Lords Sitting of 2 July 1953

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

  TELEVISION POLICY
  3.7 p.m.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a statement with regard to television policy. In early 1951 the late Government placed a ban on further major capital development on television by the B.B.C. The present Government decided when they took office in October, 1951, that the financial and economic condition of the country made it necessary to continue the ban. I am glad to inform the House that the Government are now in a position to agree that the B.B.C. should proceed at once with certain projects that will make television available to another six to seven million people. They can also now make a start with very high frequency sound services to help improve reception in areas where it is not satisfactory. New television stations will be set up at Aberdeen, Belfast, the Isle of Wight, Plymouth and Pontop Pike; the London station will be removed to the Crystal Palace: and stations will be erected to serve the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. With this programme of development B.B.C. television will be available to some 90 per cent. of the population within a period of eighteen months.
  In their White Paper on Broadcasting issued in May 1952 (Cmd. 8550), the Government stated, in paragraph 7, that they had
  "come to the conclusion that in the expanding field of television provision should be made to permit some element of competition. …"
  Anxieties have been expressed since that date about the implications of a new system of competitive television. There is, however, a real danger that public opinion is being formed without any balanced or detailed knowledge of what sort of system might be set up. The Government therefore propose to publish
  116
  in the autumn a further White Paper defining the terms upon which competitive television might be permitted to operate. The Government are pledged to submit for the approval of Parliament the terms and conditions of any licences which might be issued. The White Paper will enable the House and the country to exercise a proper judgment in this essential matter before any final decision is taken. In considering this question it is necessary to emphasise what seems very often to be forgotten—that the B.B.C. will in any case remain intact and its scope will in fact be extended. Its national and international standing will be unaffected, and its revenue and present basis of work will remain secure.
  The House will be interested to know, without going into details which would be more appropriate to the White Paper, of some of the broad principles under which commercial television might operate. First, the number of stations under any one ownership or control would be limited. Secondly, it is not likely that a large number of stations would be licensed in the first instance and they would be of low power and limited range. Thirdly, a Controlling Body would beset up to advise the Postmaster General on the issue of licences and would see that programmes conform to the standards to be laid down. It would, for example, have power to call for a script in advance of presentation, to warn a station which offended against the letter or spirit of these standards and to make recommendations to the Postmaster General that the licence of any particular station should be suspended or withdrawn. Fourthly, the owner and operator of a station, whose licence would be at stake, and not the provider of programmes or the sponsor, would be the person responsible for what was broadcast. Fifthly, among other things which might be specified in the licence or by the Controlling Body would be the maximum number of hours the station should operate, any restrictions on the advertising of certain products and the percentage of time and the place to be allotted to advertising matter in any programme.
  3.12 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl the Postmaster General for giving us this statement. I am sure, equally, that the

  117
  whole House will be glad to hear that further financial facilities are available to the B.B.C. to extend their excellent service. I should, however, like to ask the noble Earl this question. He will realise that there is a large body of opinion, by no means confined to one Party—I think it would be a great pity if this matter got on to Party lines at all—which views the whole prospect of sponsored television, altogether apart from details, with something like abhorrence.
  It is now over a year since we had a debate on this matter, and in the course of that year, and recently in connection with the Coronation, we have had experience of the service that television can render; and that, I think, has caused many of us to think afresh on this matter. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he will give facilities at an early date—I mean before the Recess—for a debate in this House. I hope it would be a debate in which noble Lords in all Parties would be perfectly free, with no Whips on at all, to express the views they held. Such a debate would, I am sure, be of guidance and assistance to the Government, because it could proceed on broad general principles, altogether apart from particular details which would be covered by the White Paper.
  3.14 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I should like to support the request made by the Leader of the Opposition for an early debate on this exceedingly important subject. It may be thought that, since a White Paper is to be presented in the autumn, it would be better for the House to postpone its own discussion until it had before it the definite proposals in that form. But, since the statement to-day lays down five important principles on which the White Paper will be founded, it appears to me, and it appears to the noble and learned Earl who bas just spoken, that it is necessary for an opportunity to be given to all sections of, and indeed all individuals in, the House to express their views with respect to those principles, They may need considerable elucidation, examination and, very likely, criticism. It would be well that those opinions should be expressed before rather than after the White Paper is presented to Parliament and the Government
  118
  have finally made up their minds on those issues.
  THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, may I add one word before my noble friend replies? It is quite evident that the White Paper that we are promised in the autumn will be a Paper of great importance. I would have supposed, therefore, that it would be of advantage to Her Majesty's Government—and I hope my noble friend may feel able to take this view—to be as fully seized as possible of the opinion that it may be expressed in all quarters of the House before that White Paper is finally drawn.
  3.16 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE M LRQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I, as Leader of the House, answered this supplementary question. Of course, the House has the right at any time to ask for a debate on any subject, and the last thing the Government would wish to do would be in any way to attempt to stifle discussion, especially on a subject of such great topical interest and importance as this. But I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, whether they will think a little further before they come to a final decision about what they want. After all, we all know—it is common knowledge—that this is a question which has engendered a great deal of heat, and that extremely strong views are held on both sides, views which are, if I may say so, often as much emotional as purely objective. Therefore, a debate in these circumstances would not necessarily be as valuable as we should all wish.
  Moreover, I would draw the attention of the House to one sentence in the statement which my noble friend has just read to your Lordships:
  "The White Paper will enable the House and the country to exercise a proper judgment in this essential matter before any final decision is taken."
  Would there really be any great utility in a debate before the House and the country are in a position to "exercise a proper judgment in this essential matter" I Does the noble and learned Earl really think that a debate now, in the present state of opinion on boll sides, and before all the information which has to come

  119
  to the country is available, will serve the ultimate cause which we all have at heart, to get the best solution of this difficult problem that we can? The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, pointed out, quite rightly, that in my noble friend's statement there were what he called "five principles." I would point out, however, that they were mentioned for the purpose of indicating to the House the difficulties which might occur in any case, whatever view was taken, in operating a full and competitive television service. The vital words in the statement are
  "some of the broad principles under which commercial television might operate."
  This statement is not laying clown at the present moment—in fact, the Government are not in a position to do so—exactly what the form will be. It has been made for the information of the House and the public, to enable them to begin to crystallise their minds in the light of further information. The last thing I want to say is, "Do not have a debate," but I should like the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and other noble Lords in the House to think the matter over further. If they still feel that they wish to have a debate, of course the Government will not resist that request.
  EARL JOWITT: I am most grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. Of course, anything he says will be considered. I will take the opportunity of discussing this matter with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, and other noble Lords who may be interested. Off-hand, my opinion is that it would be useful to have a debate—useful, I think, not only to us but to Her Majesty's Government, because we may be able to present objections to this scheme which are so fundamental that they ought to be in the mind of the Government when they come to draw up their scheme. I am quite certain that it is desirable—at least I think it may be desirable—to have a debate before opinions have crystallised, as they will do if the scheme is set out in a White Paper. Although I will certainly accept the noble
  120
  Marquess's suggestion of thinking over the matter again, at the present moment my opinion is that it would be useful to everybody to have a debate at an early date.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I add that the noble Marquess who leads the House always rides the House on such a light rein that when he indicates what he wants one would not desire to run counter to it; but I concur with the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken that we should, of course, consult together on this point before the House decides whether or not there should be a debate. Indeed, I should not have joined in asking for the debate had it not been for the fact that the Government did not limit themselves to saying that they were going to present a White Paper, but laid down five principles. I felt that it might be assumed, if the House said nothing, that it agreed to those five principles and thought that, so long as they were observed, all would be well. That fact must be taken into consideration, as well as the matters to which the noble Marquess has referred.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

  BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILL
  3.21 p.m.
  Read 2ª (According to Order).

  LAND DRAINAGE (SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (RIVE DITCH IMPROVEMENT)) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  Read 2ª (according to Order).
  WALSALL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILL
  Read 2ª (according to Order).

  TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS (MINIS- TRY OF PENSIONS) ORDER, 1953
  3.24 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Pensions) Order, 1953, reported from Special Orders Committee on Thursday the 11th of June last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. On February 26 of this year the Prime Minister announced the amalgamation of the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of National Insurance and, at the same time, the transfer of certain functions of the Ministry of Pensions to the Ministry of Health and to the Department of Health for Scotland. These proposals were incorporated in detail in the White Paper published on May 13 last, which also included the draft Order to which I am now seeking the approval of this House. Very roughly, the proposals are that the pensions side of the Ministry of Pensions should go to the Ministry of National Insurance (now to be collect the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance) and that the medical services should go to the Departments of Health—that is to say, the Ministry of Health, in England, and the Department of Health for Scotland.
  Anxiety has been expressed among organisations interested in the welfare of ex-Servicemen in regard to the effect of this Order, and it is my special task today to allay such anxiety. I should like at the outset to say that I think it is proper to remember that the majority of members of Her Majesty's Government, and I dare say of this House, are themselves ex-Servicemen, and that they fully endorse the views which have been expressed by successive Governments since 1914: that the country owes to war-disabled and bereaved persons, as is their right and proper due, a special obligation. We would not bring forward these proposals unless the Government were satisfied that they would involve no detriment either to the standing or to the quality of services which will continue to be rendered to ex-Servicemen. In this respect I should like to quote what the
  122
  Prime Minister said in another place on February 26 (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 511, Col. 2317).
  "On the general question of the pensioners and those who have suffered injuries in the war, we regard it on our side as a matter of honour … that their treatment shall in no circumstances be allowed to deteriorate."
  As I shall endeavour to show, it is fair to say that these people will lose nothing and, indeed, will of obtain a better service in certain particulars.
  Let us look for one moment at the position as it is today. The Ministry of Pensions have existed for thirty-six years, and from quite natural causes the work of that Ministry has tended to diminish. While they once had sixty-seven hospitals they now have eight; while they once had 1,600,000 pensioners, they now have 950,000, of whom nearly 50 per cent. are from the 1914–18 war; and, of course, their numbers are necessarily diminishing. The staff of the Ministry, which in 1921 was 26,000, is now down to 9,000, and even this depends on fairly substantial agency work for the Ministry of Health, particularly in regard to the supply of artificial limbs and other appliances. Of war-disabled pensioners who were in hospital in March, 1953, more than half were in National Health Service hospitals—actually 21,000 were in National Health Service hospitals, and about 14,000 in Ministry of Pensions hospitals. Whilst last year there were something of the order of 3,000 National Health Service patients being treated in Ministry of Pensions hospitals, all war-disabled personnel to-day have the benefit of National Health Service doctors, who in most cases treat them in the first place. So that there is already a very considerable exchange of services between the Departments of Health, on the one hand, and the Ministry of Pensions, on the other.
  My Lords, it is, I think, important in this respect to remember that in a number of the main blocks of pensions work the volume of work has halved, or more than halved, since the peak period after the war, in 1947. For example, the number of boards of all kinds in 1952–53 was 100,000, compared with 200,000 two years previously. If I may give another example, in 1947 there were some 40,000 appeals to Pensions Appeal Tribunals, whereas by 1952 the number had fallen to 13,000. All this shows that the work

  123
  of the Ministry of Pensions is declining. The broad decisions of policy have now been settled, and there is not the same justification for high-level staff as there was immediately after the war. As an improvement in the machinery of government, there can be no question that the transfer of functions is the right step to take. No one has seriously attempted to deny this. At the same time, the Government are fully aware that certain questions have been put—first, whether this is the right time to do it, and secondly, whether it is being done in a way which gives the fullest safeguards. I should like now to deal with those two questions.
  In regard to timing, I think it is necessary to consider the position of the continuing contraction of the Ministry of Pensions' activities and the implications to other Ministries which are set out in the White Paper. It is intended that these organisational changes will take place gradually; there will be no change in policy; the existing services to pensioners will be fully maintained, and the present pensions staff, and in particular the welfare officers, will continue to be available for this work. At the same time, we must recognise that the National Health Service has now been set up, and the Ministry of National Insurance has got fully into its saddle. When the Ministry was set up in 1944 it had to bring together existing pension schemes, and subsequently had to put into operation the Acts of 1946 and 1948. I think it is fair to assume that the teething troubles of that Ministry are now past. I am not saying that it has not great problems to face—of course it has; but its teething troubles are past. For these reasons, the Government consider that this transference, which is undoubtedly necessary, should be initiated at the present time.
  I will now turn to the second point, the manner in which this amalgamation is to take place. I am aware that a number of organisations interested in ex-Service men are anxious as to whether the rights and preferences at present enjoyed by their members, men and women, will continue to be observed. In the first place, there will be no change at all in the pension arrangements: books will be issued, as at present, at the Posit Office, exactly as they have been in the past. In regard
  124
  to the general question of rights and preferences, may I take a memorandum which I have received from the British Legion of Scotland, because in this certain specific assurances are asked for, and the memorandum, I think, covers the inquiries of a number of other organisations. I will, with the permission of the House, take the points seriatim. The first question that is asked is: Will the preferential position of war pensioners be maintained? On this, I can say categorically that there will be no change of policy with regard to the existing arrangements. The second question asked is: Will the existing priorities in regard to medical treatment be assured? Here again, I can say categorically that these will not only be preserved but, indeed, extended. The war-disabled who need treatment for their war disabilities will receive priority, not only in the existing pensions hospitals but also in all National Health Service hospitals. This is a very important step indeed, and one which I do not think can be overestimated.
  The third point raised by the British Legion of Scotland is that the Entitlement Section of the Ministry of Pensions should remain a separate entity. I can give a full assurance that this unit will be retained as a separate entity. The fourth point is that the Welfare Services should continue to do their special work. I have already referred to this matter, and I can give a full assurance that the Welfare Services will be fully maintained and the same personnel will be available for the work. The fifth and sixth points deal with treatment at clinics and residential care scheme. These can, I feel sure, be covered by the full consultation which will take place with interested ex-Service organisations. The seventh point is that "there should be adequate representation of ex-Service interests in the management of hospitals." Here, I can give the assurance that it is intended that ex-Service interests shall be represented in the management of pensions hospitals. Perhaps while I am mentioning hospitals I should say a word about Queen Mary's Hospital at Roehampton, which has such a world-wide reputation, and of which we are all so proud. I will confine myself to saying that I believe the House can rest assured that the present Minister of Health (and I think one can assume the same will apply to

