which there is no public right of way. Interfering with no public rights, they need no

989
statutory authority. But over the last twenty years, highway authorities have installed some 180 cattle-grids, all of which might be considered to be illegal. The Cumberland County Council took powers in 1948 under a Local Act for themselves and other authorities in the county to install cattle-grids on roads. Clause 16 of this Bill provides a procedure for legalising unauthorised grids, subject to the Minister's approval.
Before I pass to the Bill itself, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I make one or two remarks upon the most important points. Since this Bill was published there has been some mystification as to how the laying of a cattle-grid is initiated. Under the provisions of the Bill, the initiative takes place through the appropriate authority (I will describe to your Lordships in a moment or two what is meant by "the appropriate authority"; it is defined in Clause 1), and also through all those, such as farmers or land owners, who have an interest. The initiative can come from an outside body, such as the National Farmers' Union, for instance, who watch over and are ever vigilant for the farmers' interests. It can come from the R.A.C. or the A.A., on behalf of road users, who could approach the appropriate authority to see whether or not a cattle-grid could be installed for the safety of road users. In fact, any citizen has the right to approach his local authority, or the "appropriate authority", which will be the highway authority, to see whether a cattle-grid can be installed.
The other point I should like to mention is the question of safety. In England there are already fitted upon highways about sixty grids, and two accidents have happened, both to Exmoor ponies, at one grid on Exmoor. In Scotland, where there are about 120 grids, there have been ten accidents—one to a pedal cyclist, five to She land ponies, and four to other animals. Eight of the nine accidents to animals in Scotland look place in Zetland, and, so far as my information goes, only one of the accidents led to the destroying of the animal. In the opinion of my right honourable ft end the Minister of Agriculture, who supports this Bill—as I believe the noble Earl will say all agricultural interests do—the degree of non-safety (if I may put it in that way) of cattle-grids is infinitesimal. My right honourable friend supports it on the
990
ground that agricultural interests are insistent that something must be done to enable them to graze the thousands of acres of land to which I have referred that are now ungrazed.
The Department of Agriculture for Scotland support that view, but have some comments to make upon the technical design of a grid. This is rather interesting. I am informed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that it is very necessary—and perhaps the noble Earl will give us the benefit of his advice upon the point —that the spacing of the bars of a cattle-grid should be wider than the hooves of the animals it is designed to keep in. I am informed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that in Scotland animals learn to negotiate these grids. I can find no support for that in England, so I must put it down to the superior knowledge of the Scottish animals. It is necessary that all technical points such as that should be carefully inquired into, and they will be examined and covered by technical advice which my right honourable friend the Minister intends to issue to all authorities before the Act is brought into operation.
The general scope of the Bill authorises the installation and maintenance of cattle-grids in highways, with alternative provision for any lawful traffic which is unable to pass over the grid; the alteration or improvement of a grid once installed; and the removal of a grid that has become redundant. The Bill also deals with the liabilities of the authority as respects the repair of cattle-grids, the provision of traffic signs relating to grids and the suspension of any rights to maintain gates across roads when cattle-grids are provided in their place. The Bill enables the authority to acquire any necessary land, compulsorily if need be, and to enter into an agreement for the use of land, and to receive by agreement contributions towards their expenses from persons interested in the provision of cattle-grids.
The Minister, as highway authority for trunk roads, will be able to exercise those powers in respect of those roads, and will be authorised to make grants from the Road Fund towards the expenditure of local highway authorities who exercise the powers on their roads. The Minister will

991
be empowered to make regulations, in his discretion, about the placing and construction of cattle-grids, and also for the purpose of authorising the installation of cattle-grids at the side of, instead of on, the highway. The principle that has been adopted throughout the Bill is that in providing cattle-grids the authority must so arrange matters that all traffic which hitherto lawfully used the road will still be able to do so when the grid is there, either by crossing over the grid or else by passing round it: in other words, whatever cannot get over, must be enabled to get round.
Clause 1 sets out the appropriate authorities, and they are highway authorities. But there are roads which, although vehicular traffic has a right of way along them, are not maintainable by highway authorities but by other persons or bodies, or sometimes by nobody at all. In order that cattle-grids may be placed and maintained in such roads the powers of the Bill will be exercisable by the local authority who would be the highway authority for such a road in that area if it were publicly maintainable. In England and Wales, the appropriate authority in relation to a road of this kind will be the county council, the county borough council, the borough council or the urban district council in whose area the road lies. In Scotland it will be the town council, if the road is in a burgh, and the county council if it is not; and if it is a right of way which a district council has the power, though not the duty, to maintain, it will be the district council.
It is left to the discretion of the appropriate authority to exercise the power of providing cattle-grids without any formality such as advertisement or the consent of the Minister, always provided —and this is of particular importance— that the installation of a grid, or the making of a road round it, or outside the limits of the highway, making a by-pass, does not infringe a public or private right —for instance where encroachment upon common land is proposed, where an existing right of way may be interfered with or where suspension of the right to gate roads is proposed. When any of these things happen, the Schedule is brought into operation. The Schedule provides for publication of the authority's proposals and gives the interested parties
992
a right to object and to bring their objections before the Minister for consideration. If publication elicits no objections in the prescribed period—which is not less than twenty-eight days—or any objections made are withdrawn, there are no further formalities and the authority can proceed with the proposals.
In the Bill, as originally introduced in another place, there was a limited derogation from the principle that an alternative way round a cattle-grid must be provided. During the passage of the Bill that discretion was deleted from Clause 1 (1). A similar discretion had been provided for at two points later in the Bill—Clause 1 (6) and Clause 2 (4). These were not deleted but, at the appropriate stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, I propose to put down Amendments, together with the necessary consequential Amendments in the Schedule, to remove these provisions, as they are now inconsistent with the Bill as presented to your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Clause 2 authorises, with certain limitations, the removal of cattle-grids or by-passes which are no longer required. Noble Lords will appreciate that some grids may have outlived their usefulness and be no longer needed. There is one point which I think I ought to make here: if a by-pass has been constructed around a grid which it is proposed to remove and a right of way has been given over the by-pass, if the grid is removed, the right of way may be extinguished or it may not. It may be convenient to leave it there for the use of the public. But if the by-pass incorporated part of a previous right of way, that must be restored and any works which obstruct it must be removed.
Clause 3 deals with the liabilities of the authority for the repair of cattle-grids and involves the very difficult and contentious subject of non-feasance. If your Lordships will bear with me, I will explain how it is applied to this Bill. The general law in England, as interpreted by the courts, is that if a road was properly laid in the first instance and was fit for traffic when first opened, the fact that it may subsequently become unfit or dangerous for traffic imposes no liability upon the highway authority. A highway authority are liable for damage or injury due to direct acts which they performed in the construction or repair of a

