Lords Sitting of 12 June 1951

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

MAGISTRATES' ACTION IN TULIPS CASE
2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Lord Chancellor a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make in relation to the recent case at South Shields, where a woman was remanded in custody for a night for picking three tulips and was fined on the following morning the sum of £5.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, my attention has been called to this case, and I have obtained a full explanation from the magistrates concerned. The magistrates have been greatly disturbed at the increasing practice of damaging flowers and shrubs growing in public places. I agree with the magistrates in thinking that this is an obvious anti-social act, which should not be passed over as a matter of no consequence. Such conduct, if unchecked, would make it impossible by planting flowers and shrubs to beautify places to which the public have access. I can, therefore, well understand that the
2
magistrates, particularly in view of the prevalence of this type of vandalism in their area, thought that the matter should be severely dealt with. The maximum penalty which the law provides, under Section 23 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, which was the section under which these proceedings were brought, is a fine of £20 or six months' imprisonment.
I have no reason to doubt the competence of these magistrates, who arrived at their conclusion after careful consideration of all the circumstances. Nevertheless, whilst not wishing to imply any censure I feel bound to say that in my opinion they made a grave error of judgment in the course which they took, though I am satisfied that they were endeavouring to do their duty. To keep this woman in custody overnight, and then to fine her the sum of £5, a substantial sum, on the following morning, looked like punishing her twice for the same offence. Justices have power to remand the accused person after conviction for the purpose of enabling inquiries (including inquiries into the physical and mental condition of the defendant) to be made, or of determining the most suitable method of dealing with his case. A remand for this purpose may be in custody or on bail.
It would obviously be undesirable for me to attempt to lay down any general rule as to the occasions on which these powers should be exercised, or upon the question in what circumstances, when these powers are exercised, the remand should be in custody and not on bail. Two propositions seem, however, to be

3
clear. First, a series of cases establishes that this power to remand in custody ought not to be used merely as an additional means of punishing the accused. Secondly, the power of remanding in custody should be used, in the case of a woman with young children, only in very special circumstances. I hope that what I have said may provide some useful guidance to magistrates, and I have ascertained that the Lord Chief Justice agrees with the opinion which I have just expressed. After careful consideration of the whole of the circumstances of this case, I do not propose to take any further action, and I have caused the magistrates to be informed of my views on this matter.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, while thanking the Lord Chancellor for his full answer, which I hope will be widely reported, may I ask my noble and learned friend one supplementary question? It is on a point which I think is involved in what he has said, but it is a point which ought, I submit, to be emphasised. The power of magistrates to remand an accused for the purpose of making necessary inquiries, or in order to have time to reflect on his punishment when he is convicted, is, of course, an essential part of our criminal law, though, as the Lord Chancellor has said, the accused ought not to be remanded in custody unless there is reason to think that, if left at liberty in the meantime, he is likely to abscond. But would the Lord Chancellor think it right to make it very plain in a supplementary answer that magistrates are not entitled to remand in custody for the concealed purpose of teaching the accused a lesson, when there is no real justification at all for postponing sentence? If, as I understand was the case, this woman was brought up before the magistrates in the morning following her wrongful act in damaging the Corporation's display of flowers the night before, and she then pleaded guilty, the effect of the remand was to punish her, a mother with small children, with twenty-four hours' imprisonment before the magistrates imposed the fine. I submit to the Lord Chancellor that it might serve a useful purpose if he thought it well to say something in supplement to his original answer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount; it is desirable that this matter should be made completely plain. I respond to his question by saying quite categorically that in my view it is wrong for a court to use the power to remand in custody for the purpose of teaching the accused a lesson, or indeed for any purpose of punishment. It is a power which is given to justices for a wholly different purpose—for example, to make inquiries or to determine what is the most suitable method of dealing with the case.

FATE OF MONSIGNOR BERAN
2.46 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any information about the present fate and whereabouts of Monsignor Beran, Archbishop of Prague; and whether they have made any representations to the Czech Government on the Archbishop's behalf.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, no information about Monsignor Beran has been received since the Czechoslovak Press reported on March 11 that, for allegedly violating an order relating to the status of the Church, he had been fined and sent to reside at an unspecified address outside the diocese of Prague. His Majesty's Government have made no representations to the Czechoslovak Government on the Archbishop's behalf.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for that answer, may I ask him whether the means or organisation exist for keeping this and similar shocking cases under review, so that intercession can be made if a suitable opportunity permits?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gladly give the noble Lord the assurance which he seeks. We shall be willing to do anything in our power, always provided that we are satisfied that any endeavour we make on these lines is not likely to do more harm than good.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION REPORT
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government when the Report and Accounts of the Transport Commission for 1950 may be expected.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Commission hope that the Report will be available in the early part of July.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
2.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reacting read.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Bill to your Lordships this afternoon, as it sets out to do something which I am sure will command the sympathy of the whole House. The rise in the cost of living which has taken place since the rates of benefit under the National Insurance scheme were fixed in 1946 falls particularly hardly upon those living on small, fixed incomes, who, because they are no longer in the field of employment, do not benefit from wage increases. It is the aim of this Bill to help such people by improving the National Insurance benefits for retirement pensioners and for widows with children. Other classes whose position is particularly difficult are helped by the proposed improvements in the increases for children, which are payable with all benefits, and in the guardians' allowance for those having the care of orphans.
I should like at the outset to remind your Lordships, and to emphasise, that this Bill is an interim measure. You will remember that under the Act of 1946 the Minister has a statutory duty to carry out a quinquennial review of rates of benefit. The first such review is not due until 1954, by which time it is hoped that there will have been sufficient experience of the working of the scheme to enable a thorough and comprehensive examination to be made of all its provisions and of the financial liabilities involved. But in view of the fact that the scheme
6
assumed an 8½ per cent. rate of unemployment, it has been found possible to make these improvements of benefits without increasing the contributions of insured persons and their employers beyond those which are fixed in the Act of 1946. Your Lordships will, however, appreciate that these changes are without prejudice to what may be done when the whole scheme is reviewed in 1954.
The statistics of applications made for National Assistance in supplementation of National Insurance benefits have given a clear pointer to those classes who most frequently find their insurance benefits inadequate to their needs. These are retirement pensioners over 70 and women pensioners over 65; widows with young children to look after; and, among other beneficiaries, those with children to support. The Bill proposes to increase benefits for these groups. The standard rate of retirement pension for men over 70 and women over 65 is to be increased by 4s. This will raise the standard rates for these persons from 26s. to 30s. a week for a single man or woman, or a widow, and from 16s. to 20s. for a married woman receiving a pension by right of her husband's insurance. The widowed mother's allowance, for widows with children under school-leaving age is to be increased from 33s. 6d. to 40s. a week, and there is to be an extra 2s. 6d. for children, other than the first in the widow's family, in addition to the family allowances she receives for them. This means that a widow left with, say, three children will now get 55s. a week, including family allowances, instead of 43s. 6d. The improvement in the rates of benefit for children is to be extended to all beneficiaries under the scheme—that is, to retirement pensioners with children, and to persons receiving sickness or unemployment benefit or industrial injuries benefit.
Loss of wages from whatever cause, whether age, sickness, unemployment or accident, brings the greatest hardship to the families with children, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that we are right in seeking, in this Bill, to do something to help them. So it is proposed that the eldest child should attract a benefit of 10s. and others 2s. 6d. each, in addition to the family allowance of 5s. which is paid for each child after the eldest. An amendment to the original