  125
  any of his successors) is fully seized of his special duties with regard to this hospital, and that there will be no changes without full consultation with the governors of the hospital.
  May I now add a word on the question of economy? It is, of course, Government policy to take every opportunity to make such changes in the organisation of Government Departments as will simplify administration and reduce costs. The object of the present proposals, as I have endeavoured to show, is not merely to secure financial economy but to obtain more efficient and orderly administration, from which economy will naturally flow and gradually appear. For example, we have in these two Ministries two large machines for paying pensions—one in Blackpool and one in Newcastle. In both cases, pensions are paid by means of pension order books, the weekly orders being payable at post offices. There will be economies here by bringing these two organisations together, and those economies will not in any way affect adversely those in receipt of pensions. I am asking the House to approve this Motion because it will achieve improvement in the efficiency of the Government machine, which I am sure every noble Lord must regard as a necessary and desirable object. But I will repeat that we should never have made these proposals had not the Government been fully satisfied that they could be carried out without detriment to those of our fellow-citizens who have suffered in the service of their country, and whom we now—and always will—owe so big a debt of gratitude. I beg to move.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Pensions) Order, 1953, reported from Special Orders Committee on Thursday the 11th of June last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  3.37 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I have not much claim to knowledge of this matter, save this: that I had the great honour of being appointed as the first Minister of National Insurance, and it was my task to try to build up the organisation of that Ministry. Certainly, whilst I was there we had our teething troubles—we had a colossal job to carry out. Fortu-
  126
  nately, I had to assist me a splendid staff of experienced people, and we managed to get over our teething troubles satisfactorily. I think the work which that Ministry has done, in the organisation it has established, reflects great credit on the staff of people who—unlike me—stayed on in the Ministry. But I do know something about the work of the Ministry of National Insurance, and I am the last person in the world to be likely to denigrate the work of that Ministry. I am proud of it. My work there brought me into close touch with the Ministry of Pensions, and it was obvious that sooner or later the time would come when the Ministry of Pensions would give way to the Ministry of National Insurance. To my mind, this is all a question of t mine, and I, personally, regret that the Government have taken the view that the proper time is now. I think they would have been much better advised to wait to a later date.
  My criterion would be this. I believe you ought, when you effect the transfer, to have the complete confidence of the ex-Servicemen. At the present time, rightly or wrongly, ex-Servicemen are disturbed at what is being done, and, in my view, the mere fact that they are disturbed is, in itself, a reason which proves that this is too early a date to make the alteration which, I agree, sooner or later will have to be made. Had it been left to me, I would have done what I could to postpone this decision for another five years, or perhaps ten. I do not suggest for a moment that the Government are not perfectly sincere in their statement and in their belief that nothing that will be done will prejudice the ex-Servicemen. I accept that statement as a statement of their honest intention and their honest belief. But I am by no means certain that it is right. There is all the difference in the world between having your case looked after by a comparatively small Department where the Minister is really, as it were, the father of his flock, and having it looked after by an enormous Department whose tentacles inevitably extend over the whole country.
  As I have paid a small tribute to the office which I had the honour of starting, let me pay this tribute to the Ministry of Pensions—and it is no Party matter at

  127
  all: it applies to Ministers of all Parties. I think the record of that Ministry is exceedingly creditable. I am old enough to go back to the Boer War and the Kipling song about tambourines and passing the hat round, and I remember when in the First World War we set up the Ministry of Pensions. The Ministry of Pensions have established a friendly relationship between itself and its clientele, the ex-Service men, which I do not think has ever before been paralleled. Without squandering public money, they have administered in a benevolent and tolerant way the schemes which were entrusted to them, and have won the confidence of the ex-Service men. Now that that Ministry is going to come to an end, I do not wonder that ex-Service men are rather disturbed.
  Of course, the Ministry of National Insurance will do the best they can to see that people are not prejudiced, but, as I have said, there is a difference between being a child in a comparatively small family and a child in a vast school. Incidentally, when I left the Ministry of National Insurance and went to the Lord Chancellor's Office, I came to the conclusion that there was a tremendous advantage in having a small staff instead of a large one, because one is much closer in touch with things. It is exactly the same here. Moreover, if we pitchfork the pensions administration into the general administration, is there not a real danger that the personal treatment which has existed in the past, and of which I do not think we need complain, will cease? Administration will become a matter of routine and all will be treated alike.
  Of course, ultimately there would be some possible saving, and economy is greatly to be desired, but do not let us put it too high. The White Paper itself merely says:
  "This should yield substantial economies in the long run."
  I hope it will. Had we been perfectly free in this matter and had it not been passed upon, I should have been of the opinion that it was a mistake to do it now. I think it would have been much better not to have done it until we had the good wishes and goodwill of the ex-Service men. Although we accept all that the Government say, that there will be no
  128
  prejudice, I am not certain that prejudice may not arise in administration. For my part I regret that the present moment is the moment selected for this change, though I admit that obviously the time will come when a change must be made. However, another place has decided this matter, and unless I hear very cogent reasons to the contrary I suppose there is nothing we can do now but accept the decision.
  3.44 p.m.
  LORD CAREW: My Lords, those of us who are deeply interested in ex-Service work, and who are working day after day for the benefit of ex-Service men and their relatives and widows, view this merger with the gravest concern. We fully accept the assurance given by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, as to the intentions of the Government, but, as the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition has so rightly said, this is a question of administration; and, moreover, administration of a type touching individuals. It is the personal touch, from top to bottom, which has earned the Ministry of Pensions the solid regard and appreciation with which the ex-Service community feel they can approach the Ministry.
  When it comes to matters of public expenditure, of course the interest of economy is at all times a paramount one, but surely this is not the right Ministry to tackle when it comes to saving a comparatively small sum in a way which, as I hope to show your Lordships, cannot fail to reduce the confidence of the ex-Service man in the fact that he is going to get a square deal. Successive Ministers of Pensions and their staffs have earned the very high regard in which they stand to-day. The people with whom the pensioners and war widows come into contact are the lower civil servants of the Ministry, to whom they go when they want something. These officials have been educated to a sympathetic understanding of their problems. The code under which they work is one which has been developed to a high level, and they have learned to understand it through case work. The whole of pensions law has grown up through case work. That is very different from social security. The work of the Ministry of National Insurance is not case work. Should this Motion be agreed,

  129
  and should this merger take place, officials of the Ministry of National Insurance will have to deal at one moment with insurance cases and at the next with war pension cases, the same official dealing with different types of people under two totally different codes. Of course, he will do his best, but both these codes are intricate, and his main consideration will be with the National Insurance code. He will not find it easy to exercise his full sympathy, his full understanding and his full knowledge in cases of war pensions. That is what we fear, and we fear that, irrespective of good intention, that is what will happen.
  In this connection, a particularly disturbing factor is that the present Ministry of Pensions officials who are in day-today contact with the pensioners are largely temporary civil servants. Although they have been in that work for many years, they have not been absorbed into permanent functions. They are the individual officers to whom the ex-Serviceman looks, and who he considers understands him and his problems. If this merger takes place, and the Ministry of Pensions is absorbed, these temporary officials will be the ones who will go when there is a question of any contraction of staff. They will be replaced by permanent officials who are on the staff of the Ministry of Pensions and who have not the background of training in the pensions code—and not only of training in the pensions code, but of training in the sympathetic approach to the individual claimant. That is what we fear above all.
  Then there is another important point—namely, the matter of the Minister himself. The ex-Serviceman and the widow have come to look upon the Minister of Pensions as their own personal advocate in the highest circles. When they have a problem, they have someone to whom they can put it forward in a direct manner, someone who has not got other interests on his mind. That is one of the things which causes a considerable degree of contentment, and it is something which the ex-Serviceman will miss greatly. I am glad to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the Government have no intention of interfering with the special obligations which the nation owes to ex-Servicemen, and have no intention but
  130
  that the fullest safeguards of their rights and privileges should continue. However, for the reasons which I have advanced, I very much doubt whether, in practice, they will continue. I regret that on this occasion I cannot accept the assurances of the Government.
  3.52 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments while I make a contribution, arising out of the fact that I was for a time Minister of Pensions. Speaking from my experience in that capacity, I would venture to challenge the view put forward by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that this is not the right time for an amalgamation. I am not concerned with the amount of saving—I do not think a figure of £500,000 is either here or there; I am concerned with the interests of the ex-Servicemen and the efficiency of the machinery dealing with them. Those of your Lordships who have had experience of being in Government Departments would agree with me, I believe, that the most important thing in obtaining the efficiency of an individual Government Department is to establish in that Department a high sense of morale. From a fairly wide experience of Government Departments, I feel that the morale of the people in the Department is probably the most important thing with which any Minister can concern himself. With a high morale you have an efficient and, above all, a sympathetic administration, whereas if it is absent, you get an entirely wooden, strict, bureaucratic state of affairs. Human nature being what it is, it is almost inevitable that if you hive a Department like the Ministry of Pensions, which by the very nature of things is a dying Department, it is almost impossible, however good the Minister is, and however sympathetic the officials are, to avoid a loss of morale. In the first place, it is difficult to obtain entry of the younger men in the Civil Service into a Department which they know in the normal course of events will not provide them with any permanent future. It is for that reason that I venture to say that this is the time, eight years after the end of the war, rather than in ten years' time, eighteen years after the end of the war,

  131
  when this change, which has got to come anyhow, ought to be made.
  I was Minister of Pensions in 1935, seventeen years after the end of the First World War—just about the same interval of time that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, would like to see elapse before this amalgamation takes place—and there was no question in my mind that all my Ministerial predecessors had done their best for the sake of the ex-Servicemen, and that they had been loyally supported by their permanent officials. But the mere fact that it was a dying Department meant that, inevitably, the officials had got into set ways, and it required a great effort to infuse a different spirit. After all, the requirements of the ex-Servicemen are not necessarily static. We cannot say to-day what the conditions will be in five, ten or fifteen years' time. We cannot tell to-day to what extent their physical conditions are going to alter, or to what extent the social conditions which their children and wives are going to have to meet will change. I am convinced, from this particular point of view of the efficiency of the Department itself, that now is the time to change.
  I pay full tribute to the work of the temporary civil servants, but anyone who has been in a Department, or head of a Department, where temporary civil servants work, knows that from the very nature of things they get older and older. What is required in a Department, for its good running, is a continual bringing in of the younger element, who learn from the experience and teaching of their temporary civil servant elders to be sympathetic—and if they are not, then the Minister at the head of the Department ought to make certain that he gets rid of them. I believe that it is essential to have this continual influx of younger men. Whether in the administrative grade, the executive grade or in the doctors grade, you want continual new ideas and new blood coming in, always inspired, as I am sure both Departments are, with the idea of service and of rendering to these men what we all recognise is their undoubted due, which we all want to see come about. I venture, from my experience, to assure the noble Lord, Lord Carew, that his apprehensions are ill-founded. I believe that once the Depart-
  132
  ments are merged—and do not forget they will have separate Parliamentary Secretaries—there will not be these difficulties. On the contrary, looking forward to the next ten or fifteen years, when, as I have said, the needs of the ex-Servicemen may be even greater than they are now, I believe that the new Department will be more efficient, and will have greater resources, than if the present Ministry of Pensions were allowed to die in the next seventeen or eighteen years.
  3.59 p.m.
  VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I feel in a difficult position, because my two loyalties are strained: my loyalty to my noble Leader, and my loyalty to my Legion. I have the honour to be the chief executive officer of ninety-four branches in my county, with over 16,000 paid-up members. It has been stated that this case has not been put properly to the members of the Legion. I can assure your Lordships that, so far as my county is concerned, they had a perfectly free vote on the question, and they are very disturbed at this amalgamation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carew, and the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, that we shall lose the personal touch by this amalgamation. I notice that the Ministry with which the Ministry of Pensions are to be amalgamated have 900branches as against eighty of the Ministry of Pensions. I am wondering whether the noble Marquess, when he winds up this debate, could tell me whether it is proposed to use the 900 offices of the other Ministry to deal with the pensioners in those areas, or whether, under an Under-Secretary, the present organisation with the same staff will be allowed to continue to deal with the pensioners' problems as at the present time. I cannot see that happening. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carew, I believe that eventually the members of the staff who have, so to speak, "grown up" with this great Ministry of Pensions to whom we owe so much, and also the Ministers who have been at the head, will be swamped by the men from the Ministry of National Insurance. I am hoping that something can be done to relieve our feelings in this matter. Otherwise the personal touch will be lost. Possibly the noble Marquess can give an assurance that the transfer will be carried through