993
road; but they are not liable for damage or injury alleged to be due to the fact that they did not do something which they might have done. If a highway authority, in carrying out works of construction or repair on a highway, did so negligently or incompetently, thereby creating a danger, that would be misfeasance, and any person who suffered damage or injury in consequence of that misfeasance could bring a claim against the authority in the courts. The mere omission to maintain a highway, initially safe, so as to prevent deterioration, on the other hand, would be nonfeasance, and would expose the authority to no such claim. Following recent decisions of the courts, it is believed that it would be held that an appropriate authority who provided a cattle-grid and ancillary works would be liable for any consequences of their failure to keep it in good repair. This is what subsection (1) of Clause 3 is intended to achieve. Subsection (2), on the other hand, is intended to give the authority the benefit of the doctrine of non-feasance in relation to the actual surface of a by-pass, just as they would have it as respects the surface of any other road repairable by them as a highway authority. So subsection (2) follows established highway law. Clause 4 simply makes provision for the repair of cattle-grids and by-passes in Scotland.
Clause 5 provides for agreements between authorities for the installation of a cattle-grid on a road for which the highway authority are not the appropriate authority but which connects with one for which they are. If there is any dispute and the authorities cannot come to any arrangement, they are entitled under the Bill to refer the matter to arbitration, and in this case the Arbitration Acts come into operation. In Scotland, in the event of a dispute on this matter, arbiters are appointed by the court of session or the sheriff and the appointment may contain conditions that questions of law are to be referred to the court of session. Clause 6 gives appropriate authorities power to erect suitable traffic sign; in relation to cattle-grids, to prevent the erection of anything but the prescribed signs and to secure the removal of any unauthorised signs.
Clause 7 provides for the suspension of any rights to maintain gates across
994
highways where cattle-grids are installed and are adequate substitutes for gates. But if there is any interference with legal rights, or if there is any dispute as to whether or not a grid is an adequate substitute, then the Schedule is attracted. Clause 8 provides for the acquisition, compulsorily if necessary, of land required for the provision, alteration or improvement of a cattle-grid or by-pass. The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, is applied and governs the procedure. Clause 9 empowers authorities is enter into agreements with persons interested in land so as to obtain the right to use that land for the purpose of providing, altering or improving a cattle-grid or by-pass and to secure to the public the right of passage over the land. This may, we think, do away with the need for outright purchase.
Clause 10 provides for contributions towards the appropriate authority's expenditure to be made, by agreement, by persons who desire cattle-grids to be installed. We think that agreement will not be uncommon, as farmers and landowners have already agreed to contribute in certain cases. Clause 11 empowers the Minister to make regulations as to the construction or installation of cattle-grids, by-passes and works, though this power we hope will be kept only as a reserve power, because we think that the technical advice and the conditions attached to a grant will be just as effective. Clause 12 enables the Minister to delegate his functions as an appropriate authority under the Bill to the agent authorities to whom he delegates the maintenance, repair and minor improvement of trunk roads. Clause 13 empowers the Minister to make regulations authorising the placing of a cattle-grid at the side of the road instead of on it, gating the road instead of the by-pass I there is no existing gate, and modifying the Bill so far as necessary to make it applicable in such circumstances. The reason for this is that the Bill is designed to authorise the placing of the cattle-grids in highways. There might be a case, although I should think very rarely, where it would be better to place the grid beside the highway. There may also be some existing installations of this kind which it might be reasonable for the appropriate authority to take over.

995
Clause 14 extends the Minister's powers to make grants from the Road Fund so as to enable him to make such grants towards expenditure incurred by the appropriate authorities in exercising their powers under the Bill. It also authorises expenditure by my right honourable friend as the appropriate authority for trunk roads. Clause 15 is purely definition. Clause 16 deals with cattle-grids and by-passes already provided in highways, either without legal authority or, in the cast of the County of Cumberland, under a local enactment, and provides a procedure for legalising unauthorised grids, subject to the Minister's approval. The Minister, of course, may attach conditions to his approval. Clause 17 provides for the Bill to come into operation on a date to be appointed by the Minister, except that the provisions of Clause 16, which give power to legalise existing unauthorised cattle-grids, will come into force immediately upon the passing of the Bill. The Schedule lays down the procedure in cases of dispute and any ancillary matters. That is the Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.32 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I need detain your Lordships for only a few moments on a Bill on which I am sure there is complete agreement in the House. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his extremely full explanation of the Bill. This is particularly important, because, in another place, it did not receive the attention which some of us might have desired. This is a small Bill, and some of us smiled at the prominence it received in the gracious Speech; but that does not mean that it is not exceedingly important to the proper development of our hill lands, about which we hear so much to-day. Undoubtedly the Bill will help in regard to all the livestock on the hills, and particularly it will help us to get what we all desire, more hill cattle.
It is difficult to generalise, but sheep tend to settle themselves, to heft themselves, on these grazings, while cattle wander, and in some areas it is hopeless to think that without proper fences and gates we can get cattle to stay on their
996
grazings. The noble Lord is right about gates being a nuisance, and undoubtedly the motorist all too frequently tends to express his or her resentment, either consciously or unconsciously, by leaving gates open. I agree with what the noble Lord said about the safety of these grids. That is a matter of design, and I certainly agree with his point about the width between the rungs. It is also, I think, largely a question of the width of the grid itself. If we make it too narrow the cattle begin to think they can jump it, and in other countries I have seen them jump it—and of course periodically they miss their footing and get into trouble.
On the question of how far this Bill is going to take us, I understand that the expenditure is to be restricted to £10,000 a year. If the cost of the grids is something between £250 and £300 each, that means that we are likely to have just under forty grids a year. I read an account of the conference held in Cumberland the other day between the highway authority, the National Farmers' Union and the Central Committee of the Landowners' Association. Their generally agreed estimate was that between 400 and 500 grids were needed in that county alone, at an estimated cost of over £125,000. We shall not make much progress if only £10,000 a year is to be allowed, and if the cost of the cattle-grid is likely to approach £300. I do not profess to have any technical knowledge of this matter, but I have interests in other countries where we ourselves have made these grids. It is true that they are "home-made," but we have ten-ton lorries passing over them. It is also true that costs present a difficult problem in Africa, though African labour is not so much cheaper than white labour, when one counts the number of Africans required. But the cost of our grids is well under £50 each, and I feel somewhat at a loss to understand the general acceptance of the very high figures which have been quoted to-day. We know what really happens: once officials and technicians get together to make a plan, they so increase the specifications and complications of everything that we have to pay "through the nose." I would ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to have that point considered.
There will be a few Amendments to the Bill from this side, but they will be

997
small ones. Some of them were discussed in a preliminary way in another place, and the Government have already promised to give them some consideration. Therefore, it is not necessary to trouble your Lordships with them at the present moment. I hope to have some discussion with the noble Lord about them, perhaps before we come to Committee stage. I should like to give a general blessing to the Bill from this side of the House and to congratulate the Government on introducing it.
4.38 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I should like to raise one or two points, as this Bill will have a great effect in Scotland. It is typical of the versatility of your Lordships that within three days we should cover such widely divergent subjects as the reorganisation of human society and the provision of cattle-grids on highways. That is turning from the utterly impracticable to the thoroughly practical. This Bill will be particularly welcomed in Scotland, because proportionately a much larger area is unenclosed hill and crossed by public roads than is the case in England. I know that this Bill will be to the benefit not only of the farmers but of the road users.
My first point concerns the question of the grants made by the Ministry of Transport. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, mentioned the total sum that was considered likely to be granted. I know that this does not appear very great in relation to the possible number of grids required; and I think the reason is not far to seek. It is not generally realised that by far the greater number of grids will be required on unclassified roads, for which local authorities are responsible and which are not eligible for any grant from the Ministry of Transport. Therefore, these grids will not be eligible for grant and the total cost of grids on these unclassified roads—which certainly in Scotland will make up by far the greater number—will be met either by the rate or by contributions from those who will benefit by their installation.
There has been some difference of feeling about Clause 10, which enables these contributions to be asked for from those who may benefit from the installation of grids. It is reasonable that where a farmer or land owner will derive benefit by having increased grazing, he should
998
make a contribution towards having the grid installed. But I hope that it will not become a regular practice for local authorities automatically to demand in all cases that the owners of land should be made to contribute. After all, the grid is an integral part of the highway, and is designed to facilitate the passage of traffic. On this quest ion of contributions, I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he would make two points clear. Can he assure us that after the grid has been installed there will be no further liability for its upkeep on the person who has contributed to it? In other words, will the local authority he entirely responsible for its maintenance? Secondly, in the event of any accident or injury, I feel that there should be no liability on the same person for damages in respect thereof.
There is a further point upon which I hope the noble Lord will be able to throw some light. Your Lordships will remember that several years ago we passed in this House two Hill Farming Acts, which enabled capital grants to be made to the owners or occupiers of hill land. One of.the items in the Schedules to those Acts concerned grants towards the installation of cattle-grids. As it turned out, that provision was in fact applicable only to cattle-grids installed on private roads. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has explained, until this Bill becomes law all these cattle-grids are probably illegal on private roads. I feel that if the owner of hill land who is taking part in a scheme under the Hill Farming Act is asked for a contribution for a grid on his land he should be eligible to receive a grant under that Act towards the cost of that grid. That may seem a small point, but I believe it will be found, particularly in Scotland, that a great number of these grids will be on land on which schemes ate being pushed forward under the Hill Farming Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to possible dangers arising from these devices in the case of an unfortunate cyclist who was engulfed in one. So far as I understand it, the handlebars of a bicycle run at right angles to the road and at right angles to the normal course pursued by the cyclist; so I suggest that only a very inefficient cyclist would allow himself to be ensnared in one of these grids. We feel that this is a useful Bill, and even if this Parliament achieves nothing more