7
Bill also increases from 12s. to 13s. 6d. a week, the guardian's allowance paid to people caring for orphaned children.
These are the main increases in rates of benefit—bigger retirement pensions for the older pensioners, improved widowed mother's allowance and new benefits for children.
Your Lordships may now be asking what is to be done for younger pensioners, the men between 65 and 70, and women between 60 and 65. What does the Bill propose for them? Here the provisions are perhaps a little more complicated and their purpose not so immediately obvious. I should like first, therefore, to make a general point, which I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind as a background to these provisions. The point is this. It is becoming a commonplace to say that we are living longer nowadays; and this fact will have important repercussions upon our economic and social welfare. At the beginning of the century there was only one person of the present pensionable ages for every ten people of working age. At present the proportion is one to five, and in less than a generation it will be one to three. If people do not go on working longer, the proportion of non-workers in the community will grow to a point where the burden on the working population may become insupportable. If we are to maintain our standard of life it is of the utmost importance that all those who are fit and able to do so should stay at work beyond the minimum pensionable age. This will, of course, demand a new attitude on the part of both employers and employed. Employers must be prepared to keep their older workers a little longer, and work-people, young as well as old, must be brought to think it the normal thing for men and women to stay on at work longer. Happily, in these days of full employment there is little danger that by doing so the older folk will be robbing younger people of their jobs.
Clearly, however, this is a matter which goes beyond National Insurance policy; it is part of general employment policy, and in dealing with it I may be accused of straying too far from the subject. Yet the financial implications for National Insurance of a steadily increasing pension population are most serious, and are relevant factors to be considered. It
8
is calculated that the Exchequer contribution to the Fund will have risen to about £450,000,000 in 1977–78. Also, the National Insurance arrangements made for elderly persons must, clearly, have an important influence on the attitudes to continued employment, not only of insured persons themselves but of employers, trade unions and the community in general. Here I should like to remind your Lordships that the principal Act of 1946 was itself designed with an eye to the future burden on the community of an increasing pension population. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has discussed that problem in his Report, which was the basis of our whole scheme, and it was the Act of 1946 which for the first time made it possible for people to continue in insurance without any change in conditions for five years beyond the old pensionable age, paying their contributions, remaining covered for sickness and unemployment benefit, and with a prospect of a higher pension on their eventual retirement or on completion of the five years if still at work then.
I come back now to the Bill which we are considering, and in particular to the point I raised a moment ago about the provisions in the Bill for men between the ages of 65 and 70, and for women between the ages of 60 and 65. We now have our background, and shall be able to appreciate the purpose of the provisions. First, by Clause 4(3), this group of persons will be affected by the proposal in the Bill to raise the increments of pension which can be earned by working on after pensionable age from 1s. 0d. to 1s. 6d. for every twenty-five contributions paid after this provision of the Bill comes into operation. This means that in future a worker who postpones retirement for the full period of five years up to the age of 70 will, from that age, have added to his increased rate of pension of 30s., an extra 15s. a week, instead of 10s., as at present, so that he will have a total pension of 45s. The increments of pension which a married man can earn for his wife will still be 1s. while they are together, but if he should die before her any increments he had earned for her would thereafter be paid at the 1s. 6d. rate. This means that the combined pension of a married couple, where the wife herself is not working, can be as much as 75s. a week, and if the husband dies first his widow can get