  133
  very slowly, in order that the personal touch may be kept.
  I suppose, as has already been said by the Leader of the Opposition, we can do nothing about the matter in your Lordships' House. I must say that if it went to a Division, I should vote against this Motion, first, because I believe profoundly that this is the wrong moment, and, secondly, because I have the authority of my members, without any direction from me at all, to try to put their anxiety before your Lordships. But if there is to be no Division I ask my noble Leader to allow me to keep myself free to watch this situation very carefully. There is grave anxiety over this amalgamation, not only among the members of the British Legion but in practically all the ex-Service associations in the country. I repeat that I must leave myself free to watch, and, if we are not satisfied, to try in every possible way to persuade Her Majesty's Government to do something to alter the situation which we believe will take place: a situation in which these men will lose confidence in this great Ministry of Pensions, because it will be swamped in the new Ministry. I myself believe that that will happen.
  4.3 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I feel subject to the same conflict of loyalties that my noble friend Lord Long has just expressed. Like my noble friend, at the present time I am an office bearer in my own county branch of the British Legion, and I have held various offices ever since my own branch was taken over, over thirty years ago, from the Comrades of the Great War. But here I differ from my noble friends Lord Long and Lord Carew. Despite the anxieties which we in the Legion feel, I do not think that we are justified in opposing the Motion before the House. With your Lordships' leave I hope to explain why I take that view.
  I believe that it would be quite wrong if one tried to conceal from one's noble friends on the Front Bench that there is a great deal of anxiety in the Legion. A great deal of that anxiety arises from a matter which has not been touched upon so far in this debate, though it was, I think, touched upon in another place. It is that the Legion, as everybody knows, have applied to two successive Govern-
  134
  ments for an increase in the basic rate of disability pensions, but up to now have met with no success. This is no time to discuss the merits of that case, and I should not be in order if I attempted to do so. But the fact that those demands—as the Legion consider, absolutely just demanls—have not been met, has brought about a state of mind in the Legion which is very material to their attitude on this problem. They feel that they have been turned down by the Party opposite; that they have been turned down so far by the Party on this side. In effect, therefore, they say, "A plague o' both your houses!" I am not associating myself with that view, but that is the view taken by the plain men in blue suits who go to British Legion conferences. Your Lordships may say that it is not unreasonable that they should take that view, having regard to the position they are in at those conferences.
  When, therefore, a matter of this sort comes before Parliament and before the public, it is not unreasonable that opinion in the Legion should tend, as a first reaction, to be suspicious, and to say. "Here is another assault on the charter of ex-Servicemen which was laid down in 1920 and as a result of which the Ministry of Pensions was formed. Is this not another attempt to chisel away the special status of ex-Servicemen and to bring us entirely in line with the procedure for dealing with industrial injuries and so forth, and is this not a thing to be resisted on that ground? If we allowed this to pass without any protest we should in fact be selling the pass." So far so good. But it is at this point that I must part company from the line of argument followed by my noble friend Lord Carew and other people, because, if I may borrow a phrase which was used earlier this afternoon by my noble Leader, I think this approach to the problem, as he put it in another connection, is "as much emotional as purely objective."
  There is one other thing to be mentioned about this matter, and that is the very understandable fear on the part of members of the Legion that anything will happen to the present set-up of the Ministry of Pensions. Several noble Lords have paid tribute this afternoon to the work not only of the headquarters of the

  135
  Ministry but of their local representatives—a tribute to what I might call the "over the counter work" of the Ministry of Pensions. I should like to associate myself very strongly with that tribute, because there is no doubt that the Ministry of Pensions have earned the good will of the ex-Service community by their expert handling of the problem in a way which is quite out of the common when one is talking of Government Departments. It is most important that that fund of good will, which has been built up by the Ministry of Pensions over the last thirty years, should not be lost but should be continued.
  Now let us come to the second point. Are we going to achieve any of these objects by opposing the Motion now before the House? I do not think so. In the first place, several assurances have been given. When this matter was first brought to the notice of this House by my noble friend Lord Swinton on February 26, I anticipated what would happen, and I asked the noble Viscount whether he would bear in mind how important it was that this amalgamation should not be allowed to affect the claims for improvements in the rates of pensions which were then going forward. My noble friend Lord Swinton—as your Lordships will see in Hansard, if you care to turn it up—met me as far as he possibly could without committing the Government, which of course he could not do on a supplementary question. He said that certainly the claims would not be prejudiced in one way or another.
  What is the fact of the matter over this? Surely, it is that the broad question of the treatment of ex-Servicemen does not really depend on the behaviour of the Ministry of Pensions or of the officials in it: it depends on the policy of Her Majesty's Government, whatever that Government may be. If the Government or the Cabinet wish to give ex-Servicemen a fair deal they will decide to do so, and they will see that the Ministry of Pensions have orders in that direction; and the Minister will see that his staff get the necessary instructions. If on the other hand—let us hope that this is an impossible state of affairs: I am sure that it is—the Government were not in favour of giving a square deal to ex-Servicemen, then it would not matter what the staff
  136
  of the Ministry of Pensions were like, because nothing would happen.
  For this reason I fail to see how opposing this Motion will help the cause of the ex-Servicemen—we shall see in a moment what would help that cause. But we have the case that has been put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and endorsed by my noble friend Lord Hudson, with his experience as Minister of Pensions, that the merger of the two Ministries is at the moment technically justified. If we do not make this merger at the present time, we are told, the administration of pensions, owing to certain factors connected with the structure as regards the staff, will gradually decay; there will be a vicious spiral, because it will not be possible in the ordinary Civil Service way to get recruits. There is, of course, a fence to be taken here. There is a moment when the transfer, if it is made, will cause all the dangers referred to by Lord Carew and Lord Long; but that is a position that will have to arise at some time or other. I understood the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, to say that in the end a change will have to take place; and I do not see that anything will be lost by making the change now, before the quality of the administration of the Ministry of Pensions has deteriorated—which, in my judgment, at the moment it has not.
  It may be wrong—I believe it is—not to have conceded the increases in pensions. I think it is also wrong that we should attempt to oppose this Motion; and two wrongs do not make a right. I do not feel that by opposing this Motion we should advance in any respect the cause of the British Legion. But I hope my noble friend in front of me will be able to give the most abundant assurances that can possibly be given to the British Legion, and to all those societies which work with the Legion. Most of those assurances have already been given by Lord Selkirk, but if this transfer takes place, as I believe it should, let it take place in such a way that the British Legion knows that on all sides of this House—and particularly on this side, because here lies responsibility for the administration of the Ministry of Pensions at present—there is every intention that the rights of ex-Servicemen, which are so jealously guarded by the Legion, are fully maintained and are not to be prejudiced in any particular by this amalgamation of Ministries. And, of course, of all

  137
  these assurances by far the best assurance which can be given would be that the claim of ex-Servicemen for an increase in disability pensions would be treated in a favourable manner. That, I appreciate, cannot be given at the present stage.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, like other noble Lords I have been approached on this matter by the British Legion of which I am myself a member. I recognise and admire the work of the Legion for ex-Servicemen and I agree entirely with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that assurances should be given to the Legion that the interests of ex-Servicemen will always be kept very high indeed in the policy of this or of any other Government. I am also an ex-member of the Ministry of Pensions Advisory Committee, and I am interested in pension matters generally. I wonder, however, whether the opposition to this merger is justified, for the proposal as it appears is a matter of machinery in distributing pensions—not of rates of pension, services to pensioners, or any matters of that kind.
  The ideal might be to have pensions administered by some organisation other than a Ministry—something much more non-official. Government official; are not, as a rule—and it would be difficult for them to be—wholly sympathetic and kindly to those with whom they deal: I fully recognise that such an ideal is impossible and would be quite impracticable. The Ministry of Pensions has been most human and much more sympathetic in its dealing with pensioners in the last few years. I would venture to put the improvement as beginning during the régime as Minister of Mr. Buchanan, who was particularly sympathetic himself, and practical as well, in his dealings with pensioners. Since 1947 there has been a great decline in the number of pensioners and a corresponding decline in the number of the Ministry staff and officials. I am told that there are now only eight Ministry of Pensions hospitals in existence. I believe I am right in saying that in 1921 there were between sixty and seventy such hospitals.
  Pensioners even now use the National Health Service very largely, and the work of the Ministry of National Insurance is in many ways analogous to that of the Ministry of Pensions. For instance, in its work it deals with the industrially dis-
  138
  abled, whilst the Ministry of Pensions deals with the war disabled; and, of course, most war pensioners, being insured persons, are dealt with now by the Ministry of National Insurance. If they are sick or unemployed they are entitled to benefit, and some, for instance, are entitled to old age pensions. Would it not be simpler, better and cheaper if one Ministry were to deal with all these matters? Obviously, to begin with, the numbers of the staff of that Ministry would have to be increased; and many of those accustomed to Seal with Service disability pensions would be transferred to the Ministry of National Insurance for that purpose. Surely that is the answer, at any rate to some extent, to the idea that new men would be sealing with pension matters and that those new men would be unsympathetic towards the pensioners and all their concerns.
  As it is, the Ministry of Pensions, I believe, already acts as agents of the Ministry of Health for the supply of artificial limbs and surgical appliances for civilian patients; so that already it is not entirely concerned with Service patients. Then, the Ministry of National Insurance has about 900 offices up and down the country, as compared with some ninety offices of the Ministry of Pensions. This must make dealings with the Ministry by pensioners very much simpler for those who are living in the numerous districts which have not at present a Ministry of Pensions office but which are not far from a Ministry of National Insurance office.
  The British Legion contend that this proposed merger will result in a lowering of status of war pensioners and in abolishing any preference for Service over non-Service pensioners. I feel that those objections are very illusory indeed. I doubt if most of us feel that. If the British Legion would devote their energies to pressing for higher rates of war disability pensions—I know they have pressed for this, but they should devote most of their energies to it rather than to protesting against the proposed machinery for distributing pensions—they would have a stronger case; and I, for one, would certainly support them to the utmost of my ability. I think we are all agreed that there are at present too many

  139
  Government Departments. When I say "we are all agreed," I mean that those noble Lords who are not themselves connected with Government Departments are agreed. It seems to me that this proposed merger is a logical and sensible step to take to reduce Government Departments. I cannot see that anyone will be one penny the worse for it, and the result ought to be simpler, cheaper and no less efficient administration.
  If the argument is that the present officials understand and deal more sympathetically with pension matters, surely that argument is met by the fact that, as I have already suggested, there must be transfers from the Ministry of Pensions, in the first place, to deal with pension matters in the Ministry of National Insurance. Another contention of the British Legion is that ex-Servicemen are disturbed by the proposal. It is possible that that is the case, but I am not certain that those ex-Service men would have been disturbed if it had not been suggested to them from quite other quarters that there was some threat to them and to their interests. As regards this proposal, I would merely conclude by saying that my support goes to the Government, and I believe that the proposal is, on the whole, both sound and sensible.
  4.23 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, it was not my intention to address your Lordships' House on this subject, but there is one point of view which has not been touched upon so far. I am entirely in favour of the view that, although the Ministries may have to be merged in future, the present is the most unfortunate time to do it. I take that view for the reasons given by the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition in this House, and put by him very much better than I can attempt to do so. However, there is one other point I wish to make. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, seemed to make a claim for this side of the House—to which I do not belong; I am standing here merely for the convenience of speaking—for their good record in the past. I do not hesitate to say that, if one comes to analyse the position, one finds that it is the Party of noble Lords on the other side who, when they were in power, did more for
  140
  the pensioners than any other Government have done.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I hope that I did not make the suggestion that one side of the House was more forward than another in advocating the cause of ex-Servicemen, because I do not think I did. However, if the noble and gallant Earl will read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, I do not think he will find me reported as having said that.
  LORD HAWKE: Has the noble and gallant Earl taken into account the very heavy fall in the value of the pound since the steps taken by the Party of noble Lords opposite?
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I am trying to get what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said. To continue now with what I was trying to say before I was interrupted, at the present moment the record of the Government as regards ex-Servicemen's organisations is not a very good one. Your Lordships will remember that the request for a new basic rate for the disabled pensioner was turned down. When the modest sum of 90s. a week was asked for, nothing like that was granted. Then in January the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, introduced in this House a Motion on the subject of officers' pensions. The noble Lord, Lord Schuster, the other day, in a speech which I am sure earned him the gratitude of the Services, again brought up the same subject. Each time, the request made has been turned down with the use of some highfalutin phrase such as the "spiral of inflation." The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on the other side said that that was ridiculous, that the sum asked for could not cause a "spiral of inflation." We had this again quite recently when we were told of the "danger of inflation," the "risk of repercussions" and various other phrases of that sort. We were told that we ought to recognise the fact that the Government's first object was financial stability, and that we must all hold our hands and not do anything to interfere with that.
  The consequence of all that is that a large number of ex-Servicemen think that the Government are saving on them, and this merger will add to that feeling. These men live all over the country among other men. Claims have been made for £200 million more wages in the

  141
  various industries, not for greater production, because there has not been greater production; not for working longer hours, because at least in one case along with the claim for increased wages, there is also a claim for a reduction of hours. And these pensioners are living with the men making these claims. We know that the Government will give in, to some extent, and that some of those millions asked will go into the wage packets. It will not cause any greater production. Those men will simply keep quiet for a few months, and then more wage claims will be put in. Yet these men who are disabled are grudged that little sum for which they are asking. All this money is being paid away purely because the Government are not strong enough to dig their toes in and say, "You do not go any further; that is all that can be afforded by the country, and you have got to be content with it."
  I believe that this moment is ill-chosen to effect this merger because we have not yet attained financial stability. When we have financial stability, then will be the time to go into all these matters. Until we have a Government—I say a National Government—which is strong enough really to produce an economic policy, a wage policy which will be fair to everybody and will give the country a chance of getting on its feet again, let us do away with this scheme; let us stop tinkering with it. Look at what became of the merging of other Ministries. A merger may be an excellent thing in itself but, when it is reduced to this, what does it save?—nothing in the first few years, and perhaps £500,000 later on. A Ministry itself loses its status by it. In another place we were told of the handicap which a Minister who is not a member of the Cabinet suffers by having to get a Parliamentary Secretary to look after pensions. The Secretary has to convince his Minister, and the Minister has to convince the Cabinet. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, and if a Minister has to be urged on by his subordinates and goes to the Cabinet, he will make a very poor advocate. I suggest that this merger might well be put off for five years. Nobody can say for certain that in five years we shall not be badly wanting a Ministry of Pensions. To-day, we are building up
  142
  armaments but scrapping the Ministry of Pensions.
  4.30 p.m.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess a question before he replies? I understand that the existing special pensioners' hospitals of the Ministry of Pensions are to be handed over. I ask about that with interest, because I have worked in connection with the Ministry of Pensions—I have been one of the doctors who have examined and looked after the men, and I know how very valuable these special institutions have been. The hospital at Roehampton, to which one speaker referred, has a world-wide reputation. It is an extraordinarily good place and I hope there is no question whatsoever of its being liquidated. I assume that nearly all the Ministry of Pensions hospitals will be handed over and will continue their excellent functions as at the present time. I hope, too, that if any special services are required, they will be provided in co-operation and in consultation with the doctors at those institutions.
  I refer to this aspect of the matter partly from the point of view of the doctors who are concerned. A very important thing in the lives of the pensioners, and also from the point of view of the Ministry, has been the excellent medical service, as well as the excellent administrative service, which has been given. My own mind is evenly balanced between the possibilities. It might be of some advantage to keep the present organisation going for some time; but if these institutions, which are essentially characteristic of the Ministry of Pensions and have been so for some years, and which have done so much good for the pensioners, are to continue, I do not see that there is any particular objective in putting off the change for any lengthy period of time.
  4.32 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it will be generally agreed by everybody who has listened to this debate that it has been an extremely valuable one. In any case, I can assure your Lordships that the Government have welcomed it, because, after all, if any of us has anxieties on one point or another it is far better to have them out and get them answered—indeed, that is one of the main functions for which Parliament

  143
  exists. The thing that struck me above all others throughout this debate, as I listened to it, was the tremendous implied tribute that has been paid to the Ministry of Pensions. I think in every speech an impression has been given of the entire satisfaction which has been felt by noble Lords, in every part of the House and belonging to every Party, as to the past administration of pensions, and an equal regret that the administration is not to go on under the same Department and on the same lines.
  That, of course, is perhaps partly due to a feeling of natural conservatism, with a small "c," which is, I think, common to all British people. On the whole, we like what we have got. But it is due, too, I think, in an extremely large degree, to the admirable and sympathetic spirit with which the Ministry and successive Ministers of Pensions, of all Parties, have carried out their duties. Therefore, I entirely agree that it is not unnatural that some noble Lords should ask why this change is being made—what has happened to make it necessary. The reasons, as your Lordships know, have already been given to the House pretty fully by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, and I am only going to recapitulate them quite shortly. In a word, they are: first, efficiency; and second, economy. I may say that I put those two deliberately in that order, for I think we shall all agree with what was said by Lord Carew in his speech, that in a matter of this kind efficiency must come first in importance.
  In saying what I have, I am not, of course, suggesting for one moment to your Lordships that there has been any inefficiency in the Ministry of Pensions. To put it quite simply, it is really that times have changed. With the passage of time since the end of the last war, the number of pensioners is steadily decreasing, and the administrative machinery of the Ministry of Pensions must inevitably be reduced with that reduction in numbers, if it is not to become largely redundant. I think that even the noble Lord, Lord Carew, who took perhaps the strongest line in this debate, would not dispute that general proposition. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions said in another place, during the last three years, so far as hospital treatment is concerned, the needs have been
  144
  reduced by one quarter; so far as medical boarding is concerned in the last two years, by a half; and the appeals during the last six years have been reduced by no less than two-thirds.
  Of course, with a reduction in the requirements there has to be a reduction in the services. There were as I think the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, said, upwards of sixty-seven Ministry of Pensions hospitals. Those have already been reduced to eight, and it is becoming more and more difficult to justify some of the smaller local offices. The number of pensioners does not justify keeping them open at all; and yet, my Lords, without them, the personal attention to individual cases would, of course, not he the same as it always has been. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Long, who said in his speech that he was afraid that by amalgamation we might lose the personal touch. I am afraid that inevitably, if there is not this amalgamation. we may also lose the personal touch owing to the inevitable reduction in the number of local offices. I am sure that point will be clear to him.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, in his very thoughtful speech, said that this was a slowly dying Department, but that it is a dying Department. Conditions have entirely changed since the Ministry originally took over its work. We believe—and I suggest that the objective case is unanswerable—that the change will make for greater efficiency, as well as for a saving of money.
  The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, expressed doubts about the timing. He did not, as I understand, question that this might have to be done one day, but he asked, "Why now"? He said that if he were in power he would have put it off. Well, my Lords, I do not really doubt that because, although I do not want to say anything at all controversial, during the last two years, in the course of the many topics which we have had to discuss, noble Lords opposite have suggested that panacea whenever the Government have had to take rather awkward and difficult decisions. The Opposition have always said that it would be wiser to put off the matter, but the Government believe that on occasions it is the right thing to grasp the nettle and take their courage in both hands. And I believe that this is one of those occasions.
  EARL JOWITT: It has been the complaint that we have done too much, that we have rushed in foolishly and done those things which we ought not to have done. May I ask for an illustration of the noble Marquess's statement?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Earl will remember our discussions in connection with the return of Seretse Khama and in regard to Central African Federation. I could produce quite a long list if the noble and learned Earl would give me time. He has made an identical speech on several occasions.
  In many cases, of course, this change will, I hope and think, hardly be noticed. I assure the House, as I think my noble friend Lord Selkirk has already done, that the change will inevitably be a gradual one. In answer to what was said by Lord Long, I should say that, as I understand the position, it will still be open to pensioners to go to the eighty existing offices, if they wish, and to see the same people that they saw before. But they will, equally, be able to go to 900 other offices of the Ministry of National Insurance if they prefer it. What is more, their appeals will be heard by the same people who heard those appeals before. I would add also, with regard to the question asked by Lord Haden-Guest, that the hospitals will, of course, go on, and will be run, I understand, directly under the Ministry of Health. They will not come under regional boards but will be directly under the Ministry of Health. There is no question, of course, of scrapping the whole staff of the Ministry of Pensions. To a great extent, after the change, while they are needed the same people will be doing the same jobs. That, I think, is an answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carew, when he said, as I understood him, that some officials would be required to deal with completely different cases. That, as I understand it, will not be the position. In a great many of these cases, the same officials as before will deal with the cases. There will be simplification of the machinery, but personnel will not—immediately, at any rate—alter. What will happen is that a certain amount of overlapping which inevitably has occurred should, and I think will, now be avoided.
  I do not want to keep the House too long over this question. I have, I think,
  146
  given your Lordship, quite briefly, the argument for the change which the Government propose. In conclusion, and in answer to what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and other noble Lords, I should like to give this assurance on behalf of the Government. It is our firm resolve that nothing shall be done which might be to the detriment of ex-Servicemen. That, I think, is clear from the fact that priority will continue to be given to the war-disabled, both in the Ministry of Pensions' hospitals which remain and in the National Health Service hospitals as well. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions made clear in another place, all the rights, privileges and priorities of ex-Servicemen will be preserved. All statutory responsibilities and discretionary powers possessed by the Ministry of Pensions will be handed over to the Ministers who are now to administer these services. I honour—and I am sure we all honour—the anxieties which have been expressed by the British Legion and others over this proposal. It is a sign of their continuing and anxious care for ex-Servicemen. But nearly all of us in the Government are ex-Servicemen too, from one war or another. We share the feeling and the sense of responsibility of the British Legion and others, and I can assure your Lordships that it will still be our object to see that ex-Servicemen will not only not suffer but, I hope, will even benefit by the change that is now being made.
  I hope very much, therefore, that the noble Lords, Lord Carew and Lord Long, who feel—and I quite understand their feeling—a sincere anxiety and preoccupation over this matter will follow the advice which has been given them in this debate by Lord Bridgeman and Lord Jeffreys. There could after all, be no doughtier or more experienced champions of ex-Servicemen that those two noble Lords. I feel certain that, even if Lord Carew doubts, not, I hope, the good will of the Government, but our wisdom, he will feel no such doubts about the two noble Lords to whom I have referred. I hope noble Lords will not seek to divide the House on this issue. To do so, I think might give the impress onto ex-Servicemen that dangers were to be apprehended in the new machinery which I am sure do not in fact exist. That would be a thousand pities. For that reason I ask the

  147
  House to accept the counsel that has been given to it, and to allow this Order to go forward without any more ado.
  On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS BILL
  4.46 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 Lloyd.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1 [Arrangements for patrolling school crossings]:
  EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
  "(3) The functions of the appropriate authority for the purpose of arrangements under subsection (1) of this section shall include the duty to satisfy themselves of the adequate qualifications of persons appointed to patrol and to provide requisite training of persons to be appointed."
  The noble Earl said: On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who has been detained and is unable to get to the House, I beg to move this Amendment which stands in his name. The purpose of the Amendment is to follow up something that was said in the Second Reading debate. It was made clear that some safeguards were needed with regard to the qualification and training of the personnel of school crossing patrols. This Amendment calls for the appropriate authority to take account of these needs. It is presumed that the local authorities concerned will consult with the central Government authorities who will be able to give advice and lay down common standards which the patrols will have to attain. I am afraid that I have not explained the Amendment very well, but it is not mine. I have given the best explanation I can, and with that I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Howe).
  LORD LLOYD: On the Second Reading of the Bill there was expressed in all parts of the House anxiety—and if I may say so quite proper anxiety—about the selection and training of the patrols who will operate under this Bill, and I said on that occasion that the Government themselves were concerned that those selected should be suitable people and that the training should be as good as we could make it. This Amendment, which I am pleased to accept, does something to indicate to all concerned the importance which the Government attach to the selection and training of the persons who will operate these controls. I can give my noble friend the further assurance that after the Bill has become law the Government will certainly draw the attention of local authorities to the best practice now obtaining so far as training is concerned. I have much pleasure in accepting my noble friend's Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  4.49 p.m.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
  Agreements with respect to scholar patrols
  ".—(1) An appropriate authority and the education authority for any school in the area of that appropriate authority may enter into and carry into effect agreements with the object of encouraging the formation of a scholar patrol for the school by providing such instruction, equipment and other assistance as may be required for the purpose.
  (2) In this section a scholar patrol means a body of senior scholars in a school selected by the headmaster of the school and suitably trained and appointed to guide the junior scholars of the school when crossing roads on the way to or from school and to protect them against the risk of harm by passing vehicles,"
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of my Amendment is to give the appropriate authorities a permissive power to encourage the formation of scholar patrols. There is, in fact, as I realise, nothing in the Bill at the moment to prevent the formation of scholar patrols, but this Amendment is intended to draw more attention to these patrols, and to leave the Bill so far as they are concerned in rather a more positive condition. I should point out that there would be no

  149
  duplication of the crossing patrols by scholar patrols. They are different systems; but I think they would be complementary to each other. The scholar patrol would be an alternative to the crossing patrol. It would operate where there were no police and where the local authority found it too expensive to set up a crossing patrol. The local authorities, education authorities and local police are the arbiters of whether a scholar patrol should come into action or not.
  The purpose of this kind of patrol is not to stop traffic; it is for the purpose only of controlling children at a crossing. A senior pupil chosen for the purpose would be in charge of the crossing. He or she would be on duty not more than once a week, and only when the children were either going to school or leaving school; so the patrol would not miss any lessons. Probably the scholar patrol would wear an armband so that he would be easily recognisable by motorists. The advantage of the pupil-controlled crossing is that it teaches schoolchildren a sense of responsibility and of the dancers of the road, which children learn more readily from someone nearer their own age than from a grown-up.
  I realise that this is a comparatively new idea in the United Kingdom and, like all novelties, may cause a certain amount of suspicion about its efficiency and the possible danger involved; but, as my noble friend Lord Howe said on Second Reading, it is already widely adopted in other countries—in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Switzerland, Finland and the United States of America. This kind of patrol is already in operation in this country, at Chesham, Buckinghamshire, where I understand those concerned with it are very Pleased with the way it has been working but other noble Lords may say more about that patrol later on. I believe that local authorities need encouragement to start up scholar patrols and that encouragement must come from Her Majesty's Government. It may be that as there is no power in the Bill to prevent the setting up of these patrols, in ether words, without his Amendment they could still legally be organised—the Government may decide that my Amendment is unnecessary. If so, I hope they will realise that it is their duty to encourage local
  150
  authorities to set up these patrols. Anything that can help to cut down accidents on the road, particularly accidents to children, should not be neglected.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
  VISCOUNT PORTMAN: I should like to tell your Lordships something about a scholar patrol that is now in action in this country. The other day I had an opportunity of visiting Chesham, close to my home, and of contacting the officers of the Automobile Association for the purpose of seeing this patrol work. I can assure your Lordships that I have never seen an area more suitable for a demonstration of this sort. Imagine a very-steep hill, of, say, 1 in 7, with two acute S-bends; two entrance from the school, one towards the top of the hill and one down hill; a railway station, goods yard and brewery, with heavy traffic coming in and out all the time; and at the bottom of the hill, a turning into the Chesham-Buckingham road, along which heavy traffic comes all the time. The scholar patrol has been at work for nine years, and not one single accident has been recorded during that time. I had a long talk with the local police officers and with the very open-minded schoolmistress who initiated this patrol. I was pleased to see that there was a simplicity and unhurried method of approach to this problem which I never thought possible in younger children. The police admitted that it would have caused them an enormous amount of trouble to go into this problem thoroughly, and they reckon that the headmistress has done something for which the local authority owe her a deep debt of gratitude. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to ask the Minister of Transport to consider sending a representative to see this patrol at work. I should be only too pleased, if a date could be arranged, to take somebody from the Ministry ever to meet Miss Dyer and see the whole thing in operation. I feel that this is something which should be included in the school curriculum. It would add greatly to children's sense of self-preservation. It would save lives, time and local expense if this matter could be taken up thoroughly. I hope the Government will give this matter the deepest attention.
  LORD LLOYD: The Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron was, I think, almost killed by the noble Lord himself, when he said that it was irrelevant to the Bill.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I did not say "irrelevant"; I said that it added to the powers already in the Bill.
  LORD LLOYD: I think my noble friend and I mean the same thing. As my noble friend said in moving his Amendment, there is no question of scholar patrols controlling traffic, and there is nothing which prevents any local authority from organising a scholar patrol should they so desire. This is borne out by the fact that a scholar patrol is already in existence at Chesham. I do not feel that I can accept this Amendment, because it seeks to do something which is unnecessary. The power is already there.
  In regard to the principle which the noble Lord has advanced, we are all interested in anything which is conducive to the preservation of the lives of children on the roads. I believe that in a number of foreign countries this system has proved successful, but the measure of this success depends on the conditions existing in the country concerned. It would be difficult to measure the success achieved in a country like Holland, where the traffic conditions are so different from conditions over here. But I think it will be generally conceded that this is an interesting experiment, which might well produce useful results in this country. The last thing that I should like to be understood in this House is that the Government are in any way opposed to this system of scholar patrols. On the other hand, I must be frank with my noble friend and tell him that I feel that this is something which ought not to be imposed on local authorities from the centre. He said that the only people concerned in this matter were the local authority, the education authority and the police. In fact, he has left out a most important category of people who are concerned—namely, the parents. It would be quite improper to put into a Bill powers which enabled a local authority to compel children to do something against the wishes of their parents. That is another angle which must be considered.
  152
  This must be a matter for agreement locally between the authorities concerned and the police. I do not think it is something which can be imposed from the centre. Noble Lords, on Second Reading and this afternoon, have drawn attention to the benefits of this system, and I hope that what they have said will be widely read by local authorities, and that it may have a persuasive effect on them. My noble friend Lord Portman talked about the scholar patrol operating at Chesham, and asked whether I would draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Education to it. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is fully aware of that experiment, and knows all about it. The facts about scholar patrols are familiar to most education authorities in this country, but whether or not they will adopt them must be a matter of time and persuasion; I do not think it is something which can be imposed from the centre. For all those reasons, I am sorry, but I do not feel able to accept the Amendment of my noble friend.
  EARL HOWE: I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord has said, and with much of it it is difficult to disagree—as, for instance, the fact that scholar patrols can be organised under the Bill as drafted. However, I feel that the answer given by the noble Lord is most disappointing. Wherever scholar patrols have been instituted, not only in this country—the one at Chesham has been referred to—but in countries abroad, and particularly in the great cities in America, they have been an outstanding success. In nearly every case they were received at first with the wholehearted opposition of the teachers and of the parents, but patient advocacy has led to their adoption in such cities as Cincinnati in America. I have seen them working in Copenhagen, Denmark, where the traffic is dense and very much akin to what we have in London, and where the size of the schools is almost identical with that of an ordinary London County Council school.
  The great advantage of these scholar patrols is that they offer a wonderful opportunity for training the children: they learn to observe traffic conditions in a way they would never learn otherwise. As I say, I have seen them in operation in

  153
  Copenhagen. The results are wonderful. The children are very keen and quick at learning; they make no mistake about it. I hope the noble Lord will exercise the great influence which we all know he has, and his own powerful advocacy, to see whether something cannot be done to get other local authorities in this country to take up this matter. The noble Lord did not tell us whether he had seen scholar patrols in operation. If not, I hope he will take an early opportunity of doing so, not only in this country but elsewhere. They can make a great contribution to road safety, and may reduce road casualties amongst children to a great extent. Can we afford to disregard anything that produces positive results of that character? I submit that the reply of the noble Lord is disappointing, and that he might have given us a little more encouragement.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I am going to venture to ask my noble friend Lord Lloyd to make a further suggestion to the right honourable lady the Minister of Education. There is in operation a most benevolent and successful teachers' exchange scheme between this country and America. I suppose that by this time a considerable number of British teachers have had the opportunity of teaching in American schools and seeing this system of scholar patrols at work. I believe that it would be of great interest if the Ministry of Education could call on those British teachers, who have seen the system working, for a report of what they have seen, which should be communicated to the Ministry of Transport.
  LORD LLOYD: I am sorry that have not satisfied my noble friend Lord Howe, but I hardly felt before I started that I should. However, I do not think that even he would feel it right to impose this kind of action on the local authorities. I do not think that is the right way to deal with it. I was interested in what the noble Earl had to say: it was quite impressive. I was also interested in the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh, and I can promise him that I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to it. As my noble friend Lord Howe said, the success of these scholar patrols has beer achieved elsewhere only by a system of patient advocacy. I believe that this is the sort
  154
  of thing which can be achieved only by patient advocacy. The more the teachers can go and see these patrols working, the better chance there is that they will go, back and report to their local education authorities that it is an admirable system. We must hope that by these methods, if the system is as good as it is said to be—and I have no doubt that it is—it will percolate to this country. I do not think it can be forced; it must be done by persuasion. I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what has been said this afternoon, and I hope that what noble Lords have said will be read, both abroad and in this country. However, I cannot go further than that.
  EARL HOWE: I like the noble Lord's second reply better than his first.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I should like to thank my noble friend for both his replies. I agree with him that it is not possible to impose a system like this from the centre on the local authorities. Nevertheless, that is a different thing from encouraging the adoption or trial of this system. I hope that Her Majesty's Government may be able to do something in that direction, I also hope that local authorities will read the debate that has taken place this afternoon, and that what has been said will arouse their curiosity and interest. I realise that this Amendment is not the right way of dealing with the matter, and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCEL- LANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  5.10 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 Burden.)
  On Question, Motion I agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Provision of omnibus shelters, etc.
  (4) In this and the next three following sections, "local authority" includes the council of a rural parish; and "public service vehicle" has the meaning assigned to it by section one hundred and twenty-one of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, except that it includes a tramcar or trolley vehicle as so defined.
  LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP moved, in subsection (4) after "parish" to insert:
  "and in the case of a rural parish not having a council, the parish meeting."
  The noble Lord said: I mentioned this point on Second Reading. Since then it has been brought to my knowledge that it is probable that Section 273 of the Local Government Act, 1933, will cover my point. That section gives county councils power to empower parish meetings in the same way as parish councils. If that applies in the case of this Bill, there will be no need for me to go further with this Amendment. I take it that it is the wish of Parliament that the smallest local authorities should have the powers given by Clause 4 of this Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will tell me if this section of the Local Government Act, 1933, covers my point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 35, after ("parish") insert the said words.—(Lord Hindlip.)
  LORD BURDEN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, for the way in which he has moved this Amendment. As he says, he raised this point on Second Reading, and since then I have been into the question and have given some time and attention to it with those responsible for the promotion of the Bill. I can assure him that the Amendment is unnecessary in view of the provisions in Section 273 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which enables a county council, at the request of a parish meeting of a rural parish, to make an order conferring on them any functions of a parish council. Of course we are all desirous of developing amenities in our villages in the remote parts, particularly those villages which have not sufficient population for a parish council. The development of those amenities is very important in our national life, and I feel sure that any council receiving
  156
  representations from a parish meeting that the parish meeting itself is anxious to provide a bus shelter would give sympathetic consideration to a request of that kind. With that, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD HINDLIP: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Burden. He has certainly covered my point, and I am sure all is in order. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

  DOGS (PROTECTION OF LIVESTOCK) BILL
  5.15 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 Amherst of Hackney.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Penalty where dog worries livestock on agricultural land
  (5) Where the Minister is satisfied that it is inexpedient that subsection (1) of this section should apply to land in any particular area, being an area appearing to him to consist wholly or mainly of mountain, hill, moor, heath or down land, he may by order direct that that subsection shall not apply to land in that area.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (5), after "down land" to insert:
  "adjacent to towns, and commonly used for exercise or recreation by their residents,"
  The noble Earl said: I shall not say much about the merits of this Amendment, for the simple reason that however good the Amendment might be no one would wish to press an Amendment which would result in the loss of the Bill. But I think that this subsection, as it stands, is not

  157
  drafted in a way which carries out the real intention of the promoter The subsection would enable the Minister to exempt from the land where this Bill will operate—that is to say, from land where livestock will be protected from worrying of dogs—any upland area in any part of England, Scotland and Wales. It would apply equally to the Highlands of Scotland, to Dartmoor, to the mountainous areas of Wales and to the upland areas in the North-West and North-East of England, and these, of course, are places where hill farmers and upland farmers keep a large number of store cattle and sheep.
  The intention of this subsection is to enable the Minister to exempt land which is used for the purposes of recreation in the neighbourhood of large towns. People who want to go out for a walk with their dogs on moorland in the neighbourhood of a large town in the North, obviously should be able to do so and should not be in danger of getting into trouble on account of any livestock that a neighbouring farmer may have allowed to graze on the land. If that is the object of this subsection I cannot help feeling that a form of words should be found which would define that object more precisely. I am not wedded to the words which I have put down. They are probably entirely inappropriate. I am not an expert draftsman, but I hope the noble Lord who is promoting this Bill and has expert advisers may be able to find a form of words which will carry out the intention which we all have in mind. As I say, I certainly would not press this Amendment, because we do not want to lose the Bill. We all think it is a good Bill, and the last thing we want is to lose it. It is a great pity that a Private Member's Bill arrives so late in the Session that we cannot amend it. It deprives this House of its function as a revising Chamber. I hope some consideration will be given to the arrangement of business in another place so that Private Members' Bills can come to this House rather earlier in the Session. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 9, after ("land") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I support the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in this
  158
  Amendment. I am quite unable to understand why any differentiation should be made between moorland and ordinary arable land. It seems to me that the position is even more unsatisfactory from the point of view of the hill farmer than from that of the lowland farmer, because if a dog starts worrying sheep on an arable farm it probable that it will be noticed in a very short space of time and action taken; but sheep on the mountains are often many miles from the shepherd, and the shepherd making his long rounds can visit them only once or twice a day. I should like to know why it is that the owner of a dog that worries sheep or other livestock on a hillside gets off scot free, while the owner of a dog which worries sheep or other livestock in an enclosed pasture is liable to prosecution. I hope that something will be done to remedy the situation to which the noble Earl has very rightly drawn attention.
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I think we all have great sympathy with the intention behind this Amendment. Obviously, as the noble Earl says, we do not wish the Minister to exempt or exclude from this Bill all those high lands in Scotland and Wales, and other high lands, where the farmer is having even greater difficulty than the lowland farmer in making a living. But we must remember that the Minister who has to make the order exempting land for the operations of the Bill is, in fact, the Minister of Agriculture. I feel it would be stretching the point rather too far to think that any Minister of Agriculture, with the force of the National Farmers' Union and all the other bodies behind him, would exclude any land from the Bill unless he felt that the case for excluding it was overwhelming. I also feel that the insertion of the words to provide that he shall be able to exclude only land which is near a town, would not make the matter very clear. There is a great deal of land near towns, even in the Highlands or in Yorkshire or elsewhere, and people might feel that as in those particular cases he had power to exclude land he should in fact do so. Therefore, although I agree with the intention of this Amendment, I feel that on the whole it might weaken the Minister's position rather than strengthen it, and or those grounds I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
  LORD CARRINGTON: Perhaps I might lend some support to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, over this matter, and allay some of the fears and suspicions expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. The Minister concerned in this Bill is, as Lord Amherst has said, the Minister of Agriculture, and therefore on the side of the sheep and not of the dog, if I may so put it. Moreover, your Lordships will see that Clause 1 (5) reads as follows:
  "Where the Minister is satisfied that it is inexpedient …"
  and so on. That, I think, disposes of Lord Mansfield's point. But I can give this undertaking: that only in the rarest of cases would the Minister consider himself so satisfied and so bring this subsection into force.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Would the Minister explain why sheep or other livestock should be worried with impunity anywhere?
  LORD CARRINGTON: This is not my Bill, but I did explain that point on Second Reading. The object of putting in this small subsection is that very often, near large towns and elsewhere, there are certain open spaces which for fifty-one weeks in the year are used for recreation, and it is felt that hardship might be caused to citizens of those towns if they had to restrict their dogs unduly.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the assurance he has given that this power would be used only rarely by the Minister of Agriculture. It seems to me, nevertheless, that the Amendment is right in principle. Parliament should not give any Minister more power than is absolutely necessary to carry out the purpose laid down in a Bill. Here very wide powers are being given to the Minister of Agriculture. We all believe that he will use these powers with judgment and responsibility; but I feel it is a bad thing in principle that Parliament should give Ministers wider powers than are absolutely necessary. However, I certainly will not press this Amendment and I hope the Bill will become law as soon as
  160
  possible. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

  SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (PIGS) BILL
  5.28 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 Merthyr.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
  Institution of proceedings
  "4.—(1) A local authority in England and Wales may institute proceedings for any offence under this Act committed in the area of the authority.
  (2) In this section "local authority" means the council of a county borough or county district, the council of a metropolitan borough or the Common Council of the City of London."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. If we must eat meat, I think everyone would agree that the animals should be killed by the most humane means possible. Therefore, with the objects of this Bill no one, I think, can quarrel. I submit to the Committee, however, that the Bill is defective in three ways. First, it does not provide who is to use the humane killer: the work is not to be carried out by a licensed slaughter-man. Secondly, there is no right of entry. But the third and most serious difficulty is the one which my Amendment seeks to put right—I mentioned the other two defects just in passing. I wonder whether it is realised that under the Bill as it stands local authorities will not be able to see that the provisions in the Bill are carried out. The local authority will not be able, as I understand from my reading of the Bill, to take any steps whatsoever to enforce its provisions; and, as your

  161
  Lordships will be aware, the officers of local authorities under the principal Act have a wealth of information and knowledge with regard to protecting animals which are to be slaughtered.
  Who will endeavour to carry out the provisions of the Bill? First, it is, understood that we shall trust an enlightened public opinion. Secondly, it is suggested that the police will do so; and, thirdly, the officers of the R.S.P.C.A. I say nothing about the enlightened public opinion, but I would say a word with regard to the police. I do not know whether a figure has ever been given as to the number of animals likely to be affected by the Bill, but I believe that I have seen the figure of 50,000 quoted somewhere. Many of these killings, in the nature of things, are carried out in remote rural areas. Those of us who have had any experience of the countryside, particularly in the remote rural areas, will know the duties imposed on the police officer in such areas. It is practically impossible to expect the village policeman to carry out the duties imposed by this Bill. As for the R.S.P.C.A., I have the greatest respect possible for the work which they carry out in difficult circumstances. The point of this Amendment is, shall I say, to make the Bill operative, which I think is the desire of the promoters of toe Bill. My Amendment, therefore, is moved in no antagonistic spirit to the provisions of the Bill, but only in an attempt to see that its provisions do not become a dead letter because of the lack of provisions for enforcement. I beg to move my Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 3 insert the said new clause—(Lord Burden.)
  5.33 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: The first thing I want to make quite clear is that, on the pure merits of this Amendment, there is no disagreement between us; but, for reasons which I must put forward, which I think are sound and weighty, I all sorry that I have to ask the House to reject the Amendment. So much is it a fact that on its merits we do not disagree that I just want to mention that, in the first draft of this Bill, there was inserted a power for local authorities to enforce this Bill. That shows that there is nothing between us purely on the
  162
  merits of the Amendment. The real difficulty is this. Though there seems to be a little doubt about it, I am informed, and, I believe, that if this Amendment were to be passed it would be necessary for there to be attached to this Bill a Money Resolution. I am further informed, and believe that it is almost, though perhaps not quite, impossible for a Money Resolution to be attached to a Private Member's Bill. I am not an expert on this machinery, but I am informed that that is the case. Be that as it may, there remains this. If this Bill had to go back to another place to have a Money Resolution attached to it, there would, as I think we shall all agree, be no time to pass it into law this Session. That may or may not be a valid argument, but it remains a fact that one must take into account. So, while I fully appreciate the good intentions of the noble Lord who says that he wants this Bill to pass, I must, I am sorry to say, tell him that, if his Amendment were passed, it would have the opposite effect and that neither he nor I should get what we wanted.
  There are one or two other small points. The noble Lord said that without this Amendment local authorities could not take any steps to enforce this Bill. But surely they could inform the police; they could inform the R.S.P.C.A. who could, and I have very little doubt who would, then prosecute. Indeed, the noble Lord almost answered his own point when he mentioned the village police. He seemed to doubt whether the village police could or would lay an information on this Bill. I have little or no doubt about it myself. We all know of many cases where village policemen lay informations on very similar subjects. For example, to mention only one, I have known many cases where the police have prosecuted people for setting traps in the open. That is only one case of the same sort of subject. If they cart do that, why could not they prosecute a man who killed a pig in contravention of this Bill? They could and, what is more, I believe they would. I hope that I have said enough to show that in many ways I regret that this Amendment is not in the Bill but that on the other hand, I believe that the disadvantages of passing this Amendment far outweigh the advantages which would

  163
  accrue. I must repeat that, if this Amendment were passed, I should have very little hope of being successful in getting this Bill passed into law this Session.
  LORD BURDEN: I fully appreciate the risk which would be run if I endeavoured to press this Amendment. One knows, too, with a Private Member's Bill of this kind, the thought and work that go into it before it reaches its present stage. I should not like in any way to disappoint those who put so much labour into it. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Citation, extent and commencement]:
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved that the Act should come into operation on April 1, 1954, instead of July 1, 1954. The noble Earl said: The purpose of my Amendment is to bring this Bill into effect three months earlier than the time proposed in the Bill—in April, 1954, instead of July, 1954. I think your Lordships have already agreed that this inhumane practice of slaughtering pigs in backyards should be discontinued. If it should be discontinued, then surely it should be discontinued at the earliest possible opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, on Second Reading said that already there was a sufficient number of humane killers for this Bill to be made operative without any long delay. I must say it is extremely puzzling to me why the administrative arrangements required before the Bill can take effect should take a whole year. I am suggesting that the period should be cut down by only three months, and I hope the noble Lord will seriously consider whether it is not reasonable to ask those who are responsible for making the administrative arrangements to make them within a period of nine months from the passing of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 30, leave out ("July") and insert ("April").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  5.40 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: Again I find myself in the position of agreeing with the mover of the Amendment purely on its merits, and again I regret to say I am in the position of having to ask the mover
  164
  not to press the Amendment because the result might create to this Bill a certain amount of opposition which has so far been allayed by the time inserted at which the Bill is to come into operation. The history of this matter is that the promoter of the Bill in another place himself inserted the date and moved an Amendment to that effect. Needless to say, being like the noble Earl in full sympathy with this Bill, he did not do that without some reason. The noble Earl quoted something that I said on Second Reading, to the effect that there were sufficient humane killers in existence. However true that may be (and I believe it was true and is true) there remains this fact: that we have to satisfy those who may have a doubt or a criticism to make about this point, not only that there is this number of humane killers in existence, but that they exist everywhere, up and down the country, properly distributed. We have to satisfy them on that point.
  I want to be in a very safe position in this matter. I do not want to run the slightest risk of being accused of making a statement which proved to be not quite accurate. I want to be certain about it. There are those who have a doubt about this matter, and one wants to make doubly sure that the Bill does not come into operation until there is not the slightest difficulty about obtaining a humane killer. There is no sort of pact about this matter. I think I can say that there has been an understanding throughout the history of this Bill that there should be no difficulty in this connection, and again I must say that if this Amendment were passed I think there is a risk that we should lose the understanding and good feeling which has existed, both in another place and in this House, and which was quite remarkable. Therefore I am going to ask the noble Earl to be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, because as we have waited for all these years for this reform it would be a thousand pities to lose it just for the sake of three months.
  There is one small further point. I am informed that there is a season for pig-killing and that the season in which pigs are not killed, generally speaking, is in the middle of a summer. Therefore there is a little administrative convenience and tidiness in having July 1, which is in

  165
  the middle of the non-killing season, as the date on which the Bill shall come into operation. The present date will avoid a little confusion in the minds of farmers and others. The whole of the next: killing season will be outside the Bill and the whole of the season following that will be within the Bill. That may be a slight help to those up and down the country who want to kill their pigs. I know I am asking a lot of the noble Earl in this matter, but he and I both want this Bill and therefore I ask him to withdraw his Amendment.
  EARL JOWITT: Before the noble Earl responds to that request may I say that this House is being put in an absolutely impossible position. After all, our function is to act as a revising Chamber. I would venture to say, from my experience, that there is no legislation that is more apt to need revision than Private Members'legislation—it needs to be very carefully looked at. I know nothing about this Bill—I am not in the least hostile to it—but I have listened what has been going on. The last Amendment was obviously a sensible Amendment. We were told (it was surprising to me to hear it) that if we carried that Amendment providing for a right of inspection by a local authority, or something of that sort, we should require a Money Resolution to the Bill, and, that being so, the Bill would have to go back to another place, all precedent would be broken and so on. In the result, the noble Lord said, with tears in his eyes, that he was very, very sorry; that it was a splendid Amendment and one with which he entirely agreed, but that he must ask my noble friend not to press2 it—and the noble Lord behind me responded to his sorrowful attitude.
  Now the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, moves another Amendment, and again it is said that it is an eminently sensible and reasonable Amendment. But again the noble Lord has said, "Whatever else you do, please do not press it to a Division, but withdraw it." I have no doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who is always kindhearted and tolerant, will withdraw his Amendment. That is all very well, but I think it places this House in an intolerable position. I am making no attack upon the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, in saying this; the position has existed for a long time. But I do think
  166
  we ought to consider in the appropriate quarters what we are going to do about it. It is wrong that Private Members' legislation should come to us at such a late stage that we are told, in effect, that if we move any Amendments to the Bill we shall imperil and probably lose it, and that consequently we must take it just as it is and do nothing about it. That puts us in a bad position.
  I have no doubt that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment because of that situation, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will apply his well-known ingenuity to this problem, to see whether something cannot be done to put us is a position effectively to carry out our revising powers— because that is all this House wants to do. Unless we do that effectively, some of this Private Bill legislation will not be so good or so useful as it would be if this House had the time and opportunity to look into it and revise it. I hope that the noble Lord will not mind my making that intervention. I am not making any attack on him. I think this is inherent in the position which we suffer from to-day, and I wish it were otherwise.
  LORD CARRINGTON: This Bill is not my Bill, nor is it a Government Bill. I know we are all in sympathy with what the noble and learned Earl has said. But I oppose the Amendment on its merits, because I think it is a bad Amendment. Speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I would ask the Committee to reject it, but not for the reason that my noble friend Lord Merthyr has given. I think there is a very good reason why we should start the Act at the end of June, and that is that in point of fact the end of June is the month at which the killings of pigs drop right down. In the spring, there is fairly heavy killing of pigs, but in July and August it drops down to about 1,000 a month throughout the country. From the administrative point of view I should have thought it a great convenience to start an Act of this kind at a time when the pig killings were low and the farmers had an opportunity to buy these humane killers.
  Some of the farming community, I think quite wrongly, have been a little apprehensive about this Bill, and the more time we have to explain to them what the purpose of it is and the more

  167
  time they are given to adjust themselves to the conditions of the Bill and to get this humane killing apparatus, the better. I should have thought that from every point of view it was better to have the Bill starting at the beginning of July than earlier on. After all, there is not much difference. The noble Earl is asking for only three months. This matter has been going on for a very long time, and for the reasons I have given I think it would be much better to leave the Bill as it is rather than to press the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I agree with the noble Lord opposite that this is not an Amendment of any great importance. It would alter the date when this Bill takes effect by only three months, and we have been waiting for a Bill of this kind (noble Lords who take a special interest in the welfare of animals particularly so) for a very long period of years. We shall be extremely thankful when the Bill becomes operative, and certainly no one would wish to risk its loss for the sake of three months. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

  HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY MAG- DALEN (COLCHESTER) CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
  5.50 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Hawke.)
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, before this Bill has its Third Reading, I should like to say a word or two about it. I think the House is to be congratulated that it has two noble Lords who have taken such pains to look into the Bill. Lord Hawke, on the one side, has advocated the Bill, and he has dealt with the difficulties in it with great clarity. Obviously, he has
  168
  given up much of his time to the consideration of it. And, equally, on this side of the House, Lord Shepherd has taken a great deal of time and trouble to assist. He has actually gone to see the place concerned, and has taken various other steps. I think this is very much to the good. I think it is wholly admirable that in connection with a small Bill like this, dealing with a Charity, there should be two noble Lords prepared to devote their time and attention in that way.
  Looking at the conclusion to which we have come, I confess that I am not altogether happy about it. As I see it, the position is this. The income of the Charity is being divided (the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will correct me if I am wrong: I am attempting, to deal with this matter in an approximate way) so that about three-fifths of it goes to ecclesiastical purposes and two-fifths of it goes to the five inmates of the almshouses. They were in early days, of course, entitled to their lodging, I think to their allowance, and to the sum of one shilling a week, which was provided for their "sustenance, relief and maintenance." How far the sum of one shilling a week would go in the year 1611 I do not know, but I am old enough to remember a time when an agricultural labourer used to get, in addition to his cottage, only 11s. a week. Out of that, often enough, he used to keep his wife and bring up a family. Now that was in my lifetime. So I take it that one shilling a week for an individual in 1611 may have been a sum on which it was possible to live. But since I have no knowledge of monetary changes, I could not say. I think, however, that it is a fallacy to treat the Charity, as it has been treated, rather as though there were no discretion on the part of those who administer it to give further sums. I believe that I should be right in saying that if there were further income available it could have been distributed to the old people—that is to say, that sums could have been given to them in addition to the one shilling a week. I rather wish that that had been done. What strikes one at first blush, looking at this arrangement, is that the Charity Commissioners did not adhere to their original proposal that the division should be on a fifty-fifty basis. That was the

  169
  original proposal. From that they departed. One does not quite know why. Frankly, I rather wish that they had not done so.
  I think one can leave this subject in this way. I have already paid a tribute to two noble Lords who have been concerned with the Bill. This matter has been considered carefully by most competent people, who have no desire whatever save to do that which is right and proper. This is the conclusion to which they have come. With my very inadequate knowledge of the matter I should certainly be most reluctant to say that they are wrong. All I will say is that by the care we have taken, by the efforts which these noble Lords have made in dealing with this Bill, we have set an example. We have made it plain that even the smallest Bill dealing with the humblest subject will be subjected to close scrutiny in your Lordships' House in order to see that justice is being done.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to say just two or three words before we finally dispose of this Bill. I thank the noble and learned Earl for his kind words. I am sorry that we part with the Bill still not seeing directly eye to eye. As I regard it—and I think that historically I am correct—it is a Charity to support an incumbent, plus free houses for five almspeople, whereas some noble Lords think that the almspeople should have had support out of the Charity. However, there is the difference. The noble Lords who have raised this matter consider that a fifty-fifty division would be more correct. As I say, this Charity has existed for over three centuries, and during that time the Church has had by far the larger share. That is the division which persists to-day. I may say that the Charity, on whose behalf I have been briefed are quite satisfied with the arrangement. Their ideas have been met in full, whereas the Church, out of the division, will be able to pay only half the remuneration of its incumbent. Therefore, I maintain that, from the Charity's point of view, the division is not an unfair one.
  On Question. Bill read 3ª.
  Bill passed.