999
in its span of life, I am sure that noble Lords opposite will be pleased for this Government to go down in history as the Government who gave us cattle-grids.
4.44 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there is one question I should like to ask before the noble Lord replies. These cattle-grids may get damaged, and if somebody gets his foot caught and wrenches an ankle, or something like that, has he any claim for damages; and, if so, how is it dealt with? That is always the possibility with cattle-grids made as they are.
4.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the reception they have given to this Bill, and I will detain your Lordships for only a few moments in answering the specific questions I have been asked. With regard to the question of cost, I am amazed at the difference between the cost of £50 in Africa and the cost of £300 to £400 in this country. The first thought that occurs to me is that if the noble Lord forms a company under private enterprise, called possibly De La Warr Cattle-Grids Limited, and offers to supply those grids to local authorities at £50, he will at once achieve the best monopoly there is in this country.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord's colleagues will take away my profits in taxation.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will certainly look into the matter, as I am sure will those in charge of the technical side of the Bill. I shall be only too happy to consider with sympathy any Amendment which the noble Earl cares to put down, because I know that the only object of noble Lords opposite is to improve this Bill for the benefit of everyone —there is not the slightest Party aspect about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, asked me two questions, and I will deal first with the liability of those who make contributions. They cannot he held under the Statute to he liable for any accident or for the upkeep of the grid. However, the nature of the agreement to subscribe
1000
to the cost which they may enter into with the appropriate authority is something for which they would be liable at law, and they will have to watch carefully that they do not commit themselves to any liability from which they are absolved under this Statute. I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Lord's question in regard to the Hill Farming Act, because I feel it will depend on the policy of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. I shall become acquainted with his policy between now and the next stage of this Bill, and if the noble Lord will put down an exploratory Amendment on the Committee stage I will undertake to have the answer ready by then. The cyclist was the one and only cyclist, so far as we could trace, who came to grief upon a cattle grid. He was a Scottish cyclist, and I can only think that he had not reached the stage of intelligence of the Scottish animals to which I referred, who learned successfully to negotiate a cattle-grid.
LORD POLWARTH: A state of proficiency perhaps.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps he went about it the wrong way. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, subject to any legal correction I may receive, I would say that the case the noble Lord cited would be covered by this Bill, as it places upon the authority liability to keep a cattle-grid in good repair. I certainly do not intend to rob the legal profession of their source of income by telling the noble Lord how he goes about getting damages if he wrenches his ankle. With those few remarks, I thank your Lordships for your reception of the Bill, and I hope you will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY BILL
4.49 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
4.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL or DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new Clause:
Amendment of s. 376 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894
". In paragraph (d) of subsection 1(1) of section three hundred and seventy-six of the principal Art, for the words 'four weeks' there shall be substituted the words 'one month, or to a fine not exceeding five pounds'."
The noble Lord said: I ventured to draw your Lordships' attention during the Second Reading debate on this Bill to the fact that the penalties which may be imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction for offences against discipline appear to be somewhat harsh. This Amendment has been set down in order to mitigate that position and allow the action of the courts to be, as I would say, more flexible. As the law stands at present, the offence of wilful disobedience in fishing vessels is punishable either by imprisonment up to four weeks, or a fine of 203. I think it is true to say that the courts have been in a little difficulty in dealing with this matter, because of the very small fine which may be imposed. They are: certainly most unwilling to send these men to prison as an alternative, and a fine of 20s. is obviously inadequate in the case of a second or perhaps a third offence. The effect of this Amendment will be to make it possible to use the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, which permits a fine not exeeding £5 as an alternative to imprisonment, instead of a fine of only 20s. as at present. I have little doubt that this Amendment will ensure reasonable treatment for fishermen in the courts.
In 1949 there were 132 convictions which included, I believe, twenty sentences of imprisonment. I suggest
1002
that this percentage of imprisonment is too high and might well have been reduced if the courts could have inflicted a higher fine instead of imprisonment. It is interesting to note that one of our great nationalised industries, the transport industry, is now seeking powers to increase the maximum fine of 20s. for travelling on the railway without a ticket to £50. Perhaps this is due to the fall in the value of money, which I know is a somewhat delicate subject for His Majesty's Government at the present time. None the less, it applies in the case of this Amendment. I understand that a certain amount of opposition has now shown itself in the trade unions concerned with this Amendment, in spite of the fact that it has the effect of making the stigma of imprisonment, even if it be only for a day or two, more unlikely to be inflicted than at present, and that it gives a more flexible ruling for the courts. I am also well aware that there is a feeling in certain quarters that no disciplinary measures should be enforceable against men in the fishing trade, but I have little doubt that these are the views of only a small minority in this fine service, the majority of whom, I am sure, realise the necessity of disciplinary measures. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Teynham.)
LORD WINSTER: I am not quite clear on this point. Is it not the fact that we are dealing with two separate areas of jurisdiction? If the master has a complaint to make against a seaman, as I understand it he may inflict a financial penalty of 20s. It is only when the case comes before the court of summary jurisdiction that the penalty may be three months' imprisonment. I speak with diffidence on the subject, but I understand that it is not a question of alternative penalties of 20s. and/or three months' imprisonment, but a penalty which may be inflicted by the master and a penalty which may be inflicted by the courts.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In spite of the very persuasive manner in which the noble Lord opposite has moved this Amendment, and in spite of the fact that I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, I am

