Lords Sitting of 24 November 1953

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

Prayers
The Earl of Lonsdale—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.
The Lord Rugby—Took the Oath.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN: THE ROYAL TOUR
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed with her own hand. It is as follows:
"I thank you for your Address on the occasion of My departure for My Commonwealth Tour.
"My husband and I look forward to our journey with all the greater pleasure in the knowledge that the prayers and good wishes of My people in this country and the loyal affection of your House go with Me."

SHARED TELEPHONE LINES
2.38 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows]
To ask Her Majesty's Government since when has it been the practice to insist that a subscriber who has rented a telephone in the London area for a number of years should surrender his individual service and share a party line.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, since January, 1948, we have had to ask new and removing residential subscribers to accept the liability to share their telephone lines when necessary, and a great many residential subscribers given service since 1948 have, in fact, shared their lines from the outset. This policy was
438
introduced following a statement in another place by the then Postmaster General. Successive Governments have had to continue this policy because of the shortage of telephone cables, and it has made it possible for us to give telephones to over 300,000 people who would otherwise still be on the waiting list. I dislike this compulsory undertaking, and I can certainly assure the noble Lord that as soon as we are in a position to do so we shall offer subscribers a free choice between exclusive and shared service telephones.
LORD AMMON: Arising out of that Answer, may I ask the noble Earl whether there is any voluntary consent by the subscribers to sharing? For instance, if somebody has had a telephone (as in a particular case I have in mind), for upwards of five years, and is faced with the alternative of either losing it or going on a party line, that seems rather arbitrary.
EARL DE LA WARR: Any residential subscriber who has been given a telephone since January, 1948, has signed an agreement expressing his willingness to accept shared service, if it is necessary. There are, in addition, a number of subscribers who have voluntarily accepted shared service. This applies, of course, to those who had a telephone before January, 1948.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Will the noble Earl explain how the charges for calls that are not individually registered are divided between the two sharers of the line?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, for the last two years we have been working on an individual metering basis by which the local calls are metered separately. At a few of the older exchanges the equipment that was put in before 1948–49 still remains, and in such a case there has to be an agreement between the sharers; but we are rapidly putting in new equipment and eliminating that situation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The Postmaster General is no doubt aware that, especially in the country, the division of charges does present a difficulty. In the event of default of payment, which tenant does he sue?
LORD SALTOUN: Arising out of the Question, is it not the case that buyers of premises equipped with Post Office telephones do not notify the Post Office, and that very often where the seller does not notify the Post Office the new occupier continues to enjoy the service for a long period; whereas when the Post Office are notified, they immediately have the telephone removed? Is there not a lurking injustice in this situation, and would it not be as well to remedy it as soon as possible?
EARL DE LA WARR: In reply to the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I will answer him in the words of his old House: "I should like notice of that question." With regard to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, I have been looking into the whole situation and the noble Lord will find, in fact, that it is very seldom now that a telephone is removed from existing premises.
LORD HINDLIP: May I ask the noble Earl whether this system is operated in any other country?
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes. I think that the shared system in this country affects about 24 per cent. of the residential subscribers, or 18 per cent. of the total number of subscribers. In America, under the Bell system, it affects about 70 per cent. of the subscribers, of which nearly 30 per cent. are actually on a four-party line basis.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, is it not a fact—as I think the Postmaster General will find when he comes to look up the matter—that either subscriber is responsible for the whole of the claim?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I repeat that I must look into that matter. The noble and learned Earl is a very good lawyer. I am sure that is probably so, if he says so.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, it is the intention, I take it, that ultimately each subscriber shall have a telephone of his own. Can the noble Earl say when the waiting list will be exhausted?
EARL DE LA WARR: We are making some headway now in the reduction of the waiting list. When this Government came into office, the waiting list numbered about 480,000; it is now down to just under 380,000. I am glad to say
440
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken to treat my Department very well from now onwards, and I hope that we shall now be able progressively to reduce the waiting list. No doubt there will be certain areas where, due to shortage of underground cable, it will take some time to put in new cable. In such places we have either to say to a considerable number of people, "We cannot give you a telephone at all," or "You must share this cable." I am afraid that it may be a number of years before we can overtake that backlog of work, so that we can do away completely with the shared service. However, I can assure noble Lords that my statement at the end of my original Answer, that I thoroughly dislike this system, as we all must, is genuine, and as soon as we can we shall certainly get rid of it. In the meantime, I have tried to help the situation a little by giving some greater financial benefit to those who are compelled to have a shared line. We have increased the margin between the rental for the exclusive line and that for the shared line.
LORD WISE: May I ask the noble Earl whether it is possible for a single subscriber to be on a two-party line without his knowledge?
EARL DE LA WARR: No; it is quite impossible.

DENOMINATIONS OF BANK NOTES
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider issuing Treasury notes of larger denominations, particularly £2 and possibly £5.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, in view of the terms of the noble Lord's Question, may I give some account of the facilities that are now available. There are no Treasury notes to-day. The Treasury issued 10s. notes and £1 notes between 1914 and 1928, but the Treasury and Bank of England note issues were amalgamated in 1928 by the Currency and Bank Notes Act of that year, and the

441
Bank of England is now the sole note-issuing authority in England. The Bank of England notes now in issue are the 10s. note, the £1 and the £5 note. The Bank of England has, in fact, issued notes of £5 and upwards for over a hundred years, but all notes of denominations above £5 (£10, £20, £50, £100, £200 and £1,000) have now been demonetised—that is to say, they have been called in by the Bank of England and have lost their legal tender status. The requirements of the public are constantly in mind, but there is no real evidence of a public need for notes of denominations other than those now in use, including the £5 note, of which 34 million are in circulation.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's answer, may say I that I feel I that there is a demand for a denomination between the £ 1 note and the £5 note. I have heard that from many people. With regard to the £5 note, I think it is generally felt that it is too large and cumbersome and that it should be replaced by a note which will more easily fit into the pocket wallet.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's points will be taken carefully into account, but I think he should realise that the Bank of England are in close touch with a large number of banks dealing with the public. If there were any strong demand for notes of other denominations, they would know immediately, and would have no difficulty in meeting such a demand, if it were felt to be in the public need.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons: read 1a; and to be printed.
POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (WATER &s.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
POLICE PENSIONS REGULATIONS, 1953
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME AFFAIRS (LORD LLOYD)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME AFFAIRS (LORD LLOYD) had given notice of a Motion respecting these Regulations. The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I propose not to move these Regulations this afternoon but to move them at a later date.
POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1953
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME) had given notice of a Motion respecting these Regulations. The noble Earl said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I propose not to move these Police Regulations to-day but to move them at a later date.

CIVIL DEFENCE (GRANT) REGULATIONS, 1953
2.50 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, these Regulations, which the Home Secretary proposes to make, with the consent of the Treasury, under Section 3 of the Civil Defence Act, 1948, provide for the payment of grants to local authorities, police authorities and statutory water undertakers on the approved expenditure they incur in peace time in carrying out their civil defence functions. The Regulations are not intended to deal with expenditure in war, and I am sure your Lordships will understand that the financial arrangements to be applied then would have to be settled afresh by the Government of the day. The Regulations are a little unusual in one respect—namely, that, although they are to be made by one Minister, they authorise the payment of grants by several other Ministers as well. But I think your Lordships will

443
agree that it will clearly be convenient for the local authorities who claim grant that there should be one set of Regulations governing the payment of grants over the whole field of civil defence.
The Act under which the Regulations have been made received the Royal Assent on December 16, 1948, and your Lordships may wonder why it has taken five years to bring these Regulations before Parliament. The reason is that, in accordance with the undertakings given in this House and in another place when the Bill was being debated, the representative associations of local authorities were consulted, first about the principles on which the Regulations were to be drafted, and then about the terms of the actual Regulations themselves. The last thing I wish to do is to suggest in any way that those associations are responsible for the delay, but your Lordships will appreciate that detailed discussions of the financial arrangements to be made between the Government and local authorities necessarily take a long time. These discussions were started by the then Home Secretary very soon after the Act was passed, and he had gone a long way towards reaching agreement with the associations by October, 1951. The discussions were continued by my right honourable friend, and I am glad to say that the Regulations now before your Lordships have been agreed to unreservedly by all the associations concerned. The Home Secretary has promised them that the Regulations will be reviewed after two years, and that they will then be free to criticise them in the light of experience and to suggest any changes which they consider necessary.
Section 3 of the Act provides that grants shall amount to complete reimbursement of such expenses as may be prescribed in the Regulations, and in other cases to not more than 75 per cent. The minimum rate of grant will, in fact, be 75 per cent., provided that the Minister concerned is satisfied with the way in which the local authority have carried out their responsibilities; if he is not satisfied, he will be able to make deductions. If noble Lords who have copies of the Regulations will turn to the Schedule they will there see set out details of all the expenses that will be reimbursed. In accordance with Regulation 2, all other expenses will be eligible for grant at the rate of 75 per cent. These will include,
444
among others, expenses incurred on the provision of capital works, but the Government have undertaken to introduce, as soon as possible, legislation providing, in effect, that a local authority's expenditure on works of this kind will be limited to the product of a 2d. rate.
The local authorities will not suffer financially because of the delay in making these Regulations: since 1949 they have been paid grants extra-statutorily at the rate of 75 per cent. on all their civil defence expenditure, and when these Regulations are made they will be paid further grants of 25 per cent. on all expenditure that would have qualified under the Regulations for full reimbursement. Most of the provisions of these Regulations follow the usual practice where grants are paid to local authorities, and the purpose of each Regulation is explained in the explanatory note at the end. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is anxious to make these Regulations in time for them to come into force on January 1, 1954. As I have already explained, they are acceptable to the authorities whom they most closely affect, and I hope that this House will approve them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Civil Defence (Grant) Regulations, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last be approved.—(Lord Lloyd.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House I should like to say that we entirely accept these Regulations. We are glad to know that this is the culminating stage in the process of carrying out the provisions of the Act of 1948. It has taken some five years to reach this stage, and, after reading the Regulations, I must say that I am hardly surprised. This is one of the richest examples of the kind of English that can be understood only by those with special training and experience. There is one point in regard to which I should like to ask the Minister a question, and that is on Regulation 7, paragraph 2. It looks to me as if this is an example of the well-known Treasury habit of "trying to have it both ways." As I read it, this is an insurance against the Treasury suffering financially from any error or miscalculation in their transaction with local authorities. The Minister has told us that all the authorities concerned agree