9
45s. a week. If the wife is separately insured in her own right and works until 65, they will now be able to get 45s. each—£4 10s. 0d. a week between them.
The second provision for this group of persons, men between 65 and 70 and women between 60 and 65, is for those who do not stay on in regular employment. There will be some people who will find a full-time job too much for them after 65 or 60, as the case may be, and they will decide to retire and take their pension. Your Lordships will know that it is a condition for a retirement pension to men under 70 and women under 65 that they must be retired from regular employment. It follows from this that there must be some limit set to the amounts they can earn without affecting their pension after retirement. At present, a pensioner is allowed to earn £1 in any week without reduction of his pension. The Bill proposes to raise this limit to £2. This will give a little more margin to those pensioners who feel that they cannot continue in full-time employment but are quite capable of doing a part-time job. But it is not intended that advantage of this concession should be taken by people who could and should, in the national interest, continue as regular workers, looking forward to the better pension which they can get later on.
The third provision in the Bill for men between 65 and 70, and women between 60 and 65, is also for those already retired and receiving pension. At the moment, the rule is that once a man has retired and taken his pension he cannot revert to his former position as an insured contributor, and earn increments. There are good reasons for regarding retirement as a final act. It is important that a man should not lightly give up regular employment. Once he has done so, he may not find it so easy to get back into employment if he changes his mind. The Bill, however, introduces new and more favourable conditions for people who stay on at work when they are beyond minimum pensionable age and it has been decided to allow those already retired to tike advantage of those conditions during a limited period. A pensioner already retired will have six months within which to decide whether to go back to work again and start paying contributions for a bigger pension. While he is back at work he will, of course, forgo
10
his pension, and will pay contributions each week in the normal way. His contributions will earn him increments of pension at the new rate. To give him cover for sickness and unemployment benefits, should he need them, he will be allowed contribution credits for the period for which he was retired. If his wife is of pensionable age she will have become accustomed to receiving the pension which she gets by right of her husband's insurance. It is not proposed to disturb her pension; she will go on drawing it, though her husband goes back to work.
There is one other provision, which was introduced into the Bill in its passage through another place, which concerns men between 65 and 70 and women between 60 and 65. It has been argued that in spite of the opportunities offered by the Bill and the changes of attitude in industry which the Government are seeking to foster, it may not in practice be at all easy for the person who has been retired for a year or two to get back into work and so earn a bigger pension. It is therefore provided that the new increased retirement pension, which will normally be paid to men at 70, and to women at 65, shall be paid on their retirement to all persons who on the appointed day will be between 65 and 70, in the case of men, and between 60 and 65, in the case of women. Persons who reach pensionable age after the new provisions come into force will be in a different position. They will be able to consider, against the background of the new conditions introduced by the Bill, whether to retire or not, and it is much easier for a man to stay on at work for a bit to earn a bigger pension than it is to go back to regular work when he has once retired.
I have now covered the main provisions of the Bill. There is one feature about it, however, upon which I should perhaps say a little more. So far, I have spoken only of the earnings rule which limits the amount a retirement pensioner can earn without reduction of pension. It is also proposed to raise the earnings limit for widow pensioners from 30s. to 40s., and (again as the result of a change made in another place) for those receiving widowed mother's allowance, to 60s.; and the widowed mother will not have the amount of her allowance which is

11
allocated to her children reduced, however much she earns. Another change of a related character, which has been introduced as the result of representations in another place, is that a married man who is a retirement pensioner with a wife herself under pension age, or who is on sickness benefit and likely to remain so for a long time, will no longer lose the increase of benefit for his wife, if, to help maintain the home, she is earning above the 20s. a week which normally governs the payment of such an increase. For these particular wives, the limit will now be 40s.
This is perhaps a convenient point to refer to the fact that the National Assistance Board propose to increase their rates to bring them in line with the higher age pension rates—that is, 30s. for a single person, and 50s. for a married couple. This means that pensioners receiving supplementary allowances from the Board will nevertheless be able to benefit from the increase in pension rates. It also means that there will be improved rates of assistance available for all in need. It is intended to bring in the new assistance scales at the same time as pensions are increased.
I turn now to the cost of the new proposals in the Bill. The Government actuary estimated that the new proposals in the Bill as first introduced would cost £39,000,000 in the first full year. Of this total, £33,000,000 was for improved pension rates; £2,600,000 for the increase in widowed mothers' allowances and the increases for their children; and £3,200,000 for the new children's benefits for the families of other beneficiaries. The cost of the increased pensions will rise to £80,000,000 a year in twenty-five years' time. There will also be an additional charge of about £300,000, which may ultimately rise to £400,000, upon the Industrial Injuries Fund for the improved increases of benefit for children. Since these estimates were made it has been decided to give the increased rates of pension to men who are between 65 and 70 and to women between 60 and 65 on the appointed day. This will not, of course, be a permanent cost, but it is estimated at £7,000,000 in the first full year, 1952–53. After that year, the cost will decline, and will disappear in five years. I have already mentioned that, pending
12
the general review, it will be possible to meet these costs without making any increases in contributions beyond those provided for in the Act of 1946.
A re-assessment of future liabilities has now been made on a more realistic estimate of the likely trend of unemployment, and to keep the Fund approximately in balance over the next few years it is proposed to adjust the annual Exchequer payments to the Fund. These payments are composed of two parts. There is the Exchequer Supplement, which is a fixed amount paid in respect of each contribution paid by or in respect of insured persons; and there is, in addition, an annual lump sum payment. It was originally intended to reduce both these Exchequer payments, but, as a result of representations in another place, it was decided to abolish the annual lump sum payments altogether for the next few years, and to make a smaller reduction of the Exchequer Supplement as from October 1, 1951. I should, perhaps, add a word of warning here. This does not mean that the Exchequer payments to the Fund will be permanently reduced. The rising cost of pensions alone will require the resumption of annual lump sum payments to the Fund in a few years' time of rapidly increasing amounts. The adjustments now being made are merely to correct the assumptions originally made about the rate of unemployment. The long-term commitments of the Fund remain unchanged and, as I have already said, Exchequer liability will now rise over the next twenty-five years to about £450,000,000.
I should like to say a final word about the appointed days. The Bill allows different appointed days to be fixed for different provisions. It is the intention to bring some provisions into operation almost immediately after the Bill becomes law. These are the new earnings rules, the new rates of increment of pension for postponed retirement, and the provisions enabling pensioners to resume employment and qualify for increments. It is hoped to start paying the main improved benefits to people who have reached the age of 70 from September 1, 1951. This is a month earlier than was first planned. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the great amount of work involved in increasing pensions for over 3,000,000 pensioners. It is not only a question of