1003
hoping, for one or two reasons which I think are conclusive and which I think he will accept, that he will not press his Amendment. First of all, the purpose of this Bill was a very limited one; it had the simple purpose of doing three things. The first was to make it possible for the Minister to issue regulations regarding crew accommodation in fishing boats. The second was to make permanent the provisions of Defence Regulation 45AA. The third was to make permanent the provisions of Defence Regulation 48B. I need not trouble your Lordships with those Regulations, because they were dealt with on Second Reading. Those were the simple purposes of the Bill, and nothing more.
The noble Lord's Amendment seeks to provide different penalties for indiscipline for fishermen than for merchant seamen. I think that would be an intolerable position. We could not have—and I think the noble Lord will agree with this—different penalties for indiscipline for a man who goes to sea in a fishing vessel and for a man who goes to sea in a merchant ship. To alter the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act as regards penalties applicable to both would be so controversial that we felt that this Bill was not the place in which to enact that; this is not the time and it is an ill-chosen opportunity. As soon as this Amendment was mooted in another place, my right honourable friend was subjected to strong pressure against it from the Transport and General Workers Union, who are the union responsible for fishermen. If I may say so with respect, I do not think the noble Lord was quite right when he said that the penalties which a court of summary jurisdiction has to enforce are somewhat harsh. I suggest that his Amendment seeks to make them more so, because I think he realises—and he will not mind my explaining this—that they are the maximum penalties. A court does not have to send a man to prison for 28 days, the only option being a 20s. fine.
LORD TEYNHAM: I thought I had made that point clear. He might go to prison for two days, but then there is the stigma of that imprisonment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Everybody who breaks the law has to face
1004
the stigma of imprisonment. I do not think we can take into consideration whether it is a greater stigma to be sent to prison or to be fined 20s.—that is for the jurisdiction of the court. The court has the right, and the duty. to fit the penalty to the crime. Therefore, all the noble Lord's Amendment does is to alter the 20s. to £5. If we accepted the noble Lord's Amendment it would mean that instead of a court of summary jurisdiction having the discretion to vary the penalty from one day to twenty-eight days or from nothing to 20s., it would then be from one day to one month, or from nothing to £5. They could still say that a man would go to prison for seven days with the option of a fine of 20s., but they could then also say that the man must go to prison for ten days with the option of a fine of £5. That is what the men, through their trade union object to.
I think I have answered the noble Lord completely, and I hope he will not press this Amendment. It is not an opportune time and the Bill is not the right instrument. If we sought to use the Bill—a Bill which is before Parliament for the simple purpose of issuing regulations for crew accommodation—for doing these other things, I think we should get into a great deal of trouble, and the matter would become highly controversial. I feel sure that neither the noble Lord nor any other noble Lord in this House would wish to do anything that would raise a controversial issue with the men in the fishing fleets of this country. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am not entirely convinced by what the noble Lord has said. It is true that this Amendment would mean that there would be a difference in treatment between the fisherman and the merchant seaman. On the other hand, it may well be that the conditions of punishment for the merchant seamen themselves may one day require amendment. However, I do not propose to press this Amendment in the circumstances, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before this Motion is carried, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the following facts. On the Second Reading of this Bill, which was only a week ago (the shortest possible time, therefore, has elapsed since the Second Reading) my noble friend Lord Morrison in reply to me at the end of the debate said:
"… perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to look into the suggestion which he has just made, and permit me to communicate with him in due course. The same applies to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk…"
Later on in his remarks the noble Lord said:
"With regard to any other points raised, if they are considered of sufficient importance, perhaps we may have consultations before the Committee stage and put down Amendments…"
I think my noble friend will agree with me that I have received absolutely no communications from him, and there have been no consultations. As this Bill contains a clause which has aroused strong objections throughout Scotland and which has nothing to do with allotments, I very much regret that consultations have not taken place before the Committee stage of the Bill. If we go into Committee this afternoon I should like to say that I may have some very drastic Amendments to bring forward—possibly mutually inconsistent Amendments—at the next stage of the Bill. I wish in these remarks merely to protest against the fact that there have not been any consultations. I do not propose to move an Amendment that we should defer this matter for a week, if the Government are anxious to get on with the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, nothing now remains for me to do except offer my sincere apologies to the noble Lord for my discourtesy and for failing to carry out my promise. I have no real excuse to offer. I can only say that my usual methods on similar occasions have been these: that, in art endeavour to the best
1006
of my ability to look after Scottish affairs in this House, I have tried to contact noble Lords concerned within the precincts of this House and arrange a convenient time for further discussion. This I have done whenever I have made a promise such as the one to which the noble Lord has just referred. I have not been fortunate enough to meet my noble friend in the precincts of the House during the past few days. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that, in view of what has happened on this occasion, I propose in future to abandon this somewhat haphazard method of redeeming my promises and to revert to the more orderly methods of communicating through the Scottish Office.
LORD SALTOUN: The suggestion was made on Thursday, the day of the week on which we generally conclude our business. There were still Friday, Saturday and Sunday when we might have done something.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, however long I speak I do not think I can make my apology any more abject than I have already made it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Exclusion of land let under emergency powers.
6. The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to land let by a local authority under Regulation sixty-two A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to omit Clause 6. The noble Earl said: I am moving to omit Clause 6 chiefly because I want to know the purpose of its insertion—and I think that is a very good reason for asking for it to be omitted. So far as I can see, the effect of Clause 6 is to except from the benefits of Clauses 1 to 5 any allotments which have been leased under Regulation 62A. If those clauses are good—the Government appear to think they are, and I am not quarrelling with that—why are certain allotments to be excepted from them? It may he said that there are only a few allotments concerned, but that does not alter the fact that they should equally receive the benefits which will go to the many. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: On looking at the report of the Second Reading of this Bill I see that the noble Earl said:
"… I am not quite clear about Clause 6, and why allotments which started under Defence Regulation 62A should be treated entirely differently from others…"
That, in effect, is what the noble Earl is repeating now. In comparing permanent allotments with allotments given under Regulation 62A the noble Earl is not comparing like with like. Under that Regulation local authorities were empowered to let for use as allotments land in their own occupation, such as parks, open spaces, et cetera. The allotment holders on this land will continue to be compensated under existing allotment legislation. They have known this from the beginning of their occupation. They have also been made aware that they would have to give up their tenancies as soon as the land was again required for its original purpose or as soon as the Defence Regulations expired. Many of them have already been given up. The allotment schemes in question were always understood by all concerned to be temporary schemes, and there is, in the Government's view, no case at this date for bringing these tenants under the provisions of this Bill and giving them new rights. I hope that this reply will make clear to the noble Earl that there are two separate classes of allotment and that those referred to in the present Bill are in no way comparable with the allotments which were given under Regulation 62A.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I imagine that that is what the Minister of Works was referring to the other day when he said:
"We are taking the view that it is quite time that the parks were cleaned up—that the parks were meant for the enjoyment of the people, that there is no necessity to keep any of them at all for the purpose of allotments."
I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 1 (4) of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922
". Subsection (4) of section one of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922, (which excludes from the operation of that section land held by or on behalf of the Admiralty, War Department, or Air Council, and let as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, when possession of the land is required for naval, military or Air Force purposes) shall have effect,—

(a) with the substitution, for the words 'or Air Council,' of the words 'Air Council or Minister of Supply'; and

(b) with the addition, at the end thereof, of the words 'or for purposes of the Ministry of Supply, as the case may be'."

The noble Lord said: This is a very minor Amendment. The purpose of this clause is to put the Ministry of Supply in the same position as the Service Departments. Noble Lords will know that since the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922, was passed, the Ministry of Supply have taken over certain functions from the Service Departments. It is reasonable, therefore, that the Ministry of Supply should be placed in the same position as the Service Departments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause. ——(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I appreciate that the Ministry of Supply have taken over some functions from the Service Departments, but may I ask why the benefits given in the first five clauses of this Bill are denied to the tenants of these Service Departments? I do not understand the principle. In many cases, I presume, it is because the occupiers of allotments are Service personnel. I do not know, but I suggest that that is the reason, and that they are posted and liable to go at short notice. But that is not the case with the Ministry of Supply, who are placed in an advantageous position.
LORD MORRISON: As the noble Earl has just said, I presume, though I have no actual knowledge, that most of the occupants of these allotments are Service personnel, and that, the Ministry of Supply now having taken over certain parts of the duties of the Services, the same conditions continue to obtain as were in operation when the Service Departments themselves were directly responsible.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord can guess as well as I can, but I

1009
should like to know what is the position. If the tenants are Service personnel then, instead of saying "for purposes of the Ministry of Supply," it would be simple to put in the words" for Service personnel." Would the noble Lord inquire whether the reservation in favour of the Service Departments is still really necessary? I know that it was in the former Act, and it means to say that an allotment holder can he turned out without any notice at all, instead of having twelve months' notice, as in this Bill. I should like to know, before the next stage, whether that is necessary.
LORD MORRISON: I can see the noble Earl's point and I will see that he gets the information upon it. I am informed that a number of these Service personnel are still in possession of these allotments and are seconded to the Ministry of Supply.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:
Provision of information relating to allotments and award of prizes.
"For the purpose promoting the proper cultivation of allotments in their area a local authority may incur, or contribute towards, the expenses of—

(a) the dissemination (whether by means of lectures, cinematograph shows, exhibitions or otherwise) of information on questions relating to allotments; and

(b) the award of prizes in connection with the cultivation and maintenance of allotments."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this clause is to give local authorities wider powers in the matter of incurring expenditure to encourage the allotments movement. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will recollect that in the Second Reading debate he said:
"I feel tint more might be done by education, guidance and possibly research in allotment schemes, if we regard them as sufficiently important. Finally, what is most important is that they must be made attractive."
The District Councils Association in Scotland have also made a request for this power. At present, local authorities have no power at all under the Allotments (Scotland) Acts to spend money on purposes other than the formation of allotments. In order that they may be in a position to take more active steps
1010
to encourage the cultivation of allotments it is considered desirable that they should be given specific power to incur expenditure on such matters as lectures, exhibitions and shows relating to allotments, and on the award of prizes for the best kept allotments. This clause provides for that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment. It is a great improvement, though I wonder whether the Amendment should not go a little further. Certain local authorities would like to have further power—for instance, for the provision of certain equipment for allotments, particularly tools which could be made available to the allotment holders. However, I am not going to press that point. I am very glad to have the Amendment as it stands. I should just like to ask this. I suppose that the Amendment does not in any way extend the power of the district councils, which are to a major extent concerned, in regard to the levying of any rate. I take it that there is no intention of altering their powers under, I think, Section 142 of the Local Government Act, 1947. The noble Lord may be aware that the district councils are anxious to be able to extend—or to remove—the limit of the penny rate, for it is from that rate that their expenditure on allotments must be wholly provided. I would mention, in passing, that under another measure, dealing with substantially the very same subject, parish councils are having their allotments increased in respect of almost precisely the same matter. It is just that exception to which I should like to draw attention. For the rest, I am grateful for this clause, which is most important.
LORD MORRISON: This does not involve any alteration in the rating system.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Abolition of restrictions in feu charter, etc., on keeping hens and rabbits
10.—(1) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any feu charter, feu contract, disposition, lease or other instrument affecting land, or in any contract or undertaking relating to the use to be made of any land, it shall be lawful for the occupier of any land

1011
to keep, otherwise than by way of trade or business, hens or rabbits in any place on the land and to erect or place and maintain such buildings or structures on the land as are reasonably necessary for that purpose:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1) after "lawful" to insert:
"with the consent in writing of the person or persons entitled to enforce the said provision first had and obtained."
The noble Earl said: It would be idle to pretend that this is not a highly contentious clause. If I may, I will start by referring to a resolution which was passed on June 19 last by the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society at their annual conference. It was as follows:
"This Annual Conference of the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society, whilst welcoming the Allotments (Scotland) Bill, views with serious concern the provisions of Clause 10 (1) which allows the keeping of rabbits and poultry 'in any place on the land' in buildings or structures 'reasonably necessary' and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.'
In the opinion of this Conference such a provision is diametrically opposed to the best principles of town planning and will seriously hamper the Society in its efforts to improve the appearance of allotments. Furthermore, the Society strongly objects to rights and privileges not shared by the cultivators of allotment gardens being extended to a section of the community for whom allotments were not provided, regarding the siting and erection of constructions on the same.
Conference also regrets that no statutory provision now exists for the planning of allotments and recommends that the Town Planing Clauses of the 1925 Allotments Act should be re-enacted."
I should like to ask this. In whose interest is Clause 10 included? If the noble Lord is familiar with the fact that the local authorities and this Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society are not pleased by it, in whose interest is this clause as at present drafted?
I am moving the Amendment which is on the Paper because it appears to me that the major objection to Clause 10 at the present time is that it gives no adequate powers of control, and particularly that it greatly interferes, or may interfere, with amenities. I want to make this point, which I made on Second Reading, because it appears to me that Clause 10 has nothing whatsoever to do with allotment gardens. I have read the description of "allotment gardens" contained in the 1922 Act, and it appears to deal entirely with the cultivation of
1012
vegetables and herbs. This clearly refers to something which deals with the keeping of livestock. If we are going to have that I suppose we shall have in due course to change the title of the Bill; but as it stands this is an entirely different matter, in face of the rest of the Bill which deals only with allotment gardens.
This is not a matter which need be too controversial, because basically I think we all want the same thing. In putting down this Amendment I have sought to suggest one solution of the problem as I see it, though I do not imply for one moment that it is the only solution. But what I have suggested is this—and it seems to me to be the major point. Nobody objects to anyone keeping chickens—I believe the word is "hens," so perhaps cockerels are excluded—and rabbits, provided that they are kept properly, and provided that they are kept under regulations by whatever authority is considered suitable to put them forward. The limitation placed here is:
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall … affect the operation of any enactment …"
That means that any enactment by a local authority dealing with health or any other subject will control the way in which these livestock are kept. Most local authorities do not consider that provision adequate Moreover, so far as they can see, it does not give them any control over the type of erection which is put up, and they are most anxious to have that. Probably my Amendment in itself does not go far enough in that direction. What I am suggesting here is that it should be simply a matter that whoever has the power of enforcing the use of land can by letter authorise the keeping of chickens or hens. I do not know whether this is intended to apply to allotment holders; but I take it that it is. In the majority of cases, so far as they are concerned, it will be the local authority, although in some cases it will be a private individual. I am adding that if any person is aggrieved because consent to keep livestock is withheld, he may submit a petition to the sheriff. The sheriff is held in great esteem and I think his decision would be recognised as being highly reasonable.
So far as is possible, everybody wants to encourage the keeping of livestock in

1013
the right place to assist our food production. But that is the real danger, and I want the noble Lord to note carefully what the allotments society has said about bringing the whole of the allotment movement into contempt because it is too "scruffy," because it is too untidy—indeed, for the reason the noble Lord says he wants to keep allotments off the public parks. The allotment societies are most anxious that that should not be said of them, and I am quite certain that it is in everybody's interest that that should not happen. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, after ("lawful") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD SALTOUN: At a later stage I want to oppose Clause 10 altogether and to give the Committee some reasons why I think it should not find a place in this Bill. I have put down a manuscript Amendment, and although I do not propose to move it this afternoon I would ask the Government to study it and its purpose, because the local authorities in Scotland object to the clause in toto. However, if they are forced to swallow the pill they wish to have control themselves. Failing that, I would certainly support my noble friend Lord Selkirk in his Amendment, because I think that if we cannot get the two things that I would prefer, at least his does give some measure of satisfaction.
I do not understand why at one sweep the Bill takes away from people who have a duly to perform to the public their rights and their power to perform that duty—I am talking about the feudal superiors on granted feu charters. I have many of these feu charters myself, and what happens is that when somebody does something which destroys the amenities of his neighbours they nearly always come to me and ask me to exercise the powers in the feu charters to get removed whatever obstruction is being caused. The reason they do that is that I am an impartial person, and if I act on the feu charter nobody can complain; whereas if they go personally to the Dean of Guild Court, or do something of that kind, they are immediately involved in quarrels with their neighbours, and very often feel that they are going to injure their businesses. I get nothing for doing it, but I do it just as many other
1014
people in my position do it. It is a very useful function, a kind of trusteeship in these matters, and it is done all over Scotland. For that reason, if I cannot succeed in my own Amendment, or if I cannot get this clause deleted from the Bill, I should certainly support my noble friend's Amendment. I am perfectly certain that in such a case the sheriff will hold the balance evenly. As my noble friend said, the sheriffs are probably the most respected authorities in Scotland.
LORD MORRISON: May I again start with a confession? Since the Second Reading of this Bill I have been looking closely at Clause 10, and I do not feel entirely satisfied with the clause in its present form. Lord Selkirk said that it was highly contentious. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he also said that he was not absolutely certain that his own Amendment was as perfect as he would like it. That leads me to say that it will be generally admitted that this is not a political Bill, in any sense of the word, and therefore all that the Government are concerned about is trying to make the best possible Bill. There is no special interest to serve in this Bill; there is no conflict. We are trying to get a good Bill. Lord Selkirk confessed that he was not sure that his Amendment was perfect; I confess that I am not satisfied with the clause in its present form. Lord Saltoun had given notice of a manuscript Amendment which he has not moved, but which makes yet another suggestion.
Let me say that, so far as my information goes, the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is open to objections. The combined effect of them would be that where an occupier of land wished to keep domestic hens or rabbits, and failed to get the consent in writing of any person entitled to enforce a provision against this, he could appeal to the sheriff. The Government are reluctant to accept Amendments designed to this end. As the Committee know, I am not a Scottish lawyer, but I suggest that the question whether and under what conditions the occupier should be free to keep domestic hens or rabbits is a question of principle to be determined by Parliament, and not a question of judicial interpretation appropriate for settlement by a sheriff.

1015
The clause, as the noble Earl proposes to amend it, would in effect throw on the individual sheriff the burden, not merely of giving a judicial ruling but of determining a policy. No guidance would be given to the sheriff as to the considerations which should influence his decision. I suggest that it would be somewhat unreasonable to place this burden upon the sheriff. I have already admitted that there are criticisms of the clause as it stands, and that I should welcome further discussion upon them. I have an idea—I may be wrong—that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, might possibly agree. I do not know about the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. It may be that he is not definitely sure that his Amendment is right. The position is a confusing one and I suggest that it needs to be clarified.
I wonder whether both noble Lords would be willing to withdraw their Amendments on a definite promise, which I am prepared to give, that I will arrange for further discussions with them both upon the clause as soon as possible and before the next stage of the Bill is reached. At these discussions I shall be prepared to submit certain amending proposals, and also to consider any proposals which the noble Lords may see fit to put forward on the lines either of their Amendments or in conformity with any new suggestions that may occur to them before the discussions take place. I make that offer because it seems to me that we are in a real difficulty here. I do not think that any of us are quite sure that the proposals which we are putting forward are designed to bring about just what we should wish in this connection. I, personally, should like to see certain alterations in the Bill. As I have intimated, I think that it needs further discussion, and I hope both noble Lords will be willing to accept my offer. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, in view of what I have said, will not persist in moving his Amendment for the deletion of Clause 10, but will agree to leave the clause as it stands now on the undertaking which I have given.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask this? Is it intended that livestock should be kept on allotment gardens or is it not?
LORD MORRISON: I do not want to commit myself as to what alterations
1016
might be possible in the light of the discussions which I hope will take place between us. I can only say, in reply to what the noble Earl has just said, that that is an open question.
LORD SALTOUN: I feel in a difficulty in this matter. I have strong reasons for wishing that the clause should be deleted. It is only faute de mieux that I put down an Amendment which local authorities in Scotland would accept in default of getting the clause deleted. They have strong reasons for wishing for its deletion which I have not yet touched upon in your Lordships' House. While I am prepared to refrain from moving my Amendment this afternoon, I should like to tell the House something as to why the deletion of the clause is sought.
LORD MORRISON: I do not wish it to be thought that I am in any way trying to dictate to the noble Lord. He must take whatever course he thinks wise and prudent. I am acting on the assumption that it is generally admitted that this is not in any sense a political Bill, and that it is also admitted that we are not all clear as to exactly what we want in regard to Clause 10. With this in mind, I am suggesting that further discussions would be in the best interests of all concerned.
LORD SALTOUN: I take it that Lord Morrison would admit discussion on whether Clause 10 should stand in the Bill or not. I hope that the next stage of the Bill will not be fixed for such a date as to interfere in any way with our meeting and holding a full discussion on these matters. As my noble friend has already pointed out, this clause has nothing to do with allotments at all; it is a general enactment affecting all land in the country. In the view of local authorities it falls with particular weight upon the local authorities' unfenced housing-scheme gardens.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I was astonished to hear the noble Lord who speaks for the Government say that he did not know what he wanted. I asked him during the Second Reading debate just what it was the Government wanted, and I have asked him again to-day, but he has not given me an answer. I do not yet know what the Government want to do under Clause 10, but I am sure that the Bill in its present form is indigestible. I never said that my Amend-

1017
ment was perfect but I must say that I thought that the noble Lord's reply to it was fairly laboured. Sheriffs do have to determine questions connected with nuisance and, as a rule, they have no difficulty in making up their minds in particular cases whether there is some nuisance arising or not. In the circumstances, I am not going to press this particular Amendment. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, is willing to examine the position completely. There is nothing political about this point. Everyone concerned is anxious to do everything he can that will conduce to the utmost development of allotments. But there is not the slightest point in bringing forward proposals to which objection is raised both by the allotment societies and the local authorities. We wish to have the fullest interest and cooperation of both these bodies in helping the allotment movement. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.36 p.m.
THE EARL, OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to move this second Amendment of mine, merely for the purpose of getting it on the record.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, at end insert—
"(2) Any person aggrieved by a refusal of or failure within a reasonable time to give a consent under subsection (1) of this section may appeal to the sheriff."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SALTOUN: On the question whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill or not, may I say that I did not understand definitely from Lord Morrison that in our discussions we shall discuss whether the clause shall be in the Bill at all. Will our discussions extend to that?
LORD MORRISON: I expressly used the words "without prejudice." I said that the discussions would take place without prejudice.
LORD SALTOUN: That means that we shall discuss the whole thing?
LORD MORRISON: I do not want to be dogmatic. I presume that there will
1018
be a Clause 10 in the Bill in some form or another.
LORD SALTOUN: My contention is that there should be no Clause 10 in the Bill. I think our discussions should cover that.
LORD MORRISON: I do not quite understand why the noble Lord says there ought to be no Clause 10 in the Bill, because he himself has a Manuscript. Amendment on the Order Paper, the effect of which is that there should be a new Clause 10.
LOAD SALTOUN: That is perfectly true. But the Association of County Councils in Scotland say that they do not want this clause. They strongly object to it. But they say, in effect, "If the Government insist on this clause, then we beg to offer this Amendment as an improvement." If we can discuss this point, my object will he to try to persuade the Government that Clause 10 should be deleted, for it has nothing to do with allotments at all. If it is not understood that we can discuss that, I must move my Amendment this afternoon. If my noble friend, Lord Morrison agrees that this may be a subject of our discussions, I shall not move my Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: I do not know that I can add any more except to say that if, as a result of the discussions, all parties are agreed—and the Government, of course, will be one of the parties—that there is no need for Clause 10, then there will not be a Clause 10.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged; that is all I want.
LORD MORRISON: I cannot, of course, commit myself as to what may be done in respect of Clause 10.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Interpretation]:
LORD MORRISON: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, leave out ("county council").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND CORPORATION BILL
5.39 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House resumed.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
5.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he read a second time. This is a Bill to consolidate the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1938, and certain other enactments relating to shops. I wish to make it clear that this Bill is concerned only with consolidation, prior to amendment, and does not in any way imply that effect will not be given to the Report of the Gowers Committee. Your Lordships will perhaps be aware that one of the recommendations of that Committee was that this consolidation should be undertaken.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
5.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a Bill to consolidate the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1937, and certain other enactments relating to diseases of animals.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

VACCINATION OF HOSPITAL STAFFS
5.42 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR rose to draw attention to the danger of employing in or about fever hospitals persons who have
1020
not been adequately protected against smallpox by vaccination; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I presume to occupy your Lordships' attention for a short time to-night on the subject of vaccination. There is some history to recount before I make my few remarks. On April 19 last, I asked the Government a question on the advisability of compulsory vaccination for those who work in or about isolation hospitals. The answer did not seem to me to be fully satisfactory, for while the noble Lord who replied agreed that effective vaccination was desirable, he did not seem to indicate that administrative steps were sufficient to ensure that effective vaccination took place, and that at least strong pressure was brought on those likely to he exposed to danger to take this precaution. I am moving this Motion to-night in the hope of obtaining a reassuring statement from the Government, not only in relation to Scotland but in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole, in regard to the administrative steps taken to give the greatest possible protection to those exposed to danger.
In answer to a supplementary question on April 19, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, admitted that in a recent outbreak of smallpox in the West of Scotland, out of twenty-one cases, nine cases (eight nurses and a laundrymaid) were members of the staff of the fever hospital to which the original case had been admitted. Of these nine, five died; they had not been sufficiently vaccinated. I would add to these facts, which are already known, some remarks bearing on a recent review in the British Medical Journal in which other facts were adduced. Those facts seem to me, speaking as a layman, to prove beyond doubt that periodical vaccination offers a high degree of protection against this disease. Referring to the same outbreak in Glasgow, the British Medical Journal brought out the fact that, of eighteen confirmed cases, six had no vaccination scars. These patients all died, and they were the only patients who did die. That is a significant fact. Of the twelve who had vaccination scars, all but two took a light form of smallpox. The remaining two had a more severe attack but recovered, and it was ascertained that they had been vaccinated eighteen and forty-three years respectively before they were attacked, so that would be a considerable gap.

1021
Perhaps more remarkable still is that in no case did the disease develop where there had been successful vaccination within a period of seven years. I have no medical knowledge at all, and I treat this entirely from the point of view of a layman. It seems to me, however, that periodical revaccination—I cannot specify the length of the period, but seven years seems to he suggested here—gives a considerable measure of protection.
The West of Scotland outbreak, which I instance again because it is fresh in your Lordships' minds, once it took place, was handled with great energy, ability and determination, and would pay tribute to the health authorities both at the Scottish Office and in the localities. The outbreak was stamped out in a very short time, but it meant that mass vaccination had to be adopted. In the town of Hamilton, where a woman doctor unfortunately died after she had been the unwitting cause of a number of contacts throughout the town, practically every person in the borough was vaccinated. That was a considerable undertaking for the health authorities, and I pay tribute to them for their work. Not only in Hamilton, but in many towns in the county area round about thousands of people were vaccinated, and a first-class job was done. But this should not be necessary—that is the point I should like your Lordships to consider. It would not have been necessary to have this mass vaccination in order to check the spread of the disease if it had been possible by administrative measures to check it more nearly to its source of outbreak. If, for example, it had been possible to prevent the spread of the disease at the point where infection was first evident, much trouble would have been saved.
I come to the point that it is the place where the disease is most usually found, the isolation hospital, that should receive the first measures of protection. I agree that an isolation hospital is not the only place, but it is the natural place of danger. It is true that vaccination in infancy is not now compulsory in this country. If I may express a personal doubt, and I do not claim to take anyone with me, I doubt whether that will prove to have been a wise step. But that is not the issue before the House this afternoon. It is true that vaccination is, in effect, compulsory in many different sets of cir-
1022
cumstances. For example, before I was allowed to proceed to India to take up a Governor's post I was to all intents and purposes compulsorily vaccinated, and before I could come home again I was vaccinated once more. Before going to the United States or to a number of other countries, travellers are compulsorily vaccinated. Before a soldier or a public servant proceeds on service overseas he is compulsorily vaccinated. Of course, one can refuse and need not go abroad, but actually very few people faced with the issue would make the choice not to be vaccinated. The point is that in many sets of circumstances people are compulsorily vaccinated. Why should not the same care be extended to those exposed to risk in isolation hospitals, subject of course to their right to contract out for conscientious objection, though few people would do that when they have important assignments to undertake?
I do not claim that vaccination is the only defence against smallpox. Other steps can be taken which are extremely important, but it all tames back to vaccination and the administrative steps taken to ensure that it is effectively carried out. I hope the noble Lori. Lord Morrison, will he able to make it clear that throughout the United Kingdom a thorough review of anti-smallpox precautions has taken place, or is taking place, and that any particular danger points are being watched. I well realise that I may have fallen short in suggesting only one danger point in this Motion—namely, the isolation hospital—but I feel that that is the most dangerous point. As the British Medical Journal points out, the history of the recent outbreak in Glasgow, and that which took place in the north of England even more recently, shows how easily smallpox can enter the country in these clays of speedy travel. Hence, it becomes plain that the vaccination of infants is at least as necessary as it ever was, and that persons who may encounter the disease, in particular the staffs of isolation hospitals, should be periodically re-vaccinated.
We are a maritime race, with all the ports in the world as our hunting grounds for trade. It is inevitable, therefore, that we are exposed to a certain amount of danger from infectious disease. But let us at least maintain reasonable precautions to see that the degree of immunity which

1023
we have enjoyed from this scourge in the past fifty years or longer should not now be lessened. In this country, thanks to our laws, we are free from the scourge of rabies—a tremendous boon, as all who have served in the East know—and we have been reasonably free from the scourge of smallpox. However, in looking ahead I have grave anxieties, and I hope that the noble Lord will reassure us that the administration will, if necessary, be tightened up, and that the Government will show a really determined attitude on this question. I beg to move for Papers.
5.52 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I do not want to take up a great deal of time at this rather late hour, because the case has been extremely well put by my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir in moving the Motion. However, I should like to quote one or two figures to support the powerful plea which the noble Lord has made for the nurses and staffs working in infectious diseases hospitals to be vaccinated regularly. In looking at some papers before coming to your Lordships' House, I came across some rather startling figures published by the old Metropolitan Asylums Board, the body responsible for running the infectious diseases hospitals for London up to the time of the 1929 Act. I found that from the year 1892 to the year 1929 there were twelve big outbreaks of smallpox in the Metropolitan area, and those outbreaks brought forth 19,900 patients.
The number of secondary infections acquired by the people in charge of the patients—namely, the people in the infectious diseases hospitals—was fifteen. One outbreak in particular brought out eleven such patients. What caused the outbreak I have been unable to find out, but it was a big outbreak in the year 1893, when there were 2,000 or more cases, and eleven cases arose among the people in charge of them. That leaves only four cases arising from the remaining 18,000 cases. This number covered the doctors, nurses and others who came in contact with the Patients. I feel the reason for that was that the Metropolitan Asylums Board—and I think most of the boards of guardians—insisted on the staffs being successfully and regularly vaccinated. In the case of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, if a successful
1024
vaccination took place and there was no particular outbreak, no further vaccination was required for four or five years. But supposing a suspected or a real smallpox patient was admitted, the staff were immediately re-vaccinated; in fact, it was done so frequently that sometimes the staffs said they were tired of being vaccinated, although I am sure they would rather have been tired of being vaccinated than die from smallpox. I am not sure what occurred when the London County Council took over the hospitals but, so far as I can gather, the same good record continued.
Matters were simpler then, because the infectious diseases hospital, with the disinfection service and the people who drove the ambulances, all came under the department of preventive medicine of the local authority, and were under the charge of the medical officer. That does not apply now that the hospitals come under the Regional Hospital Boards. This makes it more difficult to keep personal contact to see that every nurse and member of the staff is vaccinated or has the choice of vaccination or not taking the employment. The Regional Hospital Boards—I am in no way criticising them on this account—have a great deal of work to do, and it may be rather difficult sometimes to keep such a strict watch. I should like to hear that administrative action is being taken to tighten things up, so that nobody will be employed in infectious diseases hospitals who has not only been vaccinated, but successfully vaccinated.
5.59 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, for raising this extremely important matter. There is no doubt whatever that great anxiety has been caused by the recent outbreaks to which the noble Lord has referred, the one in Glasgow and the other in the north of England. There are very good reasons why compulsory vaccination is not now insisted upon. I do not propose to enter into a disquisition on that subject this evening, or at any other time, with your Lordships, because that is a purely medical question. However, there is one fact that must be always borne in mind with regard to infectious diseases—namely, that they vary in virulence from time to time and, therefore,

1025
it is necessary to change the method of treatment from time to time. Incidentally, that applies to vaccination itself, which is, in fact, a slight form of smallpox, and affords protection against the major disease.
The point on which I should like the noble Lord who is to reply to give us some information is whether there were any bad effects consequent on the vaccination of adults in the many cases recently treated. The vaccination of an adult is a different thing from the vaccination of a child. Uneasiness has been expressed in various circles in case evil effects should follow the mass vaccination of adults. As the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, has said, he was not allowed to go to India to undertake a not unimportant position until he had submitted to vaccination. I had the same experience myself when. I was proceeding to India on medical work, and now every traveller going abroad—at least to many countries —is obliged to be vaccinated before the air services will carry him. I wonder if the noble Lord who is to reply can give any information as to whether there have been any bad results from the vaccination of adults in the cases I have mentioned. That is an important point.
I really rose to say, however, how strongly I agree with the noble Lord who raised this question about the necessity of the staffs of fever hospitals being vaccinated, not only in order to protect themselves but also because they may, by not being protected, contract smallpox and give it to other people. But that is not the only trouble. As the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, will remember—I think I am right in this—the first case which gave rise to the Glasgow epidemic was not taken to a fever hospital at all in the first instance.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I think it was diagnosed as pneumonia, and was not taken to an isolation hospital; but I am not sure about that.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: I think that to the case. Very often these cases are not diagnosed and, therefore, the question arises as to whether we need some further protection against that happening. Anyone can diagnose a case of smallpox in the middle of an epidemic, but it is extremely difficult when it comes quite
1026
casually, either to a doctor's surgery or a hospital out-patient department, which may not be a fever hospital at all, and without any sign or symptom. The noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, told me of a case recently where a doctor in a hospital put his hand on the forehead of a patient and said: "This is an obvious case of acne," whereas in fact it was a case of smallpox. It is not easy to discover this disease, but that is all the more reason for having the staffs of hospitals protected by vaccination. While that cannot be made compulsory for people who disagree on conscientious grounds, it is at least possible to see that the people who do not submit to vaccination go neither to India as Governors, nor to infectious diseases hospitals, where they are likely to come into contact with smallpox. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in that, and I hope that we may have an assurance that action will be taken on those lines.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will be able to give some indication whether the Government can take steps to find out whether there were any evil results from the vaccination of many thousands of adults. I should like to k now whether it is possible for the Government to obtain further information with regard to the very large number of adults who have been vaccinated when taking trips abroad over the whole war period—including, of course, those in the Services, who must number many thousands. Perhaps we could he told, also, whether they did in fact contract smallpox after being vaccinated. I feel that such information as all this would be a valuable addition to our knowledge as to the facts about vaccination and its value.
6.5 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this has been a short but well-balanced debate. We have had two medical experts and two laymen, of whom I am the second. May I say at once that I regret I am not able to give the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, the information he seeks. I doubt if information can be obtained whether any illnesses have resulted from the large number of people who have been compulsorily vaccinated when going overseas. I doubt whether such information has ever been accumu-

1027
lated by anybody, but I will make inquiries. With regard to the question the noble Lord raised about the large numbers who were vaccinated, my information is that the large-scale vaccination of adults on the occasion of the Glasgow outbreak approached the figure of half a million, and that was attended by very few unpleasant results. I promise to try to obtain some more detailed information for the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, asked me to make a somewhat fuller reply than I did last time, and I propose to do so. The first point I would emphasise is that the reply I shall now make will cover not only Scotland but England as well. The Government are fully alive to the need for adequate protective measures in hospitals against smallpox and other epidemic diseases. In accordance with the undertaking which I gave on April 19, to which the noble Lord referred, and the same undertaking which was given by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place on April 25, the Government are taking special steps to bring the matter to the attention of hospital authorities in the National Health Service and to give them guidance on the measures to be taken.
I do not think there is any difference of opinion as to the need for protection but only as to the best means of ensuring it. The problem of protection is not confined to fever hospitals only. A case of smallpox is not invariably diagnosed as such before the patient is admitted to hospital. A patient with smallpox may turn up in a general hospital, as the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, has said, or in a fever hospital. It is only in cases where the disease is diagnosed before the patient is admitted that he goes direct to a hospital which is specially designated for the treatment of smallpox. For example, the recent outbreak in Glasgow began with a seaman who was admitted to hospital because he was diagnosed as suffering from pneumonia. He was in fact sent to an infectious diseases hospital, but he might just as easily have gone to a general hospital. Any rules for protection, therefore, should be applied to general hospitals as well as hospitals for the treatment of infectious diseases, and, indeed, to workers in other branches of the
1028
Health Service as well—for example, health visitors and sanitary inspectors.
There was in this matter no uniform practice among the old hospital authorities before the passing of the National Health Service legislation. It was the general practice of local authorities who controlled the infectious diseases hospitals to make arrangements under which student nurses, taking up duty at these hospitals, could be vaccinated against smallpox and immunised against certain other infectious diseases. Very few, if any, prospective nurses declined the protection offered, but the general rule was not to apply compulsion. It was much less common for local authorities to arrange for the routine vaccination of staff other than nurses, although special steps were, of course, taken in hospitals designated for the reception of smallpox patients. The voluntary hospitals, which included the bulk of the general hospitals, often took a stronger line and employed only nurses who had been vaccinated. But in these hospitals, too, the practice as regards staff other than nurses was much less strict.
The National Health Service legislation provided for the repeal of the Vaccination Acts under which vaccination was compulsory for infants unless the parents objected on conscientious grounds. The Government do not think it right to impose by administrative action a restriction on the liberty of prospective nurses which does not apply to the rest of the community. The girl who wishes to be a nurse but objects to vaccination would be barred from the career of her choice. This might well affect recruitment to the nursing profession, and not only of conscientious objectors to vaccination, because people will object to compulsion even when they are quite prepared to take the necessary action voluntarily. This difficulty would be even greater with domestic staff, who tend to move freely from hospital to other work. A requirement of vaccination would certainly be an obstacle to their recruitment.
These points I have made to show that the approach in the noble Lord's Motion is not the right one. The Government are in full sympathy, however, with the end which Lord Clydesmuir has in view, and I shall now explain how we intend to achieve it. After consultation with local authorities and their medical officers of

1029
health, who have such an important part to play in the prevention of epidemics, detailed instructions to Scottish hospitals have been issued this week by the Department of Health for Scotland. Similar instructions are being prepared by the Ministry of Health for issue in England and Wales. The line laid down in these instructions is as follows.
First, in all hospitals where staff are likely to be at special risk—that is, both general hospitals (including children's hospitals) and infectious diseases hospitals—all recruits to the staff will be offered vaccination unless they present clear evidence of having been very recently vaccinated. Staff already in posts will be offered re-vaccination from time to time, at least once in every three years. There may have to be some modification of these arrangements for transient employees who serve in a hospital for only a short time and who are not in contact with patients, but this will be the only exception. Experience suggests that staff whose duties bring them into contact with patients are very unlikely to refuse vaccination, especially when care is taken—and care will he taken—to present the offer suitably and to make convenient arrangements for carrying out the vaccination without delay. It will be a rare case for a nurse to decline to be vaccinated, and if such a case does arise the hospital authorities will then arrange for her to be employed on duties where the risk of contact is reduced to the minimum.
All hospitals will be required to maintain accurate and up-to-date information in their records, showing the vaccination position of each member of the staff. The object of this is to ensure that prompt and effective action can be taken as soon as a case of or a contact with smallpox arrives in hospital. When this happens, vaccination or re-vaccination will be offered immediately to all members of the staff, and, at the same time, their vaccination position will be carefully checked so as to remove from any risk of contact anyone who is not protected. This will apply not only to nurses but to domestics, ambulance attendants and anyone else at the hospital who is exposed to the risk of contact.
These are the routine measures which will be taken in all hospitals where there
1030
is any likelihood of a smallpox case or contact being admitted. I should make it clear that those hospitals which are actually designated for the admission of smallpox patients should an outbreak occur, are in a special category. As an invariable rule their staffs must be adequately protected by periodic vaccination and also by re-vaccination when, or if possible before, the first case is admitted. The staff of these smallpox units are normally volunteers who have offered their services on the clear understanding that their vaccinal state will be maintained at a high level by re-vaccination, and the question of compulsion does not, therefore, really arise. What has been said applies primarily to smallpox, but it may he added that it is normal practice now for hospital nurses to be immunised against diphtheria and against typhoid and paratyphoid fevers. In addition, to help to protect nurses against tuberculosis, they are now being offered inoculation with B.C.G. vaccine in appropriate cases.
What has been said relates only to the direct protection of the individual members of hospital staffs. In addition, hospital authorities have also been reminded of the necessity of working closely in all matters regarding the control of epidemic diseases with the medical officers of health, who have a statutory duty to take measures for the protection of the community of which the hospital is a part. This co-operation takes several forms, The essential things are that the medical officer of health—more than one may be concerned—should be warned at once when there is any suspicion of a case of smallpox in a hospital, or of any other similar disease which may be the forerunner of an epidemic, and that he should be called into consultation by the hospital authorities on the measures to be taken to prevent the spread of the epidemic, both within the hospital and to the rest of the community.
The Government believe that most of the measures outlined fall within what is already recognised to be good hospital practice, and that they are taken as a matter of routine by most hospital authorities. The new instructions will ensure that they are taken by all hospitals, and this will reduce the risk to hospital staffs to the minimum. It is important, however, that this problem

1031
should be seen in its true perspective. While the Government are instructing hospital authorities to take every necessary precaution, the actual risks of hospital staffs being exposed to smallpox have proved in practice to be slight. There were peculiar circumstances about the recent unfortunate outbreak in Glasgow, and while this is not a matter for prediction there is no reason to fear repetition. The Government do not feel that they would be justified, as a result of this one case, in taking the extreme step of enforcing compulsory vaccination on one class of the community—nurses and other members of the hospital staff—who, perhaps more than any other, are fully conscious of the value of protective measures and can be trusted to take a responsible view of their duty to themselves and to the rest of the community. The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, asked for a reassuring statement. I hope that the statement which I have just made will reassure him.
6.18 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I say a word or two? The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, described a hospital's refusing to employ a girl who has not been vaccinated as an unpleasant form of compulsion. But that is precisely the same form of compulsion as is employed by the Foreign Office in excluding candidates for employment there unless they know French, and by insurance companies in requiring candidates for posts with them to know mathematics. By these requirements they may well debar people from the career of their predilection until they have "vaccinated" their brains in the necessary manner.
6.19 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his very thoughtful statement, but before I can admit that it is a reassuring statement I should like to study the instructions which are being issued to hospitals, not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom as a whole.
LORD MORRISON: I shall be pleased to give the noble Lord a copy.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I am much obliged. They seemed to me to be clear, hut I should like to go into the subject
1032
rather more thoroughly. I should not be surprised if, after having done so, I do feel reassured; but, being a canny Scot, I would rather not commit myself until I have actually studied the instructions. I agree that in a number of professions and careers there is in fact compulsion. No one can go overseas and take up a post until he has been vaccinated; no one can travel to certain countries unless he has been vaccinated. It may be said that vaccination is not compulsory, because a person need not travel. For instance, I need not have gone to Bombay, and I need not have come back again. But on the assumption that I was going to do both those things, I had to be vaccinated twice. I cannot see that it would be unreasonable to apply compulsion in this case, but I recognise the difficulty. Also, I do not want to exaggerate or over-estimate the dangers to which nurses are exposed. Their magnificent work in this country is well recognised by everyone. I hope that this is an isolated instance. I trust that the effect of these instructions may make any recrudescence unlikely.
I do not wish to give cause for alarm to anyone undertaking that profession. I think the debate has served a useful purpose. I thank the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken in replying to me, and if I cannot admit that I am wholly reassured, perhaps I may feel so when I have read the instructions more fully. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
WAKEFIELD EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
SURBITON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FOOD AND DRUGS (MILK, DAIRIES AND ARTIFICIAL CREAM) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past six o'clock.