445
to it; but, whilst it may be common form, it seems to me that if, through error, the Treasury have made to a local authority an interim grant exceeding the total grant to which that authority is entitled, the Minister will be able to recover money by deducting it from the next grant. That may be common form, but to the lay person it does not seem to be the way to achieve relations of mutual confidence between the local authorities and the Treasury. Subject to that point, we entirely support the Motion.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right in thinking that this is common form. All it really means is that it enables the designated Minister to make advances on account up to 90 per cent. of the estimated total of the grant in respect of any year, and after the end of the year to make further payments on account before final adjustment. It may well be that the Minister advances far more than the grant for the individual year, and I think it only right that, if he does, and as he is trying to help by giving money before it is really due, then he should be able to get it back. This does permit him to get excess payments back when the situation has been finalised. I do not think that it is an unreasonable provision, and I can assure your Lordships that it is common form.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (GRANT) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1953
2.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, these Regulations are identical in purpose with those that have been moved in respect of England by my noble friend Lord Lloyd. They provide for payments of grant on the approved expenditure of local authorities and water authorities. There are one or two minor differences between the English and the Scottish Regulations for—instance, there is no mention in the Scottish Regulations of any water undertaking. Perhaps I can forestall any flippancy by saying that this is common practice in Scotland, because water undertakings count as local authorities; and so also do police. Therefore there is no necessity to mention them separately. The Regulations provide certain administrative arrangements which,
446
again, are common form in Scotland. These Regulations are slightly different from the English Regulations, but there is no substance in the difference. Agreement has been reached with the local authorities on the principles as to what proportion the Government should contribute to civil defence expenditure in peace time. As my noble friend has said, part of the agreement cannot be implemented without legislation and, as he has told your Lordships, that legislation will be introduced as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Civil Defence (Grant) (Scotland) Regulations, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL ART COLLECTIONS BILL [H.L.]
3.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Bill deals with the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery, of both of which instiutions we are intensely proud, and both of which are very popular. They are each visited annually by about one million people and the quality of both these collections is a matter of world renown. I think we can fairly say that the National Gallery may be regarded as by far the most representative collection of pictures in the world. We are anxious to do all we can to enable it to continue to deserve that title. If I may mention one rather small point, the Tate Gallery has recently been included in the series known as Art and Style, in a very fine edition of coloured plates, produced in Paris which is still regarded, I think, as the home of modern art. We can accept that as a real compliment.
I know that your Lordships will naturally and properly view carefully and, indeed, critically anything which affects, however much or however little, these important institutions. Their well-being is a proper and right subject of national concern and discussion. In order that we may more fully understand the situation, I should like to review the circumstances by which they have reached their present position. I was a little surprised to learn

447
of how relatively recent growth both these institutions are. The National Gallery was founded by a Treasury Minute on the initiative of the Earl of Liverpool in March, 1824, when he took over the collection and, apparently, the house of Mr. J. J. Angerstein for the sum of £57,000. The collection was opened at No. 100, Pall Mall on May 20, 1824, and it was transferred to its present home in Trafalgar Square in 1838. There has been considerable enlargement of the building since then, but there is fortunately still room for extension on the present site.
The Tate Gallery was born in an atmosphere of bitter controversy. Its foundation was due not only to the generosity but also to the perseverance, in face of criticism, of Sir Henry Tate, a native of Chorley, in Lancashire. It was opened by the Prince and Princess of Wales in 1897. It was enlarged and extended by much private generosity, particularly that of Sir J. J. Duveen and his son, Lord Duveen of Millbank, besides important bequests by Mr. George Salting, Mr. Samuel Courtauld and others. Indeed, Lord Curzon, in the early years of this century, said that the most striking feature of the Tate was the exiguous contribution to its development which had been made by the State. Even as late as the time of the Report of the Massey Committee, in 1945, apparently no Government money at all had been expended on the purchase of works of art. The Tate Gallery was originally administered by the Trustees of the National Gallery. In 1917, however, by Treasury Minute, a separate Board of Trustees was set up. But though the Tate Gallery was then given its own Board of Trustees and had its own Director, it still had no separate statutory existence, and all its works of art belonged in law to the National Gallery. That was the position at the end of the Second World War, when, at the request of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom your Lordships now know as Lord Waverley, and the Minister of Education, Mr. Butler, the Right Honourable Vincent Massey, then Chairman of the National Gallery Trustees and now Governor-General of Canada, with the assistance of a strong Committee, made a Report on the functions of the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery.
448
The purpose of this Bill is very largely to implement the intentions which the Massey Committee had in mind. We have in some cases adopted different mechanism, but we have covered, we think, all the intentions of the Committee so far as statutory action is concerned, and the Bill embodies a scheme worked out in consultation with both Boards of Trustees and, I understand, agreeable to both. The first recommendation of the Massey Report was that the Tate Gallery should have an independent status with its contents legally vested in its own Board of Trustees. The Report described the position in these words:
"The present situation of the National Gallery Board in relation to that of the Tate is the indefensible one of responsibility without knowledge, a situation that is not only wrong in theory but totally impracticable."
May I add that I think it is only right and proper, with regard to what is perhaps one of the largest picture galleries in the world, that it should be under the control of its own Trustees directly responsible for its own welfare. The Massey Report noted the rather haphazard way in which our galleries had grown up and suggested that it was time that a clearer conception of the purpose of both these Galleries should be recognised. Under Clause 2 (2) of this Bill, broadly, the National Gallery is to be recognised as a collection of masterpieces of all kinds and all times from all parts of the world, while the Tate Gallery is to be the National Collection of British pictures and modern pictures generally. It has, of course, also a collection of modern sculpture.
It is, I think, implicit in the purposes laid down in the Bill, to which I have referred, that there is a sphere of overlapping between the two Galleries; but. I suggest to your Lordships that in matters of this sort it is not really desirable to be too tidy, to make definitions of too fine a character or, indeed, to be too logical. What the Massey Report essentially emphasises is that galleries are not simply repositories containing works of art but that they are living organisms growing with the public regard in matters of art, with changes of taste, and with developments of technique and of appreciation. Therefore, in making these suggestions with regard to the general purposes of these two Galleries, the Report recognised that it would be necessary from time to time to transfer pictures

449
from one Gallery to another. It is obviously necessary that this should be done in order to retain for the National Gallery its fully representative character, and again, in certain cases, to transfer pictures from the National Gallery to the Tate when they seem more suitable for its purposes. I do not suggest that this is going to happen very often. It is, however, hoped that it will always be done in full agreement between the two Boards of Trustees and only when the two bodies of Trustees find themselves finally incapable of reconciling their differences need recourse be had to the mechanism which is laid down by the Bill. I emphasise that this mechanism is intended to be used only in the last resort. If the Trustees, for instance, were to accept the verdict of an arbiter of their own selection and abide by his decision, there is no reason why they should not do so.
That is one important point in the Bill. The other is to meet the striking increase of public interest and appreciation in the realm of art by making works of art more readily available in different parts of the country. This is what the Massey Report stated:
"It would, in our view, be regrettable if the resultant quickening of appreciation in the country generally were to decrease in the postwar period. We consider that the National Collections should play an essential part in maintaining and spreading the interest thus aroused, and that, by whatever machinery, a liberal and systematic policy of loans should be developed after the war. Such loans should be one of the accepted responsibilities of the public galleries of London."
I should like also, if I may, to refer to the Memorandum accompanying the Massey Report, signed by Lord Stanhope as Chairman of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. It says:
"We have already remarked that dispersion enables more of the public to enjoy the national treasures than does concentration. We consider the temptation to hoard should be firmly resisted."
We accept this policy and we shall endeavour to apply it in three ways.
First of all, when any works of art are left to the nation, such works can be directed either to the National Gallery or the Tate or any of the other national institutions which your Lordships will see in the First Schedule. That includes about twelve different institutions in various parts of the country. Secondly,
450
we shall endeavour to apply the policy by a more liberal policy of lending. Under the Act of 1883 loans could be made in the United Kingdom to any public galleries authorised by Statute. This included public and municipal galleries. Under the Act of 1935 pictures by British artists might be sent on loan for exhibition abroad or for display in British Embassies. We now propose to extend these powers for both the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery, and your Lordships will see under Clause 4 a comprehensive statement which picks up the existing law and extends the lending powers under the Acts to which I have referred. Let me mention the points of this extension. First, pictures may be exhibited in any public building or official residence for which the Minister of Works is responsible. Secondly, they may be displayed in the official residence of a Governor of a Colony. Thirdly, such pictures may include foreign pictures which are in our collections.
The third way to do this is that, under Clause 5, we enable pictures to be transferred to the Minister of Works' pool or to one or other of the institutions shown in the First Schedule. The reason for this is that such pictures, when transferred, will no longer be the responsibility of the Tate Gallery or the National Gallery, who find it a certain burden to carry the responsibility for pictures which are away from their galleries. Indeed, they are not really equipped to do this sort of work. This power, I may mention, cannot be used for pictures bequeathed or donated to the Tate Gallery or the National Gallery unless such transfer is within the terms of the donation or bequest.
I should like to say a word about foreign pictures. The reason why we include foreign pictures is, frankly, that if we expect to continue to have the benefit in this country of first-class exhibitions of an unusual and remarkable character, such as, for instance, the exhibitions of works by Renoir and Degas which were held recently, we must be willing to reciprocate. If we do not, we cannot expect fine exhibitions to be sent here from abroad. Already that reluctance is being remarked upon to some extent. In regard to foreign pictures, in an extreme case, we might be asked," Why should we have a foreign picture hung in a British Embassy or the residence of a Colonial

451
Governor?" Frankly, I think that will very rarely happen, but it might happen. For instance, I think it would be a pleasant compliment to have a Dutch picture from one of our galleries at our Embassy in the Hague. I do not suggest that would happen very often, but in any case the matter is purely within the discretion of the Trustees of the two Galleries. I would only add the suggestion that in this sphere, while we wish to encourage the artistic ability of our citizens, we do not wish to take too nationalistic a view.
That is the general purpose of the Bill. I will turn to the clauses and deal with them quite briefly. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 set up the Tate Gallery Trustees on an independent status and vest the pictures in the respective Trustees in a manner which, I understand, is agreed between the two bodies. Subsection (3) establishes by Statute a practice which, I believe, has been given effect to for some years by the Trustees of the National Gallery—that is, that the bequest by Miss Margaret Knapping, authorising the purchase of pictures, paintings and sculpture by artists of any nationality who were alive within the previous twenty-five years, shall be vested in the Tate Gallery Trustees. Clause 2 deals with the transference of pictures between the two Galleries and lays down the mechanism by which it should be done and to which I have already referred. Clause 3 provides that where a bequest is made to the public or to the nation without specifically earmarking a particular institution the Treasury may direct that it be allocated either to the National Gallery or to the Tate Gallery, or to one of the institutions shown in the First Schedule. Clause 4 covers the extension of powers of lending, with which I have already dealt. Subsection (4) of the clause re-enacts the provisions of the Acts of 1883 and 1935 in regard to donations and bequests.
Clause 5 gives the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery power to transfer pictures which they do not require either to the Minister of Works for public exhibition or to one or other of the national institutions shown in the First Schedule. Such powers of transfer, however, cannot be used if they are inconsistent with the terms of a bequest or donation. Clause 6 again is modelled on the Act of 1856. It gives the National Gallery and the Tate
452
Gallery power to sell pictures which they do not require for their collections. However they must obtain Treasury consent to do so and, in respect of any picture which has ever been exhibited in either Gallery, the details of the whole proposed sale must be laid before Parliament for its consideration for a period of forty days. It is now provided that the Trustees will retain the proceeds of any such sale.
In commending this measure to your Lordships, I am able to say that it has the approval of the Trustees of both the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery. What we are proposing is to give to both these bodies of Trustees additional powers. Without them a special Act of Parliament would be required to exercise any one of these powers in any individual case. In speaking of these two Galleries, I am conscious of the great knowledge and experience which many of your Lordships have in this matter and of the personal service which many of your Lordships have given to these two Galleries. I should like to mention particularly his Grace the Duke of Wellington, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, all of whom have served as Chairman of Trustees, and the noble Lords, Lord Methuen and Lord Sandwich. I should also like to mention Lord Harlech, who could not be here to-day but who, with the Duke of Wellington, played an important part in the negotiations preceding this measure. I suggest to your Lordships that the quality of these Trustees is full and adequate assurance that the powers which it is proposed to grant them will not be misused. I beg to move the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.17 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, perhaps it is fitting that I should say something about this Bill, both in that I have the honour of leading the Opposition and in that I have had some experience in these matters over the last few years. I had the honour of being appointed Director of the National Gallery, and I served as Director for some seven years. I was selected by the National Gallery Trustees as their representative on the Board of the Tate Gallery, on which I also served for seven years. When Mr. Jasper Ridley