13
the administrative arrangements which have to be made to have adjustments made in the current pension order books in the hands of pensioners, but there is also the printing and assembling of large quantities of new order books. A good deal of additional information has to be obtained from the beneficiaries, in order that the children's increases can be paid. Everything possible is being done to speed up the work, and a month has been gained; but it is unlikely that there can be any further advancement of the date. For the one million-odd pensioners who on the appointed day will be under 70—under 65 in the case of women—a slightly later date has had to be fixed—namely, October 1. This is the earliest date by which the increases proposed for them can be put into payment.
In conclusion, I would only repeat what I said at the beginning: I am sure we shall all sympathise with the purpose of the Bill, and welcome this move to help those in greatest need. Your Lordships may feel that I have dealt with this matter at greater length than appeared on the surface to be necessary, but that is only because so many changes were made in another place that it was felt advisable to deal with the matter rather more fully than otherwise would have been done. With the assurance that your Lordships will welcome the Bill, I ask you now to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kershaw.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, for his clear exposition of this rather complicated measure. Behind all his actuarial calculations and all his words there lies a great human problem. We on this side welcome any measure which will assure to people in the evening of their lives who have fallen into need that basic minimum standard of life to which all Parties in the Coalition Government agreed. As the noble Lord has said, this Bill is a sign of the times, a sign of the rising cost of living and of the consequential adjustments that go with it. It recognises frankly that retirement pensions as they now stand are no longer adequate for a minimum standard of living. A large group of citizens will benefit by the increase; but another large group, almost as old, some younger by
14
only one day, will miss the provisions of the Bill. They will still be at the mercy of prevailing conditions if they fall into need, and will have to seek aid from the Assistance Board. One of the proposals of the Bill is to encourage the elderly to return to work. That is an admirable object, with which we all agree: and, nationally, it is one of the first importance at this moment. I do not believe that we shall ever get far alone those lines until employers—Government, local government and private—take a careful look at this whole situation to see just how the more elderly can be fitted into the pattern of industry. We shall have to approach employers with energy and sympathy to persuade them to support any measures which Parliament may pass, if we are really to succeed in this project.
The noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, has told us how, on Committee stage in another place, a concession was made which benefits about 1,000,000 more citizens than would have been included in the original draft of the Bill. All good luck to the 1,000,000 who receive the benefits. I cannot, however, help feeling concerned about one or two anomalies which have arisen as a result of that concession, and which were pointed out with considerable force in another place by a member of the noble Lord's own Party. I point the fact out without rancour, because I am sure that His Majesty's Government are just as concerned about the anomalies as we are on this side. I should like to put three of them to the noble Lord. First of all, a man who does not reach 65 until after the appointed day will get no increase for five years, unless he qualifies for National Assistance. Secondly, a man who is 65 before the appointed day and still in work will receive 26s. a week, plus 16s. for a dependant, or for his wife if he is married, if he falls sick or becomes unemployed. But if he had retired from work, he would get a pension of 30s., and if his wife had also reached 60 before the appointed date, her pension on her husband's insurance would be 20s. a week. Thus, unless I am mistaken, and I do not think I am, if two couples in the same age groups both fell sick or became unemployed, the one still in work would receive an aggregate of 42s. a week and the other, who had retired, would receive 50s. Perhaps the noble Lord will say

15
a word on that point afterwards. The third case is that a man over 70, or a woman over 65, will get the higher pension, even if he or she is in full-time employment; but the man between 65 and 70, or the woman between 60 and 65, who is retired and has gone back to work again in response to our appeals, will have his or her pension reduced on account of earnings. The difference between 69 and 70 can be just one day.
The noble Lord has told us about the appointed days, but I am not sure whether they are absolutely or only provisionally fixed. Again, perhaps, he will say a word later on that matter. I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to this aspect of the Bill. In regard to full-time employment of those who had retired, I am glad to see that provision has been made by which, if a man tries to get employment again after retirement and fails, he will not be held to have lost his option if he puts down his name at the Labour Exchange; such registration will count as keeping alive his option. I should like to ask one question here. Suppose this same man, who has come back from retirement, gets a post and falls sick after a few days or weeks: he will not have contributed sufficiently long to be eligible for full rates of sickness benefit. Are there any arrangements for giving him credit in order that he may be able to draw the ordinary sickness benefits?
In regard to retirement pensions, clearly, once the principle of retirement pensions has been accepted, there must be some ruling on what a man can earn after retirement and on the hours during which he can work and still be regarded as retired. We need a scheme which, while upholding the principle of retirement, will not discourage a man who, through failing health or dimming capabilities, decides that he is capable of working only part-time. The present position is governed by one of the earlier appeals made under the main Act. I think the rule runs like this: that where a man has retired and is doing merely occasional work, he must establish his case; and he can establish his case if he proves that he is not working for more than twelve hours a week or is not doing more than a quarter of the normal hours that a full-time worker at that job would be doing. It is not easy to fit people into part-time employment,
16
unless they work for definite periods. Usually, when a man who has normally worked morning and afternoon goes on to part-time, he works each morning or each afternoon of the week—a half of a day's work. If he works every morning on a five-day week he does fifteen hours a week, and thus puts himself outside the ambit of this ruling. Alternatively, of course, if he can prove that, because he has changed his job to a totally different one, he is doing more or less casual work, he continues to be treated as retired. I believe it is important, if the purposes of this Bill are to be achieved, and the elder people are to be induced to continue to take part in productive industry, that they should be encouraged to go on using the skill they have gained over many years' experience at the same job, rather than to change to another one.
That brings me to my second question. I believe that there is a strong case for appointing a special committee to consider the workings of this earnings rule. At the present moment there is little reliable information upon which we can base conclusions, and I would ask the noble Lord whether he and his colleagues will give consideration to the setting up of such a committee. In conclusion, I would say this. As the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, has said, this is an interim measure, and the principal Act is due for review in the year 1954. However, if the cost of living continues to advance at its present rate, how long will this 4s. increase last? Will there not be the strongest possible case for conducting a review of the Act earlier than the year 1954, which is still three years hence? Were we not all warned by the right honourable gentleman, Sir Hartley Shaw-cross, as recently as last week that prices are likely to go on rising? I have felt it necessary to draw attention to certain anomalies in this Bill, which I am sure concern the Government just as much as they do noble Lords on this side of the House. In doing so, however, I do not want it to be thought that I do not welcome the Bill as warmly as anybody. But if we are to attract the elderly men into productive industry, it must be done on a nation-wide scale, and at the moment we have a long way to go before that is achieved.
3.23 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I speak again only with the leave of the House, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for his sympathetic reception of the Bill. Perhaps his last few words provide the answer to what he said: that this Bill is an interim measure, merely attempting to do something within the financial ambit of the present Act, by altering the assumed rate of unemployment—at present 8½per cent.—first to 1½ per cent; then to 2½per cent. and then to 4 per cent. Under the Bill, the money will be provided for the various provisions. The review which is to take place is of a kind which I believe would incorporate the suggestion of the noble Lord, that a special committee should consider one phase of the problem. I feel that they would be bound to consider the whole of the problems that have arisen during the five years' administration which by then will have taken place. The noble Lord probably overlooked the fact that it would be relatively easy, say, for a man between 65 and 70, to attract increments equal to the higher rate of benefit that will be paid to the other people. Eighteen months' employment, or less than eighteen months, after the age of 65, would produce an increase of 4s. 6d. a week in his pension, and so make it 6d. more than that of those people who are benefiting immediately. I hope that the noble Lord realises that particular point.
The other suggestions the noble Lord has made in his speech will be faithfully considered; but as they amount in the main to administrative matters, it is not necessary to incorporate them in the Bill at any stage. The appointed day is to be fixed by regulations. I can assure the noble Lord that September 1 has already been decided upon as the date for the major part of the benefits—those for people of 70 and over. Some of the changes made by the Bill will be introduced almost immediately, as I mentioned in the course of my speech. The change in the case of the only other category—that of people between the age of 65 and 70 on the original appointed day—will come into effect a month later—namely, in October, instead of September. I do not know that there is any other point that I need mention, except perhaps the question of retirement.
18
Surely, that is linked up with the increased amount that is now allowed to be earned before there is any reduction in benefit—namely, 40s., and 60s. in the case of a widowed mother with children. I hope the noble Lord has seen what is a generous concession in that respect. It is not a matter of so many hours' work. Once retirement has been effected, the method of dealing with benefits is by earnings: how much the pensioner is earning since his retirement.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but surely the question of hours worked also comes into it.
LORD KERSHAW: No, not really. Once a person has retired, he is then a retired person, even though he goes back to work. The only question on his going back to work is what is the amount of his earnings. The amount allowed used to be 20s., and all over that figure affected his rate of benefit. In future it will be 40s. That is the only change that has been made in that respect. As the noble Lord said, this is a complicated Bill, and all the more so because it is an amending Bill to amend a much larger Act. But I can assure the noble Lord that the points that he has raised have been considered and I believe, are largely met.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