  HOSPITAL OF THE BLESSED TRINITY (GUILDFORD) CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
  5.58 p.m.
  Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

  EDUCATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  5.59 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Earl De La Warr.)
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, we have got a very mixed grill to-day, and it seems to me that I am talking on nearly all subjects which arise. It is my misfortune, and your Lordships' misfortune, not my fault. However, I want to say something about this Bill, because on Second Reading I suggested to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that it would be well that we should have an interview with the Minister in order that she might realise the point of view that we desired to put forward and might state her point of view. I should like to say at once that the Minister was quite agreeable so to do, and received us the following day with the utmost courtesy. She listened to what we had to say, and put before us her point of view—at least, I presume she told us her point of view: I am bound to say that I came away completely confused about what her point of view was and why that original statement had ever been made.
  May I remind your Lordships of these simple facts? The right honourable lady met a deputation and to that deputation she made a statement—this was on February 12. She was most anxious that I should not represent it as having been an undertaking or anything of that sort: she preferred the word "statement." But when you have a deputation of this sort and read out a statement, it is not the sort of remark which thrown out in the course of a conversation; it is a carefully considered and carefully prepared statement. What the right honourable lady

  171
  said, in regard to the definition of displaced pupils, was this:
  "The new definition would not be retrospective in the sense that grants on completed projects could be re-assessed, but grant claims on schemes in progress or for which the accounts have not been closed would be eligible for review in the light of the new definition."
  On that assurance, the test was that "if accounts had not been closed" the schools would be eligible. So far as I can gather, before the Bill was introduced the Minister discovered that she could not carry out that undertaking—I now quote her own words from the proceedings in Committee in another place:
  "I want to say quite frankly to honourable Members that not until this was looked into just before Second Reading was it found that the Amendment we were suggesting would not include schools defined as those whose accounts had not been closed. I am quite prepared to admit it was a great pity that neither we nor those with whom we were having discussions nor their legal advisers had seen this point before."
  The Minister having made a statement to a deputation that the basis of the scheme was going to be whether the accounts were closed, and then having found out just before Second Reading that that promise could not be made good, the thing to do was to send for the deputation and tell them she was exceedingly sorry but she found she could not carry out her promise. Nothing of the sort was done, however.
  The Bill was there. One needs to be an expert on this matter to find out why the undertaking is not implemented in the Bill—I realise it now, of course, to the full. And I can understand the people in the deputation, to whom that assurance had been given, relying on what had been said by the Minister. Then, at a later stage, some question is asked, some problem is propounded, and it becomes plain that the undertaking cannot be made good—or rather, that the form of words which the Bill contained does not make good the undertaking. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I would say that I still think that, if a Minister makes a statement to a deputation of this sort, it is very desirable that the statement should be adhered to and carried out. It should not be lightly made; and, if made, should be carried out. And if a
  172
  Minister finds that an undertaking that has been given cannot be carried out, then I think the first people who ought to be informed of it are the people to whom, erroneously and under a mistaken view, the undertaking was given. They should not be allowed to discover it during the course of discussions on the Bill.
  That is the position I desire to adopt. On the last occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, suggested that the accounts referred to were not building accounts but were accounts as between the school and the Ministry. I have ascertained, as I anticipated, that the second account mentioned must come after the first, because before the account between the Ministry and the school is settled, the school has to produce the final building account which has been paid; only then does it secure the appropriate grant from the Ministry. Therefore, the account which is contemplated is the latter and not the earlier of the two accounts. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, made these excuses; but what is the point of trying to make excuses when the Minister says quite plainly, and admits quite frankly, that it was found that
  "the Amendment we were suggesting did not include schools defined as those whose accounts had not been closed"?
  All this shows how careful one ought to be in this debatable subject, with which both the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and I have had something to do at one stage of the Bill. May I say that this is a perfect example of the way in which not to do it?
  6.8 p.m.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I regard this Bill as a recognition by the Government and by both Houses of Parliament of the justice of certain claims which the Roman Catholic Bishops and their people have been putting forward ever since 1950. Those claims have been pressed by every proper and constitutional means at two Elections, and by deputations to the right honourable lady the Minister of Education. To-day, in 1953, we pass a Bill recognising that those claims were just. I am exceedingly glad that this recognition has been given. Justice is being done, but it is tardy justice. Because it is tardy justice, and because Her Majesty's Government are so hypnotised

  173
  by the phrase "no retrospection," justice is incomplete. Some schools which should have received grant have not received grant, and will not receive it under this Bill. In saying that, I am not indulging in any recriminations; I am certainly not making any Party point—far from that, indeed. I say it in order that I may express the hope that, the next time the Bishops of my Church have something to say, they may obtain the ear of Parliament somewhat earlier, and that, if a case is made out, redress may be somewhat more prompt.
  I have to thank the right honourable lady the Minister of Education for her courtesy in receiving my noble friend Lord Perth and myself. In particular, I have to thank warmly the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for the great assistance he has given, both at that deputation and in the House. One impression I carry away from the conference—and it is a strong impression—is the need for precise, well-defined phraseology in any negotiations connected with educational finance. The introduction of the phrase, "accounts not yet closed" was, I think, admittedly unfortunate. If it had to be used, then it should have been clearly defined; but it was not. Let us hope that in future negotiations and discussions much greater care will be taken to ensure that all parties—because there are many parties to these discussions—are perfectly clear in their minds what meaning is to be attached to the phrases used. There will have to be further discussions if the dual system of education is to stand the test of the future.
  This Bill cannot possibly be regarded as a settlement. It is not a settlement, though I am willing to recognise it as something substantial on account. In the course of my speech on Second Reading I ventured to point out that under this Bill no assistance will be accorded to our secondary schools. I am most anxious that that point should be carefully considered, and that in future—I hope the not too distant future—some assistance to denominational secondary schools may be found to be possible. That is a field in which I believe the Roman Catholic community can be especially useful, and in which we can make a really great contribution to national education, if it is made financially possible for us to do so.
  174
  In many respects we are a very poor community, but in one respect we are rich—we have a lot of nun power. What with one thing and another, it is evident that the nuns and teaching Orders can make a substantial contribution to secondary education. I very much hope that the Ministry will feel able to consider the points which I have already made regarding the need for assistance in that field. I will conclude by thanking all those who have devoted time to this Bill, and by expressing the satisfaction that is felt at the arrangements which will in future bring substantial relief to a hard-pressed people.
  6.12 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, as the other Catholic here who took part in the discussions arranged after the Second Reading, I should like to say a few words. First, I should like to thank all those who have paid attention to the particular aspect of this Bill which affects Catholic schools, and, in particular, to thank the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for his advocacy in our discussions on this aspect of the case. I should also like to thank the Minister of Education and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for the patience and courtesy with which they heard our point of view. The discussions lasted a long time—probably over an hour and a half—and I know how difficult it is to give so much time to such discussions. Before going further, I wish to say that, whatever has happened under this Bill, and whatever has happened on one particular point, we most sincerely appreciate the general purpose behind the Bill and the work the Minister of Education has put into it, and how much she has the general cause of the schools at heart.
  I do not think that any purpose would be served by my going into great detail about what happened in the discusions, or rehashing the arguments which we have all heard in this and in previous debates. The Minister promised that she would consider most sympathetically the case of eleven schools which did not appear, at first sight, to come within the orbit of the Bill; and we, for our part, are searching most diligently to find the grounds which will satisfy her on this point. I might sum up my feelings on the discussion, and indeed, on the whole question, by way of an analogy—although I recognise that analogies are dangerous, because they are often incomplete.

  175
  A poor student, who is hard up, as students often are, receives a letter from his uncle who is abroad suggesting that he should come and spend the holidays with him. The uncle writes: "While you are on holiday I will pay all your expenses." The student, very much pleased, accepts the invitation, scrapes some money together to buy his ticket to go abroad, and joins his uncle. There he has a wonderful time, and his uncle pays all expenses. But there is one question which has still not been broached, and that is the cost of the ticket to go out and join his uncle abroad. One day he plucks up courage and says, "Uncle, what about paying for that ticket?" The uncle replies: "Oh, no. I said I would pay all your expenses while you were on holiday. You incurred that expense before the holidays began. I am sorry. I will certainly pay for your ticket back, and I will see if I can pay some of the expenses, such as the tips or the taxi-cab fares, but I cannot pay for that ticket." The student is grateful to his uncle, because, after all, he has had a really good holiday which he could not have afforded otherwise, but…That, I think, represents my feelings on this Bill. We, as Catholics are extremely grateful for the relief that the Bill affords us, but we do wish that it had been made to cover all the schools which are building. I do not wish to say anything more on the point, because there are still some slender hopes that we shall find grounds for including further of the schools—and then my analogy will be false, which will be splendid.
  The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, speaking in the Second Reading debate, referred to the great compromise on religious education which has been worked out and the need for us to maintain an essential balance. He appealed for good will and co-operation. Subsequent speakers made the same point, and I know that I and others of our Faith fully subscribe in welcoming that appeal. But I do beg the present Minister of Education and other Ministers of Education not to press us too hard. The burden, when we first faced it, ran into some tens of millions of pounds. To-day, owing to the cost of starting buildings and other costs which have risen during the intervening time, we now have to face
  176
  an additional burden of some tens of millions of pounds. Somehow we will find that money. We must find it. But this is the point I want to make. I see a real danger developing that Catholics may be driven into themselves. Every week at church we shall find that the parish priest has to make a special appeal for a collection for the schools; and if, with that reminder and with that collection, there comes a feeling that somehow we have been singled out for harsh treatment, I am afraid of the result. I am afraid that we may feel driven into a corner rather as a minority than as a community; and that would be something disastrous for us and for the community. I hope that that point will be remembered.
  I will make one other point which arises from it—namely, that if we do get into the feeling of being in a minority, that something is wrong, that it is a hardship which we have been singled out to meet or to carry, there is a very real danger that the next thing we shall start to do is to agitate in a political way. I do not want to see that happen. None of us wants to see it happen. One of the most satisfactory things in these debates has been the avoidance of political controversy on this question. I, speaking from a neutral position, am very pleased to note that. But I am fearful that if the burden is too heavy, or we find it almost insupportable, then there is a real risk that it will become a question of Party politics, however hard we all may try to avoid it.
  To end, I would again sincerely thank all those who have taken such an interest in this question, and in particular I wish to thank the Government for what they have given us in this Bill, according to their best judgment. I could only wish that their judgment had been a little more elastic. We will continue loyally to carry out the task we have assumed, and I remain with the strong hope that, when new financial problems arise in the future, as they inevitably will, what has passed in these debates will be remembered by the Minister of Education at the time.
  6.24 p.m.
  LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, in a very few words I should like to make three points. First, I wish to say how completely I agree with the remarks made by

  177
  my noble friends Lord Iddesleigh and Lord Perth. Secondly, I wish to how grateful we of the Catholic community are to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for the sympathetic way in which he has handled this difficult question. Thirdly, desire to congratulate the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, on putting our point of view in regard to this matter with such clarity. It is obvious that nothing more can be done at this moment, but we earnestly hope that it will be possible, in the not too distant future, for the Government to enable us to carry the very heavy burden which falls upon us as a community in a more equitable way than at present.
  6.25 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said that the Catholic community were not very numerous but were not deficient in nun power; and after the last few speeches we are certainly not very deficient in lung power. I hardly feel that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, can be a very happy man this evening. He was extremely sympathetic on the last stage, and I am sure that at any time he would do all that he could to see justice done. I asked him on Second Reading whether it would be possible for him to explain in what sense, if any; the undertaking of the Minister in one important respect was going to be honoured. I ended my remarks by saying that, whether to-day or later, we should have to ask in terms whether the promise was to be carried out; and if so, in what sense. The noble Earl and the Minister were kind enough to arrange conversations which lasted, apparently, one and a half hours. Although I think few of us in this House would regard my noble friend Lord Jowitt as lacking in acumen and power of cross-examination, it seems that after an hour and a half cross-examining the Minister nobody was any wiser as to what the Minister's intention was, or how she proposed to explain away her under taking. That is the position in which we find ourselves to-day.
  I do not think I need say much more. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, cannot be altogether happy for another reason—and, heaven knows! it is no fault of his. On the last occasion he said that it ought to be clear to the whole
  178
  country, especially the Roman Catholic community, that in this Bill the Government are doing everything that the Roman Catholics have asked them, except in regard to retrospection, which would not have been necessary if the last Government had, during their term of office, done as the present Government were doing new. Even on the noble Earl's own showing, these schools were not to be allowed to receive a grant, as we understood they would be, if justice had been done to them since the war. He defends that position by placing the blame on the last Administration, which I cannot accept. But even the noble Earl says it is a great pity that that Government did not move in regard to these schools. So there again he car not be very happy. I think it is a very sad thing that this Bill, whose general intention is good—we again give full credit to the Minister and the Government—should have been marred in this way by this unfortunate misunderstanding, to use no worse a word. I realise that what is past is now past, though the Minister is apparently going to examine these matters in as sympathetic a way as possible. I only hope that the noble Earl will convey to the Minister that, while we realise that she is a lady of good intentions, we hope that when she proceeds to these matters in the future she will be able to arrive at a more successful, a more impressive and a more just result than has been possible on this occasion.
  6.30 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am sure that we have all appreciated the spirit of the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. I should like to thank them for their generous appreciation of the Minister's hard work on this matter, and of her endeavour to meet their point of view, although we know that shè has not succeeded to the very last point. I think we all appreciate these facts, even though the speeches of noble Lords who attended the meeting were skilfully interlarded with requests for more. However, that is very human. But I cannot help feeling just a little regret that on a Bill which, on the whole, is, like the spirit of the speeches which have been made, so very non-political. Lord Pakenham and Lord Jowitt should have felt it

  179
  necessary to use this occasion for a personal attack on the Minister.
  For myself, I think the position is perfectly clear. It has been clear from the beginning, not only in the mind of the Government but certainly in the mind of the Chairman of the Catholic Education Council. At the risk of repetition I am going to read your Lordships the words of the Chairman of the Catholic Education Council. When he wrote on December 4, he said:
  "In the first place I would like to tell you how much we welcomed the main provisions of this Bill, and how grateful we are to you for having gone so far to meet us."
  He then went on to say—and this is really the whole point at issue:
  "We appreciate that when you received the delegation … on 12th February, 1952, you said that you found it impossible to make this clause retrospective. On examination, however,"—
  he went on to say:
  "it has been found that there are a few cases where considerable hardship will be suffered if this clause does not have retrospective effect."
  It is quite clear, therefore, that from the beginning the Catholic community realised that there could be no restrospective effect—and for a very easy, obvious and simple reason. We have talked about the spirit of compromise. I was glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Perth, say that he very much hoped that this would never become a political issue, because, as he knows, there are strong forces in this matter on both sides; and if one side were to make a political issue of it the other would, and we should be back in a maelstrom of controversy.
  But if my right honourable friend were to admit the principle of retrospection, it would mean amending Section 104 of the Education Act of 1944; and every noble Lord in this House knows perfectly well that that could not be done without the agreement of all the people concerned in education, some holding very different views from those expressed in the speeches made to-day. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend has made the point, whilst endeavouring to do everything in her power to meet the Catholic community on this matter, that she will do nothing that will necessitate amending Section 104 of the Act of 1944.
  LORD PAKENHAM: Since the noble Earl has been kind enough to refer to me
  180
  and accuse me of making a personal attack, perhaps he will answer me one question. He said that in the beginning the Minister had said there would be no retrospection; but at the same time the Minister made this statement, which was understood as an undertaking. She said:
  "Grant claims on schemes in progress or for which accounts have not been closed would be eligible. …"
  Was that a retrospective pledge or not? I put this quite bluntly—
  EARL DE LA WARR: Will the noble Lord repeat that?
  LORD PAKENHAM: Yes—this is now a famous phrase:
  "Grant claims on schemes in progress or for which accounts have not been closed would be eligible. …"
  It is a question of dialectics whether you call that retrospection or not, but that was the Minister's promise.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Now we get down to interpretation, and it was that interpretation which enabled the Minister to cut down a considerable number of schools which, in fact, would otherwise have been precluded from receiving grants.
  LORD PAKENHAM: The Minister, to the best of my belief, has thrown over completely these latter words:
  "Grant claims on schemes in progress or for which accounts have not been closed would be eligible …"
  To the best of my belief she has now thrown over these words completely. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will put me right.
  EARL DE LA WARR: The right honourable lady has not only fulfilled her pledge but she has gone even further. The noble Lord knows that she has been able to cut down the number of schools from twelve to eight by stretching the interpretation of the legislation and of any words that she has used. In fact, she knows a particular school that is absolutely completed, but she has stretched the interpretation of the words because it was completed before the holiday and was not occupied. She has made a concession in favour of the Roman Catholics, and thereby reduced from twelve to eight the number of schools precluded from grant. If the noble Lord is going to say that he cannot accept responsibility,

  181
  I can only say that it is recognised that this was prepared in the time of the late Government.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I certainly do not shirk any personal responsibility for what the late Government did. That is entirely a misunderstanding. I said that I could not accept the view that it was the fault of the late Government that these schools were open now—it is a question of interpretation.
  EARL DE LA WARR: The 1944 Act was amended in 1946 and 1948, and on both occasions noble Lords opposite could have inserted in those two Bills the self-same words that we have inserted in this Bill. Then these schools would have received grants without any question of retrospection. However, do not let us get into an atmosphere of unnecessary controversy. I simply wanted to make that point quite clear.
  The trouble in which my right honourable friend finds herself is really this: that she has so scraped the tin already, and gone so far in making concessions, that when noble Lords met her the other day she just could not manage to find anything else. But she does authorise me to say that she will be quite ready to consider sympathetically any grounds that may be put forward for regarding some of these schools as covered by the principal Act, provided that she does not have to amend the principal Act. I think the noble Earl, Lord Perth, used the word "slender," and I think the hope of being able to do that is very slender. Nevertheless, she definitely gives that undertaking.
  May I close by expressing our appreciation of the assistance given to us by the Roman Catholics in discussing this very difficult matter. There may have been misunderstandings, and we realise that the Roman Catholics have not achieved all that they wished. Yet I think there is no doubt, as has been said from all sides of the House, that this legislation will bring considerable financial benefits to the Catholic community. The present Government have lost no time, I think it will be agreed, in legislating, and from now onwards schools on new housing estates will receive substantial benefits of which they were previously deprived. I thank the noble
  182
  Lords who have spoken for their generous recognition of this fact.
  On Question, Bill read 3ª with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  VIBRIO FOETUS IN DAIRY HERDS
  6.42 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HUDSON VISCOUNT HUDSON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to counter the menace of vibrio foetus in the dairy herds of this country. The noble viscount said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to say a few words on the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I should like also to apologise to your Lordships for reading my speech, a thing which I do not normally do, but, as it is rather a technical point, I hope I may be excused on this occasion.
  Abortion has long been a source of serious loss to the British dairy farmer. During the war, thanks to the co-operation of the United States Department of Agriculture, we were enabled to introduce what is known as Strain 19 vaccination. The result has been virtual elimination of contagious abortion in our herds. This has disclosed the existence on a scale formerly unrecognised of another cause of abortion, namely, vibrio foetus. The latter has undoubtedly for years been masked by the former. This disease is widespread not only in this country, but also in the U.S.A. and particularly in Holland. Up till very recently, a matter of months. diagnosis has been exceptionally difficult. Ever now, as a result of recent researches, it is difficult in the case of a cow, and in the case of a bull can only be diagnosed by putting a bull on an unspecified number of maiden heifers, at the best of times an expensive proceeding. It is believed that a cow can be cured, but in any case after a certain time she develops a natural immunity. As far as we know at present, there is no cure for a bull. Again, as far as we know, the bull is the only spreader of the disease. This places the ordinary farmer, and especially the pedigree breeder, in a great difficulty. The ordinary farmer has been in the habit of lending his bull for service to the females of his neighbours. Clearly he must be warned to stop this practice because of its dan-

  183
  gers, and that is one of the objects of this Question, and will be, I hope, of Lord Carrington's answer.
  The pedigree breeder is particularly affected. It has hitherto been accepted theory and practice that a young bull should be tried out on a certain number of cows and heifers and then put away till the results of his progeny are known. If he is of exceptional parentage, it has been the accepted and good practice to lend him either to a neighbouring farmer or to another breeder to use till such time as he was required back in the herd a his original breeder or owner. There is no doubt that this accepted good practice has in fact led to the wide spread of vibrio in some of the best pedigree herds in the country, and clearly it should cease, with the corresponding serious effect on the production and subsequent spread of the blood of proven sires. Personally, I think that is a tragedy.
  There is a third possible source of spread of this disease, and that is through artificial insemination at both Milk Marketing Board and non-Milk Marketing Board centres. Proof of this is very difficult to obtain, but it is reasonably certain that centres pursuing the accepted good practice of acquiring proven sires have in some instances acquired bulls infected with vibrio, and have in consequence helped to spread it among clean herds. No possible blame can be attached to those centres, and it is probable that any spread of the disease by artificial insemination is infinitely less than would have occurred naturally had artificial insemination not existed. I think it is only fair to the Milk Marketing Board and other centres to make this plain.
  We are, however, faced with a difficulty. The Milk Marketing Board believe that they have evolved a technique of buffering their bulls' semen with a triple set of antibiotics, which they believe effectively kills the vibrio in the semen, thus rendering it safe to use even on clean herds. I believe that the Ministry vets entertain grave doubts about the efficacy of this treatment. It is, I believe, accepted that the technique adopted by the Milk Marketing Board until recently—namely, double buffering—was ineffective in rendering an infected bull's semen safe. What is, I submit to your Lordships, important is that a final
  184
  and authoritative verdict on the efficacy of the triple buffering should be reached at an early date, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be able to reassure us on this point. Meanwhile, the farming or, at all events, the dairy farming community of the country should be emphatically warned against the dangers of using other people's bulls, or bulls that have been used on other people's cows. They would also be well advised to get their "vets" to make an early investigation into the venereal health of their own herds.
  6.48 p.m.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, for drawing attention to this problem. I can say at once that we agree with what he has said. The importance of vibrio foetus infection has, as he said, come to light only comparatively recently, as other diseases causing, infertility have been brought under control. As long ago as 1913, workers in this country had set up abortion experimentally with the vibrio foetus organism, but the view was held then, and for some time afterwards, that the infection was not very important. My noble friend has spoken of the way in which the use of S.19 vaccine has reduced the incidence of contagious abortion. Trichomonas infection has also been recognised as an important cause of abortion and infertility in certain herds. Here again, research has led the way to suitable methods of control. The use of artificial insemination, combined with the treatment of the female, makes it possible to control this disease and the resultant infertility. The application of effective control measures against these two diseases, and the consequent reduction of the incidence of abortion and infertility caused by them, has resulted in the unmasking of vibrio foetus as another cause of infertility, the importance of which was hitherto largely unsuspected.
  Intensive research into this disease is being carried on at the Ministry of Agriculture's Veterinary Laboratory and elsewhere, and the results of these investigations into the nature of the disease and methods of control have been, and will continue to be, published for the information of practising veterinary surgeons. In addition, the services of the Ministry's specialist officers are freely

  185
  available to veterinary surgeons who encounter infertility problems which may be due to vibrio foetus.
  My noble friend has rightly drawn attention to the great risk which attaches to hiring or lending bulls for service in other herds. It is well known that in many cases infection has been introduced into a herd by an infected bull, or by an infected female which infects the stock bull when first served by him. The only advice which can be given, in the absence of a specific test for infection in the male, is to maintain a herd as a self-contained breeding unit, or to introduce only maiden heifers or bulls which have never served. If other animals roust be bought they should be bought from a herd only after a full inquiry has been made into its breeding history, in the same way as is practised in selecting bulls for artificial insemination centres.
  In view of the possibility that vibrio foetus infection may be spread by infected semen, stringent measures are taken by the Department to ensure that an infected bull is not approved for use at an artificial insemination centre. Although there is no direct test for vibrio foetus infection in the bull, and the organism can only rarely be recovered from an infected animal, every possible precaution is taken to ensure that an infected bull is not approved for artificial insemination purposes. Inquiries are made into the service records of the bull, and the breeding history of the herd in which he is located, and if necessary the history of any herds in which he has previously been. Material from females in the herd or herds concerned is also examined when necessary, special attention being paid to any maiden heifers which may have been served. If, as a result of these inquiries and examinations, any suspicion of infection attaches to the bull, it is not approved for artificial insemination. In addition, the breeding records of bulls at artificial insemination centres are watched closely. If there is a noticeable fall in the conception rate of a particular bull, a special examination is carried out. In all suspicious cases the bull is removed.
  My noble friend mentioned the Milk Marketing Board's method of triple buffering of semen. This is said to be a useful adjunct to control, but my Department regard it only as a second
  186
  line of defence. While there is no experimental proof that this method of treating semen is effective in all cases, the evidence in the held does not indicate that infection is spread from artificial insemination centres to any extent. On the contrary, artificial insemination is a very useful method of limiting the spread of venereal infections.

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