453
died, which was a great loss to the Tate Gallery, I was selected to become Chairman in his place, and I did my best, not always in the most easy circumstances imaginable, to carry out those duties. Both sets of Trustees have been happy bodies and I enjoyed doing what I could to help the work.
I always felt that the position of the Tate Gallery was anomalous. We never quite knew whether we had a separate existence of our own. We never knew whether anything we bought out of our own funds, if we had any funds of our own, was our property or not. It did not matter a great deal because—and it is important to remember this—the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery should never regard themselves as being rivals in business: they are not that in any sense of the word. I never felt that there was the smallest conflict of interests in acting as a Trustee of both bodies. Their function is the same. Their justification, and their function, is to provide the best possible display, in the most convenient circumstances, for the lieges; and to give them an opportunity of seeing these pictures. There always has been a danger that the two institutions might tend to regard themselves as rivals. That would be a profound mistake.
When the difficulties came to a head, as they undoubtedly did, and we considered what should be done, I confess that I played with the idea (I am not sure that I was not in a minority of one) that we should do what they do in France. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, will be able to tell me whether I am right or wrong, but I believe I am right in saying that in France there is one body of people which deals with and looks after The Louvre, for example, and that that same body looks after L' Orangerie, the exhibition of modern French pictures. That system has worked well there. By having the same body of people to look after both institutions they avoid the possibility of rivalry between the two, which I agree should certainly never exist. It was felt, however—as I say, I think I was a minority of one about it—that although it might be all right in theory, it would be difficult to select any Board which could conveniently embrace within its activities both the one and the other. Obviously, that is a powerful argument against the solution which, in the first place, I was inclined to adopt. Therefore,
454
this solution has been adopted. It was worked out over a long period of time, and certain of the Treasury officials, Mr. Play fair, in particular, rendered the most valuable service in bringing it about. I believe I am right in saying that this solution, in principle at any rate, was agreed unanimously by the Trustees, both of the Tate Gallery and of the National Gallery, and had been agreed in my time, when I was a Trustee of the National Gallery and Chairman of the Tate Gallery. That being so, I support the Bill.
However, there are difficult questions concerning this matter. First of all, I should like to say a word or two in relation to the question of lending pictures. It must be remembered that pictures are delicate objects; mist be remembered also, that when a picture is lent abroad there is always a risk of that picture sustaining damage. That is not a fanciful, but a real risk. In my time—and I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, will agree—we have had examples of pictures being lent which, however great the care that was taken, sustained damage. The ideal, therefore, is that pictures should not be lent out of this country. We have had one great advantage under the present set-up: when we have been asked to lend some of our precious, valuable and delicate pictures abroad, we have not had to say, "We do not like you or your country, and we do not trust you." We have simply had to say, "We are sorry, but we cannot do it. By the terms of our Statute, we are not allowed to lend these pictures abroad." That was a desirable position in which to be, but I feel that it is an impossible one to maintain any longer. Was it not Aristotle who said that the test of conduct was what would happen if everybody did the same thing? If other people, whose pictures are just as delicate and valuable as ours, and undergo the same, risk when sent on voyages, said that they were no longer going to lend their pictures, the people over here, in all probability, would not see those foreign pictures. There have been cases in recent years where we have had collections of pictures from abroad only on the basis of reciprocal treatment. We were unable to give the reciprocal treatment at the National Gallery, and I can remember at least one occasion when the King lent some of his pictures; and

455
in that way we surmounted the difficulty. I know that there are differences of opinion about this matter, but with some hesitation, and some sorrow that we are giving up our specially privileged position, I feel that it is almost inevitable that we should agree to the proposals contained in this Bill.
So far as lending pictures to other official residences, whether here or abroad, is concerned, I have always felt that it was a pity we did not do that. I have travelled, I suppose, as much as any of your Lordships. I have visited a large number of our Embassies in foreign countries, and I have visited French Embassies in foreign countries, too. It is always noticeable that the French take care how their Embassies are furnished, seeing that they always have beautiful pictures on the walls. Surely that is right. I have been to British Embassies abroad—I will not mention names—where the Ambassadors have no pictures at all to hang on the walls. Our Embassy bears an unfortunate comparison with the corresponding Embassy of, say, the French. We cannot, of course, lend to our Embassies abroad pictures of the first rank which we wish to exhibit here. But if it be the fact that there are, in the cellars of our institutions here, quite good pictures, but pictures of the second grade, which never see the light of day, then it seems to me a pity that somebody should not have the power to look at the whole matter, if he is so minded, to see that those pictures are sent to decorate the walls of one of Her Majesty's Embassies abroad, or something of that sort. This applies equally to official residences in this country. Those of us who have been members of a Cabinet have been to one official residence where there are pictures on the walls which have been there for years. They have been lent, but I very much doubt whether they have been lent in accordance with the law. Therefore, I think it is right that that matter should be regularised in the way that it is now being regularised. For these reasons, I entirely support this Bill. I believe that it represents a sensible compromise, and I know that infinite care has been taken to work out this matter.
It only remains for me to say a word or two about the right of interchange and
456
the right of selection and, if necessary, of arbitration. The situation arises in this way. It is not unnatural that the Director of the Tate Gallery should be insistent on retaining some of his best French Impressionist pictures. Equally, human nature being what it is, it is natural that the Director of the National Gallery should try to persuade his Trustees to obtain all the best of the French Impressionist pictures, in order that he may have the best available collection. In that way there is a danger of rivalry springing up between these two institutions, and it would be deplorable if it did so arise. I think the suggestion that the Trustees should intervene is a wise one. I hope that the Trustees, if they do come on the scene, will realise, as I am sure they will, that they are not rival institutions, but are both carrying out the same national function—namely, the exhibition of pictures to the public. I believe that the Trustees will generally be able to agree. It would be a great pity (if I may use the expression) if all the "eyes' of the collection of the Tate Gallery were picked out by the National Gallery. If anybody should be foolish enough to think that that could be done, all I will say is that I feel certain that the system of arbitration which we have here will guard against it. I believe that we have here a wise compromise, one that has been worked out with infinite care over many years; and it would be a pity to attempt to alter it. I give this Bill my blessing, for what that is worth, and I hope that it will shortly pass into law.
3.29 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I do not intend to speak with regard to the main objects of the Bill, but I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to Clause 1 (3), which transfers Miss Knapping's bequest from the National Gallery to the Tate Gallery. I suggest that this provision should be dropped from the Bill. I would emphasise the fact that it has no bearing whatever on the main purpose of the Bill. It is purely a clause for transferring this bequest—a considerable bequest; an income of £1,000 a year—from the National Gallery to the Tate Gallery. The change proposed would have a considerable effect, first, on the will and wishes of Miss Knapping; secondly, upon the national galleries of our country and, therefore,

457
on the public, and, thirdly, on the artists of this country.
I ask my noble friend Lord Selkirk whether there is any compelling reason for making a change in this Trust. I think we are agreed that to change the direction of a trust fund does need a compelling reason. The will of Miss Knapping is clear. It directs that the residue goes in trust to the Director and Trustees for the time being of the National Gallery, England, their heirs, executors and assigns, to apply the income for the purchase for public exhibition—and mark these words—in England, Scotland and Wales, of works of art.
EARL JOWITT: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Does he know that the Knapping Fund has for years been in the hands of the Tate Gallery—that it has been transferred to the Tate Gallery—on the ground that it was intended to deal with contemporary works?
LORD KINNAIRD: I am fully aware of that, but I will come to that point in a moment, if I may. I think that the order of the words, "the Director and Trustees of the National Gallery," is arresting. Miss Knapping did not leave her money to the nation, nor, as one might expect, to the National Gallery Trustees, but to the Director and Trustees of the National Gallery. I fancy that she thought most carefully about whom she was leaving her money to, because the Director is a man who is carefully trained, and she carefully brings in the Director of the National Gallery first. The Director of the Tate Gallery is a differently trained man with a different outlook. The thought in Miss Knapping's mind was that it was the people who were trained in the National Gallery outlook who should dispose of her funds. The date of Miss Knapping's will is interesting in this connection, because it is only 1932. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk has pointed out, the Tate Gallery was given its Trustees, and so on, in 1917. The Tate Gallery was well established and going strong in 1932, but Miss Knapping did not say that she would like the Director and Trustees of the Tate Gallery to dispose of her bequest. The will goes onto say that the Trustees may frame a scheme and vary the scheme, which shows that she had care-
458
fully considered the future and given them powers for all time.
I have said that this will affects three bodies of people. The control of this money, if carried out by the Tate Gallery Trustees, will be very different from what Miss Knapping ever regarded as possible. It will affect the National Galleries of England, Scotland and Wales. Your Lordships will notice that Miss Knapping said that the pictures purchased are to be exhibited in England, Scotland and Wales. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Selkirk whether he can tell us how many of the pictures are exhibited in England, how many in Scotland and how many in Wales. The public will be affected because the difference of choice of these two Galleries is so vast and so marked. Do the public want, as Miss Knapping wished, pictures chosen by the National Gallery, or the more modern pictures which we have seen of the type collected by the Tate?
I say that the artists will be affected for the same reason—that the Director and Trustees of the National Gallery would probably select the works of different artists from those the Tate Gallery would prefer. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Selkirk two questions. First, have the Director and the Trustees of the National Gallery asked to be relieved of this responsibility? If they have not, is there any compelling reason to make, this change? If they are willing to carry on, cannot they do so? We are fortunate in having in this House three of the Trustees of the National Gallery—the Duke of Wellington, Lord Crawford and Lord Herbert. I hope they will be willing—as I am sure many of your Lordships would wish—to continue to administer these funds for the benefit of the public. I also ask, although I have not given notice of the question, how many pictures were bought under Miss Knapping's bequest in each country. But perhaps the noble Earl will not be able to answer that question.
I would make one other point, and then I will close. Even if there is a compelling reason for making this alteration, I think my noble friend Lord Selkirk will agree that if you change the direction of a trust it is customary to try and alter it in a way which will as nearly as possible carry out the wishes of

459
the testator. I believe that is an old custom, and a right custom. Can any of us believe that, if we wish to carry out this lady's wishes, we can carry out a scheme which may be diametrically opposed to the ideas which were in Miss Knapping's mind? I do not criticise what the Tate Gallery or the National Gallery have done. I have a great regard for the National Gallery Trustees and what they have achieved. But there are differences of opinion as to whether the directions in which the Trustees of the Tate Gallery have gone have been wise. I cannot believe that the two bodies and what they would do are similar. I cannot think that the Tate Gallery would be carrying out the wishes of Miss Knapping. I hope that we shall hear that the National Gallery will continue to administer this Trust, and that your Lordships will agree with me that it was the wish of Miss Knapping, and that there seems no good reason for making the change.
If I may refer to the other parts of the Bill, there is the question of the transfer of pictures under Clause 2. I do not think this refers to the possibility of the other national Galleries lending to the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery. It might be well to consider putting in a clause that gives the other national Galleries power to lend to the National and the Tate. I have an idea that the Scottish National Gallery—the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, will be able to tell me if this is a sensible idea—have not very many Turners. Would it be possible for the Tate Gallery to lend to the National Gallery of Scotland one or two Turners? That Gallery is very full, and perhaps it would be possible to arrange for the loan of one or two Scottish pictures, Raeburns and so forth, to the Tate Gallery or the National Gallery in exchange for the Turners. It would be a good thing to consider inserting a clause in the Bill to that effect.
With regard to the Committee which is going to be set up, I would make it absolutely clear that the Chairman should be an absolutely independent one. I think that under the wording of the Act it could be one of the Trustees. We should make this absolutely clear at the Committee stage. I suggest that instead of having two National Gallery Trustees,
460
there could be one Trustee each from the National Gallery and from the Tate and that the Chairman should appoint two other independent Trustees. The Committee would be the same in size, and it would be a help to the Chairman if he had two other independent men. It might be easier for the Chairman then to give a decision than with the Committee constituted as it is.
3.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I desire to welcome this Bill with a few words because I strongly support the possibility of removing the rivalry and friction between these two Galleries; and that seems to me an object which will be ably achieved by this Bill. Secondly, I strongly support the idea of lending pictures, both abroad and to other galleries. It is true that in the past we have had exceedingly good collections generously lent by other galleries. It seems to me that the main thing one wishes to do with pictures is to give as many people as possible the chance of seeing them; and that can be done only by a reciprocal arrangement by which collections can be exchanged with other countries and other galleries. Even though, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, pointed out, there is a danger, it is a danger which, in the general good, we have to risk.
I should like to comment on one or two details of the Bill. With regard, for instance, to Clause 2, subsection (4), paragraph (b), I doubt whether the point is expressed as well as it might be. Obviously, this is a matter that can be thought over and discussed on Committee stage, but there is no mention of sculpture. Surely, sculpture should come into the matter, as well as paintings. I should like to see this point inserted in the Bill. Under Clause 2 (4) (b) again, I wonder whether something could not be done to make a little clearer than it is now that it is modern paintings, foreign and English, which come under this clause. These are only minor details, but it would be desirable if they could be inserted in the Bill.
A bigger question, of which I should like some clarification by the noble Earl who introduced this Bill, arises in connection with Clause 6, which deals with the sale of pictures. If I understand this Bill aright, the Trustees will have the power, given Treasury approval, should they wish, to sell all the paintings. This

461
seems to me to be rather a wide power for them to have without additional safeguards. The trouble, particularly with modern paintings, is that fashions change, and what we regard to-day as extremely good may be regarded by future generations in quite a different way. We ought, therefore, to be extremely careful, in selling paintings which are unfashionable, that we do not prejudice our collections by disposing of pictures which posterity may value very highly. I do not suggest that we should eliminate selling, but I feel that the subject should be studied very carefully. If we do sell bequeathed paintings, I think there should be a limit of so many years within which Trustees should have discretion.
My last point is a financial one—and here I would join issue with the noble Lord who has just sat down. I think the Tale Gallery is greatly in need of funds to buy pictures. I believe that they have something under £6,000 a year to spend—I may be wrong, but the noble Earl will no doubt correct me if I am. This seems to me to be a pitiable sum to allot to a big Gallery for collecting pictures, when one remembers present prices. I do not know whether it is True, as reported in the Press, that the National Gallery has a number of Cézannes purchased at something under £30,000 (and that is by no means a high figure on the present market: I suppose that a Seurat might fetch £20,000). It seems to me a great pity that enough funds are not provided for the Tate to acquire good pictures. I suggest, therefore, that the Government should be a little more generous in their provision of funds for the Tate Gallery to acquire paintings.
Secondly, if there is any question about the Knapping bequest going to the Tate rather than to the National Gallery, which is the crux of subsection (3) of Clause 1—I understand that the bequest has been administered by the Tate—it should be remembered that the need is greater for acquiring modern pictures. The intention of the be queather of this fund was surely ultimately to give the nation the best paintings it can have. After all, paintings bought by the Tate to-day will eventually become the Old Masters of posterity. The French Impressionists are, I think, ready to become the Old Masters now; and if we can acquire to-day at reasonable prices paintings by artists who died perhaps
462
fifty years ago, rather than wait and try to acquire them when they have reached the highest peak of market values, it will save many thousands of pounds. Therefore, I ask the Government to see whether they cannot be more generous in their treatment of this modern Gallery than they have been up to date. I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer, except to say that I support the Bill and hope that it will have a speedy passage into law.
3.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, this Bill seems to be rather strangely named. I should have thought that a National Art Collections Bill would have had something to do with a National Art Collections Fund. In fact, it has nothing at all. Failing that, I should have thought it would have implied a much wider and more general Bill; but again, that is not the case. This Bill does not deal with the national art collections of the country: it deals with the internal arrangements of two of the great picture galleries of London. I do not know whether there is anything in the point, but I feel that the Bill might be better described than by these words. Its purpose is concentrated really in Clause 1, which has been described to your Lordships. Clause 1, which separates the Tate from the National Gallery, is a provision which I think will have everybody's agreement and now that the Tate Gallery is at long last to be given a grant in aid, the time has come when it can be given, and should be given, complete autonomy. I think I am right (perhaps the noble Earl who introduced the Bill will confirm it) in supposing that this autonomy is complete: in other words, that the Trustees of the National Gallery will no longer have the right, or indeed the duty, to nominate any Trustee for the Tate Board; and, equally, that the Director of the National Gallery will not sit ex officio on that Board. This is, after all, merely a natural process, which is happening today in Edinburgh where the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland is being completely separated from the National Gallery of Scotland.
I had supposed until to-day that the clause about the Knapping bequest was uncontroversial, but If am a little puzzled by what the noble Lord who has spoken

463
behind me has said. The position certainly was that the Trustees of the National Gallery felt that, as the terms of this bequest involved, quite clearly, the purchase of modern pictures, it was obviously desirable that the income should be transferred to the Tate Gallery. That has been done for many years, and I had thought that this provision, passing over not the income but the capital funds was merely implementing Miss Knapping's wishes, which perhaps her lawyers had misinterpreted. But if my noble friend is right in supposing that it was her intention to set up a trust for the purpose of buying modern pictures, rather than that modern pictures should be bought by the Tate Gallery, then I think perhaps this point should be looked at again. As f say, I am puzzled by it. The position is not as I had supposed it to be, and in view of what we have been told, I think perhaps the matter should be considered
With regard to transfer between Galleries, the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, asked whether the National Gallery of Scotland, for instance, could lend pictures to the Tate Gallery. Indeed it can, so there is no need for such a provision in this Bill. Unfortunately, no one in England realises what a good painter AllanRamsay is, and therefore no one in England happens to want his works. Equally, the Bill would allow a Turner to be lent by the Tate to the National Gallery of Edinburgh—indeed, the Tate very generousy lent to Edinburgh two pictures by Turner of George IV's visit to Edinburgh. We thought they were most appropriate and delightful pictures to have in Edinburgh; unfortunately the generosity of the Tate lasted only a comparatively short time, and they withdrew the pictures, although we felt that they were more appropriately housed with us than on Millbank. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, if I heard him aright, stated, with regard to the committee to be set up in the event of a dispute between the Trustees of the Tate and the National Gallery that arbitration was only a last resort, and that the Trustees could appoint the chairman who would arbitrate over the committee to be.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, I did not say that. What I did say was this: that if the Trustees agreed on an arbiter themselves, and agreed to accept his decision,
464
then they would not need to have recourse to the provisions of this Act. It is only in the event of their not agreeing that the mechanism of this Act can come into force and an arbiter will be appointed by the Treasury. The point at issue is simply this—I see that the noble and learned Earl opposite does not agree with me—that arbitration could be adopted if the trustees were prepared to accept it. If there were disagreement among the Trustees, there might also be disagreement as to the person of the arbiter. That is why it was felt that some outside appointment should be made.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: That is absolutely clear, is it, because the committee which is to be set up is to consist of:
"(a) a chairman appointed by the Treasury,"
and others. It seems to me that that is going rather far. Surely the two bodies of Trustees could decide on an independent chairman, without bringing the Treasury in, to arbitrate on these matters. The position is not quite as either I or the noble Earl have described it, and I think the matter might be further looked into to make certain that this chairman should be appointed not by the Treasury but by the two Boards concerned. Transfer, I think, is generally a very good thing. It could be and should be arranged without difficulty. There should be no difficulty whatever with regard to British pictures, for it is agreed, I think, that the small collection of outstanding British masterpieces shall remain in the National Gallery, and that the great bulk, representing the history of British painting, which would include many other masterpieces, should go to the Tate. There may be controversy over the point that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has mentioned. Indeed, there has perhaps been controversy as to the collection of the French pictures. I agree with him in hoping that both the Boards will look upon their duty as one, and that they will agree to do whatever is best in the common and in the public interest.
I share a little the doubt that has been expressed about the provision for sale. Here again, the Treasury are able, as in many places throughout the Bill—unnecessarily, in my view—to intervene. As has been said, fashion is easily swayed in these matters, and I fear that some of

465
the most unfashionable pictures to-day, which are among the largest and the most tiresome to handle, are the pictures which might be sold to a keen collector at one of these Galleries. And yet these pictures have their value. Many of them were famous in their day for their historical significance. This is a provision which, if it is included, must be used with the greatest of caution. Similarly, I would regret the sale of what might be called duplicate pictures, pictures which are very similar to, though not exact duplicates of, something which exists in the Gallery. I should much prefer that those pictures, if they were good enough, were lent either to Embassies or to provincial galleries, rather than be sold out of the public possession.
I agree, in reference to Clause 4, that foreign pictures should be lendable to public buildings in this country, as they have been lent already for generation s to Embassies abroad and to the Government Houses of our Colonies. There are a number of good and decorative pictures which could safely be lent, although they are not of sufficient quality to hang in one of the galleries in this country. If that were done it would remove some of the desolation which some of us feel characterises Government houses and Embassies abroad. I am right, am I not, in thinking that the responsibility for these pictures will be in the hands of the Ministry of Works, and that the pictures so lent will be handed over to the Ministry of Works pool—in other words, although the Ministry of Works is not listed in the Schedule, the Galleries will have power to hand over to the Ministry of Works pictures for which the Ministry of Works will take full responsibility. I should like also to make a small point, as to whether that applies to the Government houses which are presumably in the responsibility of the Colonial Office.
Now I come to the other part of Clause 4, which I am afraid I consider more contentious than any other noble Lord so far has done. This part of the Bill enables the National Gallery to lend pictures abroad. This is not a new matter. A Bill enabling the Galleries to do so was introduced in 1930. It received from your Lordships so frigid a reception that it was dropped. The proposal was again
466
brought up in1935, when it was defeated by your Lordships. A compromise was reached in 1935, that British pictures but not foreign pictures should be lent. Those who accepted the compromise then are, for the most part, not here to state the position on which they accepted that compromise, for we are mortal; but the Treasury pigeonholes are eternal, and from out of one of those Treasury pigeonholes this proposal has been brought, refurbished and presented to your Lordships, asking you for the third time to change your minds and take the opposite view. I see no reason, nor do I think that we have to-day been given any reason, to make us do so. I see no reason why we should even be asked to do so.
This matter has no relevance whatever to the main purpose of the Bill, which is to separate the Tate and the National Galleries, and, speaking purely personally, I think it is a pity to introduce into this Bill, which otherwise would be uncontroversial, this (at any rate to me) very difficult and controversial matter. It is controversial because of the risks and dangers to which the noble Lord has referred. Those dangers are very real, and they are of two kinds. One apples to all pictures, whether British or foreign, and there is another kind which is much more likely to affect foreign pictures. As a general rule, foreign pictures are older than British pictures, which for the most part, date from the 18th Century. It was felt by your Lordships those many years ago that it was legitimate to take the general risk of fire, damage from railways and so on, in the case of British pictures, which, being on canvas and comparatively modern, would be more easily able to withstand such things than the earlier pictures. But it is these earlier pictures, those that run a special risk, which it is now proposed the Trustees should be given power to lend.
Many of these pictures date from the 14th century. They are on panels which, often, are worm-eaten, which have been desiccated, and which are extremely fragile; panels which could be shattered if they were dropped, if they were carelessly handled—if they were handled in the way one sees goods being handled on the railway. They are panels which are particularly susceptible to changes in atmosphere—indeed, so much so, that the National Gallery has created a room

467
which is air conditioned at a stable humidity, and that is the atmosphere in which these panels are retained. That air conditioning is being extended now for this particular purpose, and I think ultimately will include all of the early pictures of the Gallery. When once any one of these early pictures has settled down to the stable atmosphere of an air-conditioned room in the National Gallery, I think that no sane Director would allow that picture to leave the Gallery. It means that sooner or later, even though Parliament allows them to be lent, it will be quite impossible to lend the great bulk of these early foreign pictures to which the Bill refers.
One reason given for this provision is to reciprocate loans from abroad, in order that we should not feel uncomfortable that people lend us things when we will not lend back; and in order that we should continue to receive from abroad loans which we might not get if we did not lend foreign pictures from this country. I cannot accept that argument. I do not think that, in order to secure a loan from abroad, it is right for Trustees of the National Gallery to take risks with one of the nation's great possessions and send it abroad. Even if I did think it right, I do not think the argument would be sound. After all, is it true that foreign countries are reluctant to lend to us? I do not think so for a moment. Certainly, it is true that to-day there are more exhibitions with loans from abroad than there have ever been before in our lifetime. There has been no change in the position during the last century; everyone knows exactly what the law is. They know perfectly well that the National Gallery is unable to lend, and the fact that that is the law, which cannot be broken, is accepted naturally as a perfectly sound and good reason, and it causes no friction whatever when a refusal is necessarily made.
I find these reasons somewhat difficult to swallow, if I may say so. The law today is clear. There can be no friction when a Board refuses to break the law. But if this provision goes through, will not the position be very different? At once there will be uncertainty. At once a refusal which is not backed by law will cause friction with foreign countries. Some of the most famous galleries abroad
468
are galleries to which we could not possibly lend pictures—they are not secure from fire; they are not secure from theft; we know that the way they would handle the pictures which we lent to them would be quite impossible. I could name such galleries. But when such a gallery asks us for a loan, what are we to say? Are we to tell them the truth? Of course we cannot tell them the truth. Of course we cannot say "We cannot lend to you, because we cannot trust you; but we will lend to another gallery because we trust them with the same picture." What excuses are we to make? What fiction are we to invent? I think that as a means of creating international friction this clause of the Bill will play a very high part.
I know that I am in a minority over this, because, while I was not on the Board, the Trustees, I understand, by a majority, accepted this provision. But in my view the Trustees will be placed in a really intolerable position if they do not retain the present protection. I see it from two points of view. I am on the boards of galleries both in London and in Edinburgh. In London, protected as we are, we have no difficulty at all in this matter—there is no friction and no trouble, whereas in Edinburgh, where we are not so protected, this provision is a constant source of friction, anxiety and trouble. Indeed, pictures which we have recently lent have come back damaged from exhibition abroad. I know that these fears which I am expressing are shared by many responsible directors throughout the world. I hope that my noble friend will consider, between now and the next stage of the Bill, some way by which these fears can be allayed.
Would it be possible, for instance, to exclude the National Gallery from this provision, and to allow the Tate Gallery only to come under it; if, indeed, it is desired by the authorities of the Tate that they should have it? The position in respect of that Gallery is not so difficult, because the pictures they would be asked to lend are nineteenth and twentieth century French pictures, which are not susceptible to the special dangers which I have described. Or would it be possible to lay down a date earlier than which pictures may not in any circumstances be lent? Again, would it be possible to say that no pictures painted on panels would be allowed to be lent? Such methods

469
would, I think, to some extent, safeguard the position. The position, I believe, would possibly be safeguarded—and I should feel more satisfied—if Clause 4 (1) (a) were to read
"for public exhibition in the United Kingdom."
I hope that my noble friend will consider some of these possible ways of allaying what I believe to be real fears concerning possible sources of real danger.
4.12 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, my interest in this Bill is confined to Clauses 4, 5, and 6, which deal with loan, transfer and disposal, and much of the small contribution which I intended to make has been tittered for me by the noble and learned Earl Lord Jowitt, and the noble Earls, Lord Huntingdon and Lord Crawford. I agree with them that there should be very great caution indeed about selling any pictures, but, at the same time, I see no reason why sale of a picture which has been bequeathed to either of these Galleries or to any other gallery should be made impossible. If a person leaves his or her collection to a gallery—as may frequently occur—and in that collection there are, we will say, twenty pictures, of which ten are really good, five are sub-standard and five are really bad, in spite of change of fashion, which undoubtedly does occur, it should be possible, I feel, for pictures which it is agreed are really not up to any sort of standard to be sold. A testator's will in that respect should not be absolutely sacrosanct for all time.
With regard to the lending of pictures, Lord Jowitt spoke of loans to Embassies, Government houses and so on. I speak with diffidence in the presence of the Chairman of the Trustees, but I should like to know whether I am rightly informed that in the cellars of the National Gallery there are large numbers of pictures—some fifteen hundred or sixteen hundred. If that is so, surely that is a terrible waste of valuable material. I imagine that those pictures fall into three categories. I know nothing about the Tate Gallery—I am unaware whether or not there are large numbers of pictures in the cellars there—but I can well believe that amongst the pictures in the cellars of the National Gallery there may be some real masterpieces which are either being cleared, or being given a rest from the public view, or held in
470
reserve in order that they may take the place of other masterpieces which are loaned for the time being, we will say, to Scotland, and so on. Then, I imagine, there are some very bad pictures which might well be sold. But the great majority, I imagine, of these sixteen hundred pictures—if that is, indeed, the right number—are really good works, which are considered just not goad enough. Many of them, I daresay, have been bequeathed. Is it not a sad waste of material? Although they are not quite good enough to be hung on the walls of the National Gallery, surely many of them may be worth showing somewhere.
We all know how interest in art of all kinds has increased and is increasing. One has only to go to any of these galleries on a Sunday afternoon to see large and uncomfortable crowds of people—most of them young. We are very well served with galleries in London, but there are many important provincial towns and cities that have no gallery of any sort. Usually, however, they have some sort of hall to which everyone resorts—a town hall, for instance. It is not every mayor whose portrait is painted, thank God! and there are, in these establishments, walls where good pictures could be hung and made available to the people of, shall we say, Hudders field or some similar city which has no art gallery, and who otherwise have not the opportunity of seeing, not the very best things, but the next best things. Therefore, I would urge the Trustees of these Galleries not to keep their secondary masterpieces hidden away in their basements but to concert measures so that they can be shown throughout the country, not only in Embassies and Government houses to which only the privileged have entry, but in places where less fortunate citizens can see them and thus attain some learning in the art which we all love.
4.18 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, this Bill proposes to make certain changes in the ownership of pictures belonging to the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery, and I would urge on Her Majesty's Government to include in it a provision for the return of the thirty-six, or so, pictures which were collected by the late Sir Hugh Lane as a basis for a modern

471
collection for Ireland. This is a matter upon which the North and the South of Ireland have always agreed. I do not wish to outline the controversy in any detail—indeed your Lordships would not wish it, because it is very long—but the facts are briefly as follows. Owing to a codicil not being signed, the pictures legally belong to the Tate, although a British committee of inquiry found that the last wish of Sir Hugh Lane was that they should go to Dublin if a suitable gallery were built. In the codicil, it was stipulated that it had to be built by a certain time. As the pictures were not forthcoming it was not built by that time. Legally, I think, we in Dublin are out of court; but morally I believe we are right in wanting them back. The gallery was in fact built many years ago and an empty room awaits the pictures. Charlemont House, where the gallery is, is one of the loveliest eighteenth century buildings in Europe and has been converted into a perfect picture gallery. It has been argued that the late Lord Duveen had special rooms built for these pictures at the Tate Gallery. I think that argument is wholly irrelevant. The fact is that none of these pictures are hung in those rooms—at least, none of them were hung in the Duveen rooms when I last looked for them a few months ago. A dozen or more are not hung at all, but they can be seen in the cellar, by appointment. If that is not "dog-in-the-mangerism," I do not know what is.
I hope Her Majesty's Government may consider, as a gesture from Her Majesty's Government and not by an Amendment moved by somebody like myself, introducing an Amendment to put this matter right I was not able to give the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, more than a few minutes' notice that I intended raising this question, and I do not think he can be expected to give any detailed answer, but I beg him to give the matter his consideration.
4.20 p.m.
LORD RUGBY: My Lords, on entering the House I did not intend to speak—in fact, I have never before done so—but now that the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, who has just spoken, has said that he spoke in the interests of Dublin, for which he has a very warm feeling, I should like
472
to say a few words. None of us is indifferent to that great city, but we want to keep our feet on the ground over this question of the Lane pictures. The Lane pictures are in the Tate Gallery because of the will of Sir Hugh Lane. It is a legal fact, and when one starts to try to get away from what is laid down in a will, one is on very slippery ground. The argument about the pictures is based on a codicil which was not signed. Who are we to interpret the reasons which make a man not sign a codicil which he has drafted? To that question the noble Lord may answer that we should interpret this in a liberal and generous spirit. Sir Hugh Lane had certain intentions——
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, for a moment to say that that is not my interpretation; it is the interpretation of a very important Committee which considered the matter? They may be wrong, but that was their interpretation.
LORD RUGBY: I have read the report of that Committee and it was certainly not unanimous. If a man has written a codicil and not signed it, how are we to presume what his motives were? We must apply common sense to this question. Sir Hugh Lane went down in the "Lusitania" and that was a great many years ago. He did not sign the codicil. In interpreting Sir Hugh Lane's motives to-day we must do so against the background of to-day. Sir Hugh Lane held a title from His Majesty the King. He was a citizen of the United Kingdom and a patriot. He had warm feelings towards the Dublin of that day and to art generally. But what would his feelings be now? However we might interpret his feelings in the light of conditions in 1914, what interpretation could we put on them now? Certain provocations are said to produce post-mortem consequences—people turn in their graves. My view is that if to-day Sir Hugh Lane in his grave knew that these pictures were to be removed to republican Dublin, he would turn in his grave.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank your Lordships for the warm reception given to the main purposes of this Bill from all sides of the House. I think I am right in saying

473
that this is the first Bill introduced in your Lordships' House by the Treasury for some time. I am glad that your Lordships have generally approved it. May I take the point the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, mentioned at the end of his speech? The purpose of this Bill is to distribute pictures much more widely than has been done up to now. I am not in a position to say how many pictures are available in the cellars of either the Tate or the National Gallery, but I think most people would be disappointed with the numbers really available and suitable for the purpose. But there are some, and no doubt they may be used.
A good deal of doubt has been expressed on the question of sale, but if noble Lords will look at the terms of the Bill they will see that the Bill does not do much more than repeat the powers which existed under the 1856 Act, and there are considerable safeguards in this Bill. In the first place, a sale has to be permitted by the Treasury. The significance of that, I would say particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, is that if a Member of either House objects to a sale, questions may be asked in Parliament and he can draw attention to the matter. That is the purpose of the inclusion of this provision. It is not because the Treasury wish to interfere.
The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, asked a number of questions about the Knapping bequest. We will consider very carefully what he said about this matter, but I should have thought that what we are doing in this Bill is, to use his own words, to carry out as nearly as possible the wishes of the testatrix. I would suggest to the noble Lord that that is a compelling reason. The noble Lord argues that the purpose of the testatrix is better fulfilled by the Trustees of the National Gallery than by the Trustees of the Tate Gallery. I think the view taken up to now is that the Tate Gallery Trustee; are particularly well qualified to buy in the field of modern art, and therefore it is considered more suitable that the Tate Gallery rather than the National Gallery should operate this bequest. If I may use the words of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, I would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be a pity to set up any rivalry between the two Galleries. To a certain extent they have
474
different purposes, bat they should not be regarded as rivals. The noble Lord asked me about the transference of Scottish pictures, and his question was really answered by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres. There is no difficulty about lending of pictures by the National Galleries of Scotland.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, the point I tried to make is that modern pictures could, in my view, be bought better under the guidance of the Trustees of the National Gallery, rather than of the Tate Gallery. They are equally modern pictures, but who chooses them makes all the difference to the ultimate collections.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is a matter of taste, and I should not like to enter into a controversy on that point. I do not think I am at all qualified to form an opinion on that matter. I think I have given a compelling reason for this proposal and I should like to leave it at that. The noble Lard also asked a question about the position of the Chairman of the two bodies. If the noble Lord looks at the last line of Clause 2 he will see that it is abundantly clear that the Chairman will not be a Trustee of either of these bodies.
The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, asked me about the definition of purposes, particularly of those of the Tate Gallery, in subsection (2). This Bill is concerned only with paintings and we have not specifically included sculptures. As I said in my opening speech, I doubt whether it is desirable to be too tidy in defining the purposes of the two Galleries. If we do that, we may find ourselves eventually restricting the purposes and uses of the Galleries. After all, as Mr. Vincent Massey said, the Tate Gallery has "just growed" like Topsy. It has grown in no particular direction. I think it would be a mistake to lay down by Statute, which cannot easily be changed, every procedure and exactly what ought to be done.
The noble Earl also raised the question of selling. I dealt with that question, but perhaps I ought to point out also that if any exhibit has ever been on the walls of the Tate Gallery or the National Gallery, details of its proposed sale will be laid before Parliament. That means that anyone can ask questions as to why it is being sold, and

475
whoever replies for the Treasury will have to answer. Sales will take place only in rare circumstances; and I feel sure that anyone who is familiar with the Tate Gallery will agree that there may be certain pictures which could be sold. The noble Earl asked about finance. There has been an improvement in the finances of the Tate Gallery since the war. There is the purchase grant, which did not even exist before the war. In addition, I think it is fair to say that the Chantrey bequest is being well used at the present time, added to which we have the Knapping bequest which is already being used by the Tate. Therefore, the Tate Gallery, although they may not have as much as they would like, are not too badly placed in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, raised the question of the Lane bequest. That does not come into the Bill. What the noble Lord said was, I feel, effectively answered by the noble Lord, Lord Rugby. The matter was fully examined by a Select Committee in 1924, and their finding was that it would not be proper to transfer those pictures. If he wishes, the noble Lord can, of course, raise the question. It is not a matter that has been glossed over quickly but has been fully examined by those well qualified to do so. I should now like to turn to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, an orator learned in the arts, as his father was before him. The noble Earl is a formidable controversialist on any subject to do with these Galleries. First of all, with regard to the Title of the Bill, it may seem a rather extensive Title, but, as the noble Earl knows, the Schedule covers a fairly large number of the major national art collections in the country so far as pictorial art is concerned.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: It only mentions them; it does not deal with them.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It gives them the opportunity of obtaining pictures from the Tate and the National Gallery. I will not argue with the noble Earl, and if he desires to put down an Amendment on the Title, no doubt he will do so.
I should now like to deal with the question of the independent arbiter. As I read it, what Clause 2 (3) means is this: if the Trustees can come to an agreement by any means they like, even if they
476
appoint an arbiter themselves and agree to accept his advice, then there is no dispute between them, for they are agreed as to what should be done with any picture. It is only in the event of their not being able to reach agreement between themselves, if either presumably is not satisfied, that the clause will operate and they will ask the Treasury to appoint an arbiter. The reason for the Treasury coming into it is only that if the two bodies are in sharp disagreement they may also find it difficult to agree on an arbiter. If they can agree on an arbiter, they can settle the matter without going to the Treasury.
EARL JOWITT: May I make a suggestion to the noble Earl, which might provide a way of getting out of the difficulty and satisfy everybody? Perhaps he will consider this proposal and, if necessary, put down an Amendment to make it read, "A chairman agreed upon by the respective Trustees or, in default of agreement, appointed by the Treasury." I believe that would satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, and I should not object. That might be a way out of the difficulty.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am always grateful for the suggestions of the noble and learned Earl. The principle is one on which I do not think we disagree.
The main point which the noble Earl, Lord Crawford stressed to-day was that of foreign pictures. I do not think that any of us who heard him were not impressed by what he said, but I feel that to some extent he answered himself when he said that no sane Director would allow certain pictures to leave the Gallery. I have every reason to believe that the Directors are sane, and I feel sure that no one would agree for a moment to the sort of pictures he has in mind leaving the Gallery.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I was not speaking only of pictures that had been in an air-conditioned room. I feel that, as the whole Gallery is going to be air-conditioned, the whole provision is somewhat disingenuous.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Earl has stated his case and he obviously wishes to emphasise the position of the older pictures. Personally, I should have thought that the Directors and

477
Trustees would exercise the utmost care and discretion before allowing any old pictures to go; but, after all, the National Gallery are up to the twentieth century now, I think I am right in saying, and there are some relatively modern pictures there at the present time which might be loaned. I am informed that if we do not agree to something of this character, we shall have difficulty in holding some of those magnificent exhibitions which we have held in this country. So far, we have benefited, and possibly we have got more than we deserved. This is not something that has just come out of a pigeonhole of the Treasury, but is something which has been sincerely demanded in other places on many occasions. I feel that the calibre of the Trustees is the greatest safeguard that we have. I appreciate the points which the noble Earl has in mind. I am grateful for all the comments that noble Lords have made, and I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RETIRED OFFICERS' PENSIONS
4.37 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, before we come to a consideration of the second Bill on the Order Paper, I hope the House will allow me to intervene to make a statement on the pensions of certain retired serving officers which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the matter is not one which concerns the Ministry of Defence alone. The statement is as follows.
"Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered whether, without departing from the principles which have hitherto governed pensions increase, they could grant some relief to those retired Service officers whose pensions were affected by the operation of the sliding-scale which was in force after the First World War, and whose pensions were stabilised in 1935 at 9½ per cent. below the 1919 level. Although the stabilisation was favourable to those concerned, the cost of
478
living has now for some years risen beyond the 1919 level and those affected have felt for a good many years past that they have cause for complaint.
"The sliding-scale and the stabilisation affected not only retired officers of the Armed Forces but civilian Crown servants as well. Action to remedy the situation in their case would require legislation to amend the recent Pensions Increase Act. While the Government recognise the hardship which, in the light of later events, the pre-war stabilisation has created, they have after much consideration come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to treat this problem as a special case at a time when so many other demands are pressing."
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I have had to reply in the past to the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, who has fought this battle for a great many years, rather in the sense that the noble Marquess has just replied. However, I know that this decision will cause great disappointment, and I feel bound to say that I wish it had been found possible to do something to meet this most deserving case.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I believe that this statement will cause more than disappointment. These officers have a grievance which is a particularly serious one, and they have felt it for a long time, because they were promised, in instruments in 1919, that their rates of pay should rise and fall according as the cost of living rose or fell, and to an extent not exceeding 20 per cent. They did fall as long as the cost of living fell, but they never rose at all; and they have remained at 9½ per cent. below the rates of 1919 ever since. I do not know whether there is any other class in the community whose rates of pay or pension are 9½ per cent., or any other percentage, less than those of 1919. In view of the fact that the cost of living has risen and the value of money has declined immensely, there will be enormous disappointment throughout the Services and throughout the class of officers who are affected by this, to my mind, unfortunate statement of my noble friend.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, is not in his place to-day, be-

479
cause I am sure that he will be deeply disappointed. I felt that somebody from the Navy should get up and say, on behalf of my old Service, that we also are deeply disappointed at this decision.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, as I raised this question in another place, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word. While I do not dissent from what my two noble friends have said—indeed, it is obvious that there will be great disappointment—I feel that, in view of the general economic situation, there is considerable strength in the argument which my noble friend the Leader of the House has used. I cannot refrain from making one comment on the remarks made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I understood him to say, first, that he was in general agreement with the views of the Government, and then that he regretted they had come to the decision they have. He is no doubt aware of the fact that my noble friend behind me and I, in another place, as well as many others, raised this question constantly during the six years of the Government of which he was a member, and no action was taken.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, like the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, we all regret the necessity for this decision. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, that it was one which the Government did not reach without the most anxious thought about the possibility of making a special case. Personally—and I know that I speak for my colleagues—I feel very deeply what he and other noble Lords have said. I can only hope that circumstances will alter so as to make a different decision possible.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask whether, in future considerations—because there will be future considerations—it is not worth considering this point? When the noble and gallant Earl the Minister of Defence replied to a Question last week, it was said that the Government were reluctant to disturb anything which was based on a contract. Here you have a powerful body making a contract with a weak body. The powerful body has control of the standard of living and that power is used, no doubt
480
in the public interest, but, so far as these people are concerned, to diminish the value of their side of the contract. I do not think that that is a fair situation or one which ought to be allowed to continue.

FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
4.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which I think noble Lords will regard as one of considerable importance. In spite of its somewhat cumbersome Title, I hope that this Bill will be known popularly as the Clean Food Bill.
Conditions of life since the war have led to a great increase in the use of food prepared in factories, and in the variety of processes of food manufacture. The habit of "eating out" has also grown, and now extends over a wide range of people and places and prices. The principal Act, the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, useful though it is, no longer achieves its purpose of protecting the public from either the carelessness or the perfidy of human beings. The object of the new Bill is to strengthen the Act and to bring it up-to-date in two major respects. Both, I venture to think, will command the support of all parts of your Lordships' House. The first main object is to ensure a higher standard of cleanliness in places where food is prepared or handled, before it is sold over the counter or eaten in restaurants or canteens. Powers are also taken to control the disposal of food which is unfit for human consumption.
The 1938 Act attempts to lay down conditions and standards applicable to all food premises. But such premises, as your Lordships know, differ widely. We think a better way is for the Ministers of Food and Health to be given powers, which are set out in Clause 6 of the Bill, to make ad hoc regulations suited to the conditions of many different kinds of businesses and foods. Subsection (2) of Clause 6 gives the detailed proposals and subsection (3) deals with different kinds of businesses affected. The Bill also proposes that the present powers of registra-

481
tion of premises, which cover only ice-cream, sausages and certain preserved foods, shall be extended to all premises where food is handled or stored. Clause 9 enables local authorities to make similar regulations for licensing hawkers and stall-holders. A start will be made with new hygiene regulations, and after that will come registration, beginning with premises where food infection is most likely to occur, such as catering establishments. The public have a right to protection in these ways, and in the highly competitive catering trade Government action will be welcomed by all good traders. It is as easy for a small firm as for a large one to attain proper standards of cleanliness. Indeed, the personal supervision and concern of the proprietor of a small family business perhaps makes it easier for him than for the large organisation, where personal touch and control is less easy.
The second main purpose of the Bill is to bring up to date the protection of the public against the use of substances and processes which are liable to render food injurious to health. There have been, as your Lordships are aware, remarkable developments in food manufacture during recent years. The scientist has become an important factor in this process. The chemist has become a usual factor on the staff of manufacturing concerns. The housewife has secured many advantages in the form of easy availability of prepared and preserved food. The hand that wields the can-opener receives many congratulations from untutored man for the high quality of meals prepared with obvious ease and speed. We have all experienced the pleasure of eating foods preserved for our use beyond their season of natural growth. Thus, food manufacturers have added much to the convenience and pleasures of life. They represent an honourable trade in which most exert themselves to produce a high standard of purity in their products. But all the contributions of science are not clear gain. In any trade there are some who are careless, some incompetent, and some not too scrupulous. The present laws on adulteration came from a cruder age when the treacherous trader mixed alum with his flour and sand with his brown sugar. In our own more inventive and complex age, it has become the more necessary to
482
protect the public from those who, either from ignorance or greed, endanger the public health.
This Bill, in its first clause, seeks to do so by preventing the addition of any substance to food, or the abstraction of any constituent, or the use of any treatment in preparing food, which makes it injurious to health. The present law has proved inadequate in one respect in particular—that is, in dealing with the problem which is rather troublesomely described as chronic toxicity. This is dealt with in Clause 1 (5) of the Bill, which lays down that the cumulative effect of additions or subtractions, or ingredients or processes, must be taken into account when the possibility of injury to health is being thought of.
Clauses 1, 3 and 4, dealing with these matters, and with powers to obtain information about the composition of substances used in foods, are complicated. Your Lordships will, I know, want to discuss them in Committee in some detail. It suffices for me to say now that the Government is satisfied of the need for powers of regulation in these matters. We must preserve a balance in our minds between what is the good that science can give us and what are its dangers. Let us not be too much afraid of eating things because they are, or contain, chemicals, or because they have been preserved. In this island we depend on both for our existence. Chemicals have their uses: mankind has contrived to survive through many ages despite a heedless addiction to sodium chloride. For those of your Lordships whose education was confined to the classics, let me add that this is another name for common salt.
Fear of chemicals arises from ignorance of their meaning. Take, for example, calcium salts, added to bread during the war to safeguard children's teeth. I remember very well receiving a letter from a lady telling me that her husband was lying in agony on a couch, suffering from what she described as "stone." She said that it was directly resultant from the fact that I had been so unwise as to put calcium in flour. I was very sorry for her, but I had to write back and tell her that I hoped that her doctor would make a further examination, because I had only just announced that I was going to put calcium in the flour and that it would not be in for another two months. But there was the fear that had arisen in that

483
poor, unfortunate woman's mind about the use of calcium.
The 1938 Act afforded some protection for the public against the use of inaccurate description or misleading advertisement by fraudulent traders. I refer to no known product when I give your Lordships as an example some product which might have been called, for instance, "Eggo," but which would be produced without any particular reference to a hen. Such a description on a label could be accurate and still misleading. There can be "large-sized fruit" on a label, but very little fruit inside the jar. It can also mislead by claims as to the nutritional or dietary value of the food it affects to describe. "Bristol cream" was, of course, not meant to mislead the public—but claims for vitamin content of some foods may, indeed, mislead them. There were provisions against such practices in the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943, and these useful improvements have been written into Clause 5 of the Bill now before the House, incidentally making it possible for us to dispense with these Regulations. I am sure that advertising practitioners generally will welcome these provisions, because the misdemeanours of the unscrupulous reflect on the integrity of all advertisers.
May I now say a word about the machinery by which the provisions to which I have referred—necessarily rather briefly—will be put into effect? Broadly speaking, there will be administrative control of standards of food, hygiene and composition, from the centre, by way of regulation. It will then be for local authorities to execute and enforce these regulations. But also in Clause 13 (4) of the Bill, the Minister is given power to initiate proceedings where he is of opinion that the general interests of consumers are affected, as, for example, where a product is distributed nationally, or advertised nationally. I draw your Lordships' attention to the safeguards provided against too free an exercise of the regulation-making powers by the Ministers concerned. In the first place, they must not make regulations without first consulting all the interests involved. This is provided by Section 92 of the principal Act. Secondly, all regulations and orders must be laid before Parliament and may be annulled by
484
Negative Resolution save as regards orders introducing the registration of premises for new trades, which are subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. Finally, may I say that it is the intention to introduce in due course a Consolidating Bill to consolidate the principal Act of 1938 as amended, the Food and Drugs (Milk Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act of 1950, and the present Food and Drugs Amendment Bill. This Consolidation Act, I think, is essential for easy reference.
I have attempted to-day to do no more than lay before your Lordships the principal provisions of the Bill and the reasons that have actuated the Government in bringing it forward. In so far as legislation can hope to achieve the improved standards of cleanliness we all desire for the good of the people of this country, I believe that the Bill will commend itself to your Lordships' House. But, when all is done, very much remains in the hands of the individual in this country, either the individuals in trade as a purveyor, a caterer, or an employee, or the individual in the community at large. Especially is the opportunity given to the consumer to enforce higher standards by making more fuss when he meets with dangerous and disgusting practices and by withdrawing his patronage from the people who indulge in them. In so far as these things can be controlled by Parliament, however, we are determined to seek and to use powers to secure for the people the elementary advantage of clean and wholesome food. Thus, in Clause 23 of the Bill we have raised the maximum penalty for offences from £20 to £100, or three months' imprisonment. In subsection 3 of the same clause, an officer of a company proved to be responsible for an offence may be deemed to be guilty equally with the company itself.
I trust that we may have a wide measure of public support for this Bill. During the war I took and used some of the powers now in the Bill under regulations which were temporary, in order to protect the public from misleading statements and fraudulent products. The public approved, and will support the fact that we give permanency to these things in this Bill. I am glad to see that clean food associations have been formed in some areas, with traders, caterers, and

485
the public, working in unison to raise standards. Mankind is subject to enough physical ills and suffering that are beyond our preventive capacity. We do not need to suffer from dirty food and its consequences. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Woolton.)
5 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we on this side of the House gladly welcome this Bill, which we regard as a most important measure. It must be gratifying to the noble Viscount, who was such a distinguished Minister of Food during the war, to come back to his old love and to be responsible for introducing a measure of this kind, one which is capable of being fraught with so much benefit to the people of this country. The noble Viscount did not refer to the parentage of this Bill. It has, I may say, very respectable parentage. Most of it was drafted during the days of the Government which preceded the present one, and for that reason, if for no other, we give it a cordial welcome. Perhaps at the outset I ought to refer to one of our company, a noble Lord who has taken a great interest in this matter—I refer to my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch. I will not go so far as to say that he can take responsibility for the introduction of this Bill, but he has from time to time urged a measure of this kind upon the Government, and he will be most gratified with this measure, although he considers that it is capable of certain improvement. He has asked me to say that he is unfortunately prevented by other important public duties from being here this afternoon, as he would have liked to be, to take part in the debate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, in the earlier part of his remarks, referred to the changing society in which we are living. Of course, it is perfectly true that, for a variety of reasons which I need not elaborate but which will be in the mind of every noble Lord who is here, conditions are changing so that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the housewife to prepare a normal meal at home, as was the custom in years gone by. More and more, whether we like it or not, we are all dependent upon food that is prepared outside which we have to buy, or upon food which we have to consume outside.
486
In consequence, there are an increasing number of places where food is prepared or sold or consumed. Unfortunately, the general public of this country are most undiscriminating where questions of food are involved; they are probably less discriminating than any other people in the world. I sometimes feel that it is something which is psychological. It seems to be regarded as disgraceful to take too great an interest in the food we consume. Also, I think that the British public are very long suffering and patient when it conies to questions of food. I know that we are reputed to be a nation of grumblers, but certainly we do not grumble about the food we get in public places. I wish there were more grumbling, as the noble Viscount suggested: when foodis badly served or badly cooked, I wish people had the moral courage to say, "Take it away. I am not going to pay for it" But, in fact, people just meekly accept it; anal they not only pay for it but leave a tip as well, showing their gratitude.
From time to time, there have been outbreaks of food poisoning when considerable numbers of people have been affected, obviously as a result of something being added to the food. We are shocked for the moment, but the feeling soon passes. It reminds me very much of road accidents. I do not know whether the numbers of casualties which the consumers of food suffer are comparable with those caused by road accidents. There are some, of course, Who claim that the casualties from bad food are more than the casualties from road accidents. I am not in a position to say. But I am quite sure that the number of casualties from bad food is considerable and, while we seem to be becoming conscious of what is happening to us on the roads, we are not yet entirely conscious of the consequences of unclean or adulterated food. This Bill, and the speech which the noble Viscount has made, will, I hope, make the public rather more conscious because, as the noble Viscount very properly said, a good deal of the remedy is in the hands of the public themselves. This Bill constitutes a cautious, perhaps, but distinct step forward in the law for protecting the cleanliness, purity and wholesomeness of food sold in the shops.
The cleanliness of food is, of course, not a new problem. Apart from the

487
methods of preparation, we have always suffered from carelessness in handling food. Noble Lords will, no doubt, have their own experience of the way in which you buy bread or meat. If you are lucky, you get your bread wrapped up in an old newspaper. Sometimes I have known a shopkeeper say, "You must produce your own newspaper. We do not supply the newspaper." Quite often—I do not say that this is universal, but quite often—the bread is handled and supplied without any wrapping at all. So far as meat is concerned, it is a normal thing, apparently, to wrap up meat in old newspapers—certainly not in up-to-date ones. They seem to keep old newspapers expressly for the purpose of using them for the wrapping of meat. The same applies to other products, and the amount of manhandling by people who are not particular to wash their hands frequently must at times make for toxic conditions in the food. That sort of thing is very much in the hands of the public themselves. If the public refuse to put up with it, the shopkeepers will soon feel obliged to provide hygienic methods of handling their food.
The same applies to the exhibition of food. I was recently in Switzerland, and if any noble Lords happen to find themselves in Switzerland over the Recess I recommend them to look at a few butchers' shops and see the way in which the meat is handled there—I should not say "handled": it is wrapped up in the most hygienic condition. It is put in the windows in appetising form and it gives one the feeling, which I believe is fully justified, that the utmost care is taken over the cleanliness of the food which is sold. The same applies to the United States of America. I admit that many butchers' shops have improved considerably in the last few years, but there are still far too many in the old condition, where the meat is manhandled over and over again; customers are allowed to feel it and examine it, and eventually the poor buyer gets the result of the manhandling not only of the assistant but also of many other people.
Then we have the chemicals which are, applied to food. I agree with the noble Viscount that not all chemicals are bad. The trouble is to distinguish between those that are bad and those that are
488
not. It seems to me that there is a growing attack on the purity of our food by the addition of synthetic chemicals of all kinds, for all sorts of purposes. There is the extender which blows out food and makes it look bigger than it really is. There is the emulsifier, which is a substitute for fats, milk products and eggs. It is not misleading; it is not called "Eggo," it is called an emulsifier. But the object is to use chemicals, instead of the wholesome products which people expect. It is used mostly in baking, in ice-cream and in salad-dressing.
Then there are the bleachers. One of the chemicals used in bleaching is sulphur-dioxide. Last week we had a discussion on smog, on the amount of sulphur-dioxide one absorbs during a period of smog and the harm that it does. But, in fact, in addition to smog, we consume sulphur-dioxide frequently when we eat maraschino cherries, which are often bleached with that chemical to make them of the right colour. Then there is the flavouring agent, the sweetening agent, the preserving agent, the preservatives and all kinds of other chemicals which are used in the preparation of food. The action on the human body of any one of those chemicals is problematical, but you may get in food a combination of these chemicals, with the possibility of action, interaction, reaction and so on. I do not want to exaggerate the dangers but they do exist, and they are increasing. Therefore, I am glad that power is taken to deal with these various preservatives in a more stringent way than has been the case in the past.
There is one clause in the Bill, Clause 2 (I do not want to enlarge upon it at this moment, because we shall have an opportunity of discussing it on the Committee stage) which puts upon the purchaser or upon the authority taking proceedings the onus for proving that these additions to food are harmful. I admit that I am in some difficulty about this because it is the normal thing that if you accuse a person of committing an offence, the onus of proof is on you. Nevertheless, there are exceptions, and I should have thought that this was one of the exceptions which ought to be considered, because it is difficult for the ordinary layman to prove that certain things have been added which are injurious. I think that if a person adds a chemical to a food, the onus ought to

489
be on him to show that it is not injurious. I do not want to develop that point further at this stage. It is one of the points which might well be dealt with in Committee. I am glad that the Bill contains provision in regard to the cumulative effect of various additions to food. It is right that that should be so. It is possible to take a certain amount of chemical without its doing any harm, yet the cumulative effect may be serious.
I have but one or two criticisms of the Bill in form. I have no criticism at all of the intention of the Bill; as I have indicated, I think it is a very good Bill, and if it were implemented it would mark a great step forward in securing good and pure food for our people. But all these beneficent provisions are, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, permissive. I have no complaint about dealing with the matter by regulation. I might have had, because when noble Lords now sitting opposite were sitting here, they were constantly complaining about legislation by regulation. But I recognise that it is inevitable in a measure which is already sufficiently complicated, that, on the whole, the legislation should be by regulation. The whole Bill, however, is permissive, and we have little indication as to how and when the Government propose making these regulations, or what kind of regulations they are to be. If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go forward vigorously and energetically, and as speedily as may be, having regard, of course, to the fact that consultations have to take place; if the noble Viscount in replying says that, while the Bill says "may," in fact he is prepared to regard it as meaning "shall as soon as may be," then I shall be satisfied. But as the Bill stands, it is left in a vague and uncertain form, and all these excellent intentions may never be carried out.
Certainly, I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to deal with restaurants. In restaurants, canteens, and other public eating places, an increasing amount of food is consumed, and I find it a little difficult to know whether restaurants are intended to be included under this Bill. I understand that they are, but I should be glad to have an assurance. I wonder whether the Government would agree to
490
put in the Bill something which would make it clear beyond any doubt that it is their intention to cover restaurants.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Will it help if I say that that certainly is our intention, and we think it is covered? It is intended to be covered by Clause 6 (1) which says:
"The Ministers may make such regulations as appear to them to be expedient for securing the observance of sanitary and cleanly conditions and practices in connection with the sale of food for human consumption or the importation, preparation, transport, storage packaging, exposure for sale, service or delivery of food intended for sale.…
It is certainly our intention to cover restaurants, but if the noble Lord is not satisfied that the word "preparation" does cover it, we should welcome his suggestions on the Committee stage.
LORD SILKIN: I am glad to have the assurance. I am a little doubtful whether it covers restaurants, and I think the noble Viscount himself, as he read the clause, felt some doubt; but at any rate it is not necessary to leave the matter in doubt. While we are passing this Bill we can make quite sure, without a peradventure, that we are covering what we intend to cover.
Then the noble Viscount said (and I was very glad to hear it) that it is the intention of the Government to consolidate this Bill with he two earlier Acts of which this is an amendment. I hope that will be done very soon because to interpret this Bill in conjunction with the two principal Acts is an almost impossible task. Almost every one of the first dozen clauses provides for amending one or other of the principal Acts in one form or another. Then we have a whole Schedule of, I think, some five or six pages, which contains amendments to one of the principal Acts—almost every section of it. In the Second Schedule there are twenty-seven separate amendments to the principal Act. The Third Schedule repeals a large number of sections of the principal Acts. Hardly a section of one of the principal Acts remains unaffected by the combined operation of these three processes. If I may be greatly daring, I would suggest that it would be a great convenience if we could have, even for the Committee stage, a draft showing what the 1938 Act and the 1950 Act will look like with these amendments, or what this Bill would

491
look like when incorporated with the 1950 Act. I remember that when I was responsible for the Town and Country Planning Bill in 1947 we had the same problem, because we were making great amendments to the earlier planning Acts, and we did provide, for the convenience of Parliament, something of that kind. If the noble Viscount would be kind enough to examine that, he might find it a very useful precedent.
Some of these criticisms are perhaps inevitable at the moment. I am not prepared to ask the Government to re-cast this Bill and make it a different kind of Bill, one which is not legislation by reference. I suppose that, at some time or other, we have all complained about legislation by reference. I think this is perhaps the worst example of any I have come across. It is unintelligible to most people without most careful study, and unless they have the other two Acts in front of them. Yet I do not see a remedy except that of putting before us something of the kind which I have suggested. As for the other provisions of the Bill, those dealing with machinery and so on, they will, of course, have to be carefully examined in Committee. And I can promise the House that they will be so examined, but not with any unfriendly intent. We on this side of the House are as anxious as noble Lords on the other side to get the Bill passed at the earliest possible moment, and we shall facilitate its passage in every possible way.
5.24 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, it seems to me fitting that one of my profession should utter words of welcome to this Bill. Indeed, it is very gratifying to see that definite action is now being taken, or rather being proposed. At the same time, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount who has moved the Second Reading on the opportunity he has of seeing some of his ideals carried to fruition. I should further like to thank him for the ready way in which, when he was Minister of Food, he received suggestions from my profession—indeed, on some occasions from myself—and for the immediate way in which he responded to those which appealed to his judgment. Naturally the parts of this Bill that appeal to me are those designed to
492
deal with misleading labels and advertisements, those imposing requirements and those which are to regulate the additions of specified chemicals. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, dealing with the legal niceties of the measure, complained that it was unintelligible. To me the main purpose of the Bill seems perfectly intelligible, and I cannot see that it could be stated more clearly, except in regard to one point which also puzzled Lord Silkin. He could not find out whether the Bill referred to restaurants. Neither could I until the noble Viscount made his introductory speech, and then he quite readily included them. In trying to justify his inclusion of them, he quoted the first paragraphs of Clause 6 but omitted a word from which I derive some comfort. I thought the clause showed that restaurants would be included when it made reference to "service"—not to the preparation of but to the service of food.
LORD SILKIN: I take it that the noble Lord will not object to mention being made of restaurants.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: No. I was merely trying—very inadequately, no doubt—to help the noble Viscount. I think it would be an advantage if it were clearly stated in the Bill that it does apply to catering establishments. In Clause 6 there are references to the provision, maintenance and cleanliness of sanitary and washing facilities, apparatus, furnishings and utensils, but there is no reference to the personnel. I realise that it is extremely difficult to ensure that the workers will be cleanly, not only in themselves but in their clothing and so on, but it is a matter of first importance, and it has been treated as a matter of considerable importance in the Factory Acts. When I was a boy, I saw the conditions which prevailed in the Potteries. Lead-poisoning was quite common, and legislation was introduced requiring the pottery manufacturers to provide washing facilities, particularly for cleansing the mouth and teeth, but it was not by any means easy to get the workers to make use of those facilities. I can well imagine that that may be a very difficult thing to legislate for.
It has been suggested that the members of the public themselves can be a big controlling influence in imposing the adoption of cleanly methods by those who serve them with food. That is true.

493
But the public are not particularly well-informed on the requirements which this Bill, or regulations under it, will demand. Nor are they necessarily well educated in what is the correct way of handling food. In this connection, I should like to call the attention of the noble Viscount to the voluntary association with which I have the honour to be connected. The Order of St. John has, for some time, through the St. John Ambulance Association, been giving courses of instruction to the public. There are courses designed specially for those who handle food, and they are taught hygienic ways of dealing with it. I hope that when the time comes that this Bill passes into law and regulations are framed, every encouragement will be given to this voluntary association to continue and extend their courses of instruction so that the public shall be fully informed upon these matters.
5.30 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, because I believe that it will prove, with some Amendments, a very valuable safeguard of the national health. There are some Amendments—small ones—which must inevitably be made. There is no doubt that, on the whole, this Bill is a considerable advance on the present legislation, which came into existence in 1938. I should like to quote the opinion of a highly competent and well-informed correspondent of mine regarding the Bill. He states:
"The Bill is potentially designed to meet the practical difficulties which have arisen in the operation of the Food and Drugs Act, l938, and in this, by and large, it appears to have succeeded. The Bill does include very many of the suggestions which have been made by the Society of Medical Officers of Health from time to time to the Ministry of Food. The Bill also includes extensions to the powers by which the Ministries of Health and Food may by regulation invest food and drug authorities."
After carefully examining this Bill which, from the medical point of view, largely deals with public health, I feel it is essential to have an extension of the number of regulations. I hope the noble Viscount will not think he can do everything in the actual wording of the Bill I think more regulations, not fewer, will be required, and their purpose should be to make abundantly clear to those wino are to carry out the work of inspection and to keep clean places where food is
494
sold or dealt with, what they have to do. It is necessary to have the regulations written out in plain English so that they can be clearly understood.
The main purpose of the Bill is to bring legislation up to date. There have been changes in social habits since 1938. There have been great changes in the way food is prepared, in the kind of food we are consuming, and in the incomes of the people. A large number of people have more money than they used to have and many more people eat out in restaurants—not all of them, by any means, luxury restaurants. In this connection, it is important to take cognisance of the various provisions laid down in Clause 6. This clause replaces Section 13 of the 1938 Act, under which local authorities did most of the work connected with the hygiene of premises where food was sold or stored, or prepared for sale. The old Section 13 was in rather general terms and there were widely differing applications due to the many interpretations of those terms. Clause 6 of the present Bill empowers the Ministers to make regulations going into much greater detail as to the standards of the premises, or parts of premises, in which apparatus andutensils are cleaned. The provision, maintenance and cleanliness of sanitary and washing facilities, and all apparatus, furnishing and utensils, will also be the subject of regulations. I think it will be necessary to have more regulations because the habits of the people demand apparatus on a much larger scale for dealing with the complicated way in which people of all classes live.
There is one point with which I am not sure we can deal by regulations, although we may make them. In food shops and in all places that deal with the distribution of food, it is necessary to have a higher standard of personal cleanliness among those who handle the foodstuffs. I believe that can come only from health education and training. I do not know if the noble Viscount will be able to say whether it will be possible to take any steps to promote such education. At the present time, there may be people in well-equipped shops handling very good food whose own cleanliness may not be as great as it ought to be.
This Bill is welcomed by the health authorities and by the Society of Medical Officers of Health which represents the

495
men who have most to do with the administration of the regulations concerning public hygiene and health. I hope the Bill will be given a Second Reading and that it will pass in another place as a useful piece of legislation affecting health and the prevention of disease. The Bill also deals with drugs, but to a much smaller extent than with the hygienic handling of food. I think we can have a very useful Committee stage on this Bill, when a number of matters can be gone into in detail. I hope that the noble Viscount will be open to suggestions which may be made from all quarters of the House, because this cannot be described as a political measure. It is chiefly an administrative measure, one in which we can all agree to co-operate, because it will be for the general good that this should be the best Bill possible when it becomes an Act.
5.38 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, last week's Punch asks whether we prefer lovely food and filthy kitchens or awful food and spotless kitchