Lords Sitting of 27 November 1951

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

DENTISTS BILL [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to dentists; and to move that the Bill be now read a First time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Elton to advance his Motion for the Second Reading of the Spring Traps Bill [H.L.] from Thursday the 29th instant to Wednesday next.—(Earl Fortescue.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

HOME FOOD PRODUCTION
2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first. Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in their judgment, as regards essential foods, it is either possible or desirable for Britain to be fed wholly from the products of her own soil and, if not, to what extent (approximately) they deem this both possible and desirable.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, my noble friend raises a very large matter. He will not be surprised if I say that various interpretations can be put upon the words "essential" and "possible." Calculations have been made purporting to show that it would be physically possible to produce, in this country, food providing sufficient calories for the bare subsistence of the present population. This diet would consist very largely of bread, oatmeal and barley meal or their products, potatoes, sugar and such vegetables as carrots and cabbages, together with very small quantities of milk and meat, largely cow beef. There would be little or no bacon, eggs or beer.
To do this it would be necessary to import very large quantities of fertilisers and feeding stuffs, so that we should still require substantial exports to pay for these. Moreover, of course, such exports would not be available, because so great a proportion of our population would be working on actual food production, for it would be necessary to divert great quantities of labour and capital from town to country users. It would also be necessary to grow arable crops in areas suited only to grassland farming, and greatly to intensify the cultivation of inherently poor land. The attempt would be most unpleasant, not only for our own population but for the rest of the world, to whose development we should no longer be able to make any contribution. I think it is very doubtful whether, if this country turned over to a method of that sort for feeding itself, it would still command the resources required to maintain so fantastic a system.
In answer to the second part of the Question, I would say that His Majesty's Government do not think it either possible or desirable to adopt policies leading to that end. They would prefer to make an entirely different approach, which is no doubt that which the noble Viscount has in mind—namely, to consider how far the contribution of home agriculture to feeding the nation can and should be increased. In the long run the answer will depend on the possibilities of technical progress and the trend of world economic conditions. On this point I think I should say no more than draw

539
the attention of the noble Viscount to the answer I am giving to one of his other Questions.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Viscount asks his second Question may I ask a supplementary question? Did I understand from the noble Lord's answer that the present Government are not intending to continue the process of bringing into cultivation the so-called poor land, such as hill land, moorland and so on, which was started so successfully by the late Government?
LORD CARRINGTON: No. If the noble Lord will read my answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will see that I said nothing of that sort.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord gave very much that impression.

FOOD IMPORTS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, and if so, to what extent they anticipate increased imports of food from New Zealand arid other parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire during the next twelve months.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is hoped in 1952 to import from sterling Commonwealth countries and the Colonies 4,500,000 tons of those foods and feeding-stuns which are bought by the Government. This is about 500,000 tons more than estimated imports of the same commodities from the same sources in 1951. Of the total increase, some 36,000 tons are expected to come from New Zealand. I am not in a position to give similar figures for private imports.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask whether the 36,000 tons includes any substantial quantities of meat?
LORD CARRINGTON: The 36,000 tons comprises mostly meat.

TARGET FOR FOOD OUTPUT
2.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to ask the last Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will set to the farmers and farm workers of Great Britain a target (weather permitting) of increased food output for the next year, or, alternatively, for the next five years.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will give a rather general answer to the noble Viscount. The present Government has not yet been long in office, and in agriculture, above all industries, sudden changes are disturbing and undesirable. In face of great difficulties, but with strong support of other sections of our economy—the engineering industry, for example—farmers have greatly increased their output since before the war. Farms are also very much better equipped, both with fixed equipment and with machinery, and there is a definite trend towards higher yields; the output per worker also has increased. All sections of the industry have contributed to the progress made. But for the very difficult conditions of the 1950 harvest, and of the preparations for the 1951 harvest, the output of the industry now would probably have been very close to the target set in 1947.
The agricultural returns for last June and September require very careful study, and we are, of course, undertaking this in preparation for the annual review of the economic condition and prospects of the industry which, as the noble Viscount knows, will be due early in the New Year. Whether it will be necessary to set particular targets, and, if so, for what particular commodities, and for how long ahead, I cannot say now. But the Government believe that considerable possibilities remain in a number of directions for a further increase in production without uneconomic commitments, and we are convinced that the industry will continue to make its full contribution to the nation's welfare.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, will the noble Lord take it from me that, in present conditions, all members of the agricultural

541
community will do their utmost, to the limit of their means—provided that they are given the tools, including fertilisers—to achieve the prescribed target, whatever that may be, and, if possible, to improve upon it?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I know that my right honourable friend the Minister, and the Government as a whole, will be very glad to have that assurance from the noble Viscount, who is so well-beloved and so deeply respected in the agricultural industry.

PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND BYSSINOSIS BENEFIT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.

BORDER RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL
2.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I rise to move that the Border Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill be read a second time. I am fortunate when speaking for the first time in this Parliament to have to put forward a Bill which is at once short and, I believe, almost entirely non-controversial. The Bill, which consists of two clauses, the second being merely the short title, was envisaged on both sides of the House before the end of the last Parliament—we adjourned at the beginning of August, as your Lordships will remember. The Bill is no more than a piece of administrative mechanism. We have set up both in England and in Scotland a system of rivers supervision under three Acts—the River Boards Act, 1948, and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, so far as England is concerned, and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951, so far as Scotland is concerned. These are separate systems, and they both incorporate the principle that every drainage area shall be under one central control.
As there are two rivers which flow from Scotland to England, it is clearly necessary that some form of mechanism should be introduced in order to cover those
542
rivers. That is done by this Bill, which permits the boards of the Esk and the Tweed—the two rivers concerned—to constitute a joint committee, leaving it to the boards themselves to decide how that committee shall be constituted. The committee will be responsible for deciding its own procedure. It may appoint sub-committees on to which other persons may be co-opted as seems wise; and one of the purposes of this provision is to permit the co-option of industrialists, who must play a very important part in river purification. Industrialists necessarily form part of a Scottish river board but are not necessarily included in an English river hoard. There is also provision for agreement on the defraying of expenses which arise in the course of this work. This will be by agreement between the two boards.
I do not think I need add much to what I have said. The Bill provides a simple piece of mechanism, and does not in any way alter the operation of the system of river purification which exists under the Acts which I have mentioned, both in England and in Scotland. It merely completes the structure of what I think we all agree will be a useful series of measures, the success of which I am sure noble Lords in all parts of the House desire. If success is achieved, these four measures together will be universally recognised as constituting a great boon. I beg to move that the Bill be now given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
2.48 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on introducing his first Bill? If I am informed correctly, he has now taken over the very pleasant task which I undertook for a number of years. I am perfectly sure that he will acquit himself better than I did. I did my best, and I hope that it was to the satisfaction of the House and for the benefit of Scottish well-being. The noble Earl and I had many pleasant encounters. They were always conducted in a friendly spirit and. I hope, in accordance with the best traditions of the House. The results of those encounters I should put down as about fifty-fifty, but there were exceptions—as, for example, when we debated Scottish legal problems. On those occasions I

543
used to return to my home and pray fervently that if ever I came to this earth again I should be trained as a Scottish lawyer. It seems to me, therefore, that, now this changeover has taken place, it is a good omen that the first Bill which the noble Earl has brought forward is one which was drafted by the last Government to remedy an omission which the noble Earl himself brought to my notice as recently as July last.
I think it was generally understood that the necessity for such a Bill arose through what is known as a technical oversight in another place. It was intended that the rivers Esk and Tweed should be covered in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Bill, but it was found that they were not so covered. Since it was technically impossible, after the Bill had been through certain stages in another place, to insert those provisions in that Bill, a separate measure had to be brought forward. The noble Earl will remember that as early as the end of July he directed my attention to this point, and, as a result, I gave him an assurance that a Bill would be prepared to carry out the provisions now contained in the Bill of which the noble Earl has just moved the Second Reading. It only remains for me to say that we on this side naturally commend the Bill. I hope that when the provisions of the main Acts, together with this Bill, come into force, the results may be a considerable and much-needed improvement in the condition of the Scottish rivers.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. We used to regard him as the Prince Rupert of debate, with an inexhaustible enthusiasm for exploring the depths of the ignorance
544
of the Lord Chancellor on the technicalities of Scottish Law. I regret to think that he will not be able to treat the present Lord Chancellor in the way he used to treat me. I would ask him, if he can provide me with any subtle points on Scottish Law, to pass them over to me, and I will try to see whether my successor is any better than I was on these problems.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, if I may speak again, by leave of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lords opposite for what they have so kindly said. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, that I regard his method of procedure as a great standard which I will seek to emulate as best I can. I certainly found it a matter of great pride when I was able to penetrate any chink of his armour and to find a soft spot. I should also like to thank the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Jowitt, for the sympathetic way in which he dealt with any of the points on Scottish Law which I raised during the last Parliament, and I am most grateful to him for his attitude to me in many other respects. I again thank the noble Lords for the welcome they have given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2ª; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
2.53 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at six minutes before three o'clock.