MIDWIVES BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, this is another consolidation measure. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
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.

MIDWIVES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Morrison, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Haden-Guest.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

NURSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Morrison, I beg to move that this Bill also be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Haden-Guest.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

COMMON INFORMERS BILL
3.30 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.—(Earl Fortescue.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The VISCOUNT MERSEY in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule [Acts Providing for Common Informer Actions]:
EARL FORTESCUE: On behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. I understand that The Lighting and Watching Act, 1833, was left out of this Schedule by mistake.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, at end insert—

"3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 90.

The Lighting and Watching Act, 1833.

Section fifty.")

—(Earl Fortescue.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL
3.31 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, I am privileged to move the Second Reading of a Bill which is a non-Party Bill, but which is by no means a noncontroversial Bill. Like many non-Party Bills, it is among the most controversial. That is inevitable. There are so many interested parties that one could hardly expect them all to agree on what a Bill of this kind attempts to do. Most people in this country are interested in rivers. Some enjoy their beauty, and I have friends who like to take from the river its largest inhabitants and to go home boasting about it. I know of people employed in industry who are concerned with what to do with surplus water and other materials not so acceptable as water. Then I have many friends who are members of local authorities and who are concerned with obtaining sufficient water for the inhabitants of their area. In the result, it follows that a Bill of this kind is bound to be examined with the utmost care to see how these interests are affected.
I looked at the Bill prior to its introduction in another place, and I look now at the Bill before your Lordships' House, and I have only to compare the two Bills to see how hard the Members of another place struggled to introduce Amendments and make substantial changes. There is nothing new in the question of river pollution. It has troubled this country for quite a long time. For over a century now people inside and outside this House have had to deal with this problem. The first piece of legislation concerned with this problem was introduced into your Lordships' House as far back as 1876. I looked at that Bill only to-day. I also glanced at the debates on that Bill in 1876. I think it was the father—it may have been the grandfather—of the present Marquess who leads the Opposition who moved its Second Reading. He did it very briefly, but very clearly—in less than two minutes. He had the advantage that the question had been before the House earlier in the previous Session but, owing to the confusion we sometimes find at the end of

21
a Session, it was killed and did not receive the Royal Assent. Things have changed since 1876. No one can approach a question in 1951 in the same way as it was approached in 1876. In those days, industry was a problem, as was also the disposal of surplus water and other materials. But the magnitude of the difficulty in 1951 is far greater than it was in 1876. Perhaps one of the outstanding defects of the 1876 Act was that it entrusted the work to too many authorities. That is never a good thing. Usually, what is everybody's job becomes nobody's job. It has suffered from that weakness until to-day, and it may be that that is the reason why it was thought necessary to bring forward this Bill and try to reduce the number of authorities concerned with the problem of the pollution of the rivers.
We have had the advantage of a number of Reports since 1876. There was the Milne Report of 1943 and more recently the Report known as the Hob-day Report. Those who have had the privilege of reading the Hobday Report and also this Bill will have appreciated how much the Bill owes to that Report. It has certainly been a beacon light and has made suggestions which to a large extent are now incorporated in this measure. But, as with most pieces of legislation, the value of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament will be shown in its administration. Most of us who serve on local authorities find that the value of legislation depends in many cases upon its administration. I know of no Act of Parliament in which that is more clear than it will prove to be in this one. If the local authorities, the river boards and employers in industry are able to get together and co-operate in carrying out the spirit of the Bill, then I think it will be a good Act of Parliament. But its effectiveness will be largely in their hands.
Primarily, the carrying out of the objects of the Bill is entrusted to the thirty-one river boards created by the 1948 Act. Now, as we all know. rivers differ—even the same river differs in its various sections between its source and the sea. This Bill provides that those river boards shall formulate bylaws which will enable standards to be set up for different sections of each of the rivers in the respective areas. The boards will
22
need technical advice to do their work thoroughly, and I know your Lordships will be pleased to know that technical advice will be provided. There is one other feature which I feel sure will please your Lordships. The advice given, the standard set and the work done by the various river boards will be subject to Ministerial confirmation. These river boards have no easy task. We realise that all the different interests I have mentioned will be clamouring for consideration. Each will put its respective point of view, and the river boards will have to decide between them, because that is their job.
The Bill departs from previous legislation to some degree. I noticed in reading the Bill that provision is made for criminal offences. We find that what was not a criminal offence under existing legislation will in future become a criminal offence. We also find that directors, general managers and others exercising similar authority, will now be liable to prosecution. On the matter of prosecutions, I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is present. He was good enough to write to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor regarding a particular point which troubled him. He and others, I am sure, will be pleased to know that the point that he has raised will be the subject of consultation between now and the next stage. I feel sure that, as a result of this consultation, the noble Earl will find satisfaction.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What is the point that the noble Earl has raised?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The noble Earl says he understands that, as the Bill is at present drafted, it will be no defence to any proceedings to show that the best practicable means have been taken to render any effluent harmless. Therefore, he feels that, if that is so, serious injustice may result. That is the point with which I said my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor intends to deal between now and the next stage of the Bill. There is one other matter which I ought to mention, regarding tidal waters. This subject also is dealt with in existing legislation, but in a rather limited manner. Under the Act of 1876, any action taken had to be based on "sanitary grounds"—which means, I am advised, on grounds of public health. All of us know how

23
difficult it is to show that discharge of polluting trade wastes and so on into tidal waters may cause danger to health, and it has, therefore, been thought advisable in this Bill to omit any such reference, to leave the matter wider, in order to enable tidal waters to be dealt with, as we think, much more effectively.
I do not think there is any need for me to refer to the Bill clause by clause: I know that noble Lords are never very interested in going through a Bill clause by clause on Second Reading. There is, however, one aspect of Clause 8 to which perhaps I ought to refer briefly. To-day, the demands of rearmament are very heavy, both on finance and on labour. The intention of Clause 8 is to give guidance to the various authorities responsible for sewerage and similar works. It may be that their activities will have to be curtailed though, in saying that, I do not want to be regarded as suggesting that works to deal with the possible avoidance of pollution will not be allowed to continue. To-day there is in progress a great expansion of sewage disposal works, but in present circumstances it was thought advisable to insert this provision in the Bill, as providing guidance for a temporary period to the appropriate authorities.
I have said that this is a Bill of compromise: it could not be otherwise. The various interests affected have all to be considered. Like all compromise Bills, it does not give the satisfaction that many would expect, but it goes a long way to meeting present requirements and to bring about some improvement. It gives the river boards full powers for dealing with wilful offenders, those who have failed to incur reasonable expenditure on works of purification or to make proper use of works that are available. I think there are good grounds for looking forward to steady improvements during the next few years. New schemes for sewerage and sewage disposal are being approved every week. Industry is taking increasing advantage of the facilities afforded for the discharge of trade wastes into the public sewers. Some local authorities are already beginning to take the action needed to improve the condition of tidal waters. Although that is proceeding rather slowly, the Bill should, in the long run, facilitate the carrying out of planned
24
measures by the river boards for bringing about greatly improved conditions, both in tidal and in non-tidal waters. I submit this Bill to your Lordships as a genuine attempt to deal with a very difficult problem. After all, our industries must not be over-burdened. We are all anxious to keep our rivers clean, but we have to consider what it means sometimes to dispose of unnecessary things from various factories. I know that most of us like to see our rivers and the banks of our rivers kept clean. Quite frankly, I think that this is a Bill which aims at restoring to our rivers that state where they can be a pleasure and a source of amusement, rather than, as they are in many cases to-day, channels for the drainage of filthy liquids. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
3.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who in a delightful speech has moved the Second Reading of this Bill that it is a non-Party Bill. It is also, perhaps because of that, a useful Bill. I agree with him, too, that its value will depend largely on how it is used in practice, because it is and has to be rather in the nature of an enabling Bill. It certainly is due, if not overdue. As the noble Lord said, not since 1876 has any comprehensive attempt been made to deal with this problem, and our rivers, with a few exceptions, have not in the meantime become noticeably cleaner. The Rivers Pollution Act, 1876, was the first attempt to deal comprehensively with this problem. The House will not be surprised to learn that that Act, like so much other sound social policy, was initiated by a Tory Government.
The facts disclosed in the Reports, particularly the Hobday Report to which the noble Lord has referred, show how necessary it is to deal more effectively with this problem. Some awful revelations have been made. For example, the River Irwell, in Lancashire, is described as having no fish, no insects, no weed and no life except sewage fungus. A ban has had to be imposed upon the consumption by human beings of shellfish from the River Dee, for fear of ptomaine poisoning. Even the Cam has been polluted by scientific industry. The Isis, your Lordships will not be surprised to know, affords an agreeable contrast to the Cam,

25
though when the Isis gets outside the beneficent influence of Oxford and becomes the Thames, I regret to say it degenerates. I was horrified to learn that Cuckoo Weir (I think it is), where such Etonians as bathe—I suppose they are the "wet bobs," as distinct from the others; I am not so familiar with Eton notions as with Winchester notions—go to bathe, has now been so contaminated by the sewage of Slough that they can no longer bathe there. I think that is an unfair deprivation, though I appreciate that it may be said that they have been voluntarily or involuntarily compelled to adopt the advice of a Wykehamist Chancellor of the Exchequer who advised us of the danger of excessive washing.
With these inconveniences all over the country, there is certainly ample scope for this Bill. In its structure it is sensible. There have been masses of small authorities concerned, no doubt some of whom have themselves been not inconsiderable offenders. I do not know what procedure exists—perhaps the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, can tell me—to force a local authority to prosecute itself, because it is the drainage authority which contaminates the waters that it is supposed to protect. In those circumstances, it is not altogether surprising that prosecutions have been few and far between. But now the powers are to be vested in the river boards which we set up a year or two ago, and which are large representative local bodies. Under the Bill they will be given wide powers of survey and power to make bylaws. These bodies, while being wide enough, I trust, not to be unduly affected by sectional interests, will be local enough to apply their local knowledge, because, as the noble Lord very wisely said, not only does one river differ from another, but one reach of a river differs from another and may require a different treatment. At any rate, for once—and this is the only and most agreeable exception—we all seem to be agreed that the "gentleman in Whitehall" in this case does not know best.
I hope the Bill will not reduce the high standard set by the best riparian owners. When a control is imposed, whether it is a control on the price of rabbits or whatever it may be, there is always a danger that the people who have been doing best may tend to come down to the rather
26
lower standard to which the inferior people are compelled to rise. I am glad that one reform in this connection has been made in the Bill. I believe the original Bill took away the Common Law rights of riparian owners. That seemed to be a very retrograde step, and I think I am right in saying that that has now been remedied and the Common Law rights have been entirely restored. But the need that we should not reduce standards applies equally, perhaps even more so, to the areas collectively. I am glad to say that, at any rate in recent years, the West Riding of Yorkshire has been a model in this respect—a great contrast to Lancashire. That is the more praiseworthy because, of course, it is a great industrial area. But Yorkshiremen will not be surprised that that high standard has been attained. We in Yorkshire believe that cleanliness comes next to godliness, and we are very good practitioners of both. I think the success of the West Riding is accounted for entirely by the fact that we practise what I may call a good neighbour policy. That is what our river policy should be. Of course, industry must be served. I quite understand the importance that my noble friend, Lord Selborne, attaches to that point, and I think we want to watch it carefully. I believe that somewhere in the Bill industry is given a right of appeal to the Minister. As a rule, I do not much like Ministers as judges, arid certainly not in their own cause; but here it is probably right.
As the noble Lord said, the Bill was greatly amended and improved in Committee in another place, and not at all amended on Party lines. The issue does not seem to have been one of Socialist versus Tory, but rather one of trade versus trout. However, I think we have still some revision to do here, and though these are Committee points I should like to mention a few to give the Government notice of them. The annual reports of the river boards ought, I consider, to be laid before Parliament. I believe an undertaking was given in another place that that would be done, but there was a slip up in the Parliamentary process. Then there is our old friend the liability of the director. I see that the peccant clause has found its way

27
into this Bill, that every director, manager and officer must be treated as guilty unless he proves himself innocent. In a recent Bill, also of an aquatic nature—the Sea Fish Industry Bill—this House accepted an Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, rejecting that proposition and restoring the normal position under the law: that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. That Amendment was readily accepted in another place. I think it must obviously be an oversight that in the very next Bill with which we have to deal the onus of proof is put back on the director. I am sure the House will readily accept an Amendment to put that matter right.
Then there are some rather odd discrepancies between this Bill and the Scottish Bill which I think is now in another place and which will shortly reach your Lordships' House. There is a provision in the Scottish Bill which follows the recommendation of the Hobday Report, that river boards can prohibit new outlets and discharges. There is nothing about that in this Bill. Then, under the Scottish Bill, a statutory obligation is imposed on the river boards to make surveys before they make bylaws. Obviously that is intended because the first power given to them in this Bill is a power to make surveys, and then they have a power to make bylaws. Presumably it is intended that they shall not make a bylaw until they make a survey. If that is so, and if that is in the Scottish Bill, it had better be in the English Bill, too.
Then the Scottish Bill and the English Bill differ about mine water, which has been a very bad contaminator. I know the difficulties. It may be impossible to purify mine water. The bother is that very often that water enters the river quite high up, and may pollute it throughout its course. I am sure we shall agree that everything which can be done ought to be done. Under the Scottish Bill, collieries are not exempt, but for some reason they are exempt from the provisions of the English Bill. I do not think English or Welsh collieries are any less peccant than the Scottish. I suggest that the reasonable thing to do is to leave collieries within the ambit of the Bill, and if it is desired to afford them special treatment in special
28
cases, power should be given to the Ministers to exempt them. That would be entirely in accordance with the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Selborne in another connection—that if every reasonable precaution is taken and still the water cannot be made absolutely clear, and it has to be got rid of somewhere, then there ought to be an exemption. But I certainly do not think that the collieries generally should be exempt. Then there is the question of storm overflows. The Scottish Bill provides that the river boards can make bylaws. The English Bill does not so provide. These are Committee points, of course; there may be others. I draw attention to them only in order to give the Government notice of them.
I was glad to see that in another place the Bill was amended to give the Minister of Agriculture his proper status under the Bill: obviously, he ought to be one of the two Ministers who should be the guardians and the licensing power under this Bill. We certainly welcome this Bill. We will try to make it even better. It can only give the machinery. Its success must depend upon the men who work the machine. They will have to work it with keenness and with practical common sense. They will have to work it as a team, not as advocates of any sectional interest—in fact they will have to be "good neighbours." It is not an easy problem in this country. We shall always be a great industrial nation, and our rivers will have to serve our industries, as well as provide amenities for all of us. But I hope most sincerely—indeed I think I may be sure of it—that if the river boards and their constituents follow the "good neighbour" rule, we shall all get the best out of our rivers, whether in utility or in enjoyment. And without any sacrifice of industrial efficiency we shall
"build Jerusalem. In England's green and pleasant land."
4.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords I rise in support of the Bill, and I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Swinton has just said. But my principal object is to thank the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for the assurance which he was good enough to give me in his introductory speech. I am glad the Government are carrying out the promise that was made by the Minister of Local

29
Government and Planning in another place, that an endeavour would be made to deal with the particular point on which I ventured to write to the Lord Chancellor. The point is a simple one, but it is important—particularly to industry. It is this. No one, of course, wishes to pollute a river; we all want to keep our rivers as clean and as pure as possible. But in years gone by many industries have been allowed to build their factories in such a position that the effluent might contaminate the river. When an industry has been established in such a locality it is sometimes very difficult to bring pollution entirely to an end. In fact, there are cases, so I am told, where the best scientists cannot say that any particular step will ensure that no pollution whatsoever reaches the river.
The point I am anxious to see made clear in this Bill is that if a company has taken every step which it has been asked to take in order to avoid pollution of a river, and if it has done everything that is reasonably practicable to that end, it should be able, if necessary, to plead that fact successfully in its defence to any prosecution for pollution. Unless that is done, one of two things would seem to be possible; either the industry would have to move to another locality altogether, which might inflict great hardship on the local population, or the company might be heavily fined, and the directors sent to prison for six months. Therefore, it is clear that something that might be very unjust and unfortunate might occur. I do not say that it would necessarily take place: after all, thank heaven! most people have common sense. But when we are drafting an Act of Parliament, we ought always to assume a minimum of common sense, because sometimes one finds a minimum of common sense, and when that is the case trouble ensues. Unless the wording in connection with this matter is altered, we might have injustice. The Minister of Local Government and Planning did give an assurance in another place that this matter would be reconsidered here. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord repeat that assurance, and I hope that your Lordships will be able to improve the Bill in that respect.
4.6 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, the Bill, as might be expected in view of
30
experience in the other House, has had a favourable and friendly reception here. I have no doubt that we shall proceed to make some improvements, and to pass this Bill as speedily as possible. One of the most marked features of the progress of the Bill through another place was that, while there were, in the early stages, some very considerable divisions of opinion, these were not at all on Party lines; as Colonel Walter Elliot said, they were: "up and down, and not across from one side to the other." The differences of opinion on Second Reading were very acute, but after the Bill had been through Standing Committee, when it came back and was considered on Report—as anyone who reads the Report of those proceedings will see—an extraordinarily harmonious position was reached. It was more like a friendly meeting than an ordinary political meeting. The accord was quite unusual. I was very much struck by it on reading the Parliamentary Report, and I thought it a very good augury for the future.
What is really clear (and I say this because of something that fell from the lips of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when he referred to Whitehall in a somewhat derogatory way) is that this Bill owes a great deal to the training of civil servants in Whitehall. It was from Mr. Hobday, who was trained in this work over a period of many years, and who really had pioneered this business, and did it extremely well, that we got the valuable Report of the Committee which sat under his Chairmanship. I think when one criticises Whitehall, as is sometimes done, one ought also to bear in mind that it produces men of such calibre as the one I have just mentioned, a man who has given outstanding public service, both as Chairman of the Committee and in. bringing to a successful conclusion the pioneer work of the Committee. I think we should agree that in this case the Civil Service deserves a tribute, as well as criticism. After saying that, I should like to pay my tribute to the Hobday Report itself. It is a very fine piece of work and well worth rending.
The Bill sets out to cure the very serious condition of our rivers and it is based on the River Boards Act of 1948, which laid the foundation that made it possible for the work to be done. What was wrong with regard to the 1876 Act, as my right

31
honourable friend has said, was that the necessary powers to enforce its provisions simply did not exist. Now, when we have river boards set up for the whole of the country, as they have already been set up for the Lee and the Thames areas, where they have been working well for a period of years, we have the necessary machinery to do the work. The river Irwell has been mentioned, and I have vivid memories from my early days of what happened when I walked there from Manchester, where I then lived. When one came to the Irwell, and especially crossing over it, one naturally screwed up one's countenance and even caught hold of one's nose, because of the absolutely abominable stink—there is really no other word for it.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has spoken of factories discharging their effluent into rivers. There used to be—and for all I know there may still be—factories right on the banks of the Irwell, discharging their (I presume) unexpurgated effluent, whatever it was, straight into the river, with consequences which Lord Swinton has already described. They really were appalling. The provisions of this Bill give power of control through the river boards and give powers for the practical accomplishment of the task facing us—it is not an ideal project but it is a very realistic project. A series of standards of purity of matter—not ideal standards but ones which can be realised—are laid down. I think it is plain from the wording of the Bill that anyone who could show that he was really trying to get rid of the damaging qualities from any effluent from industrial works, and was doing his best to achieve the standard laid down, would have a very good defence. That is the way I read the Report and the Bill. I think that would be an explanation.
The Bill sets up standards, or gives power to set up standards, to carry out work within a period of years which I hope will be shorter than was envisaged by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading. I think it may be shorter, for I believe that nowadays we have a higher temperature of sanitary conscience with regard to these matters. We are not prepared to submit to the foulness of the smells of rivers as in the past, and we realise more than in the past what a
32
harmful effect they have on public health. I think that that applies to criticism which has been made about the administration of the Bill. Its administration will fall largely into the hands of those who, in one capacity or another, are concerned with local authorities. It will also have the effect of greatly improving the amenities of the local authorities, and the amenities of life and of the streams which we all cherish so much. One remark which fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was about Eton. I will not go into that point, except to say that it struck me as rather curious that Etonians have nowhere to wash. My noble friend on my left, who was at one time at that school, indicated that even in his day the boys had at least two baths a week. But that is a matter into which I will not go in great detail. I do not understand why the boy could not wash because the river was too dirty to bathe in it.
This Bill is a very good Bill. It will carry out a most necessary reform, one which has been desirable for a long period of years. It will provide the opportunity for our rivers—though not, of course, at once—to attain the highest standard of cleanliness possible. And there is no reason why, with our present scientific knowledge, in a period of years—I will not say what that period will be—we should not have all our rivers made clean. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TELEGRAPH BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.
FAVERSHAM NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past four o'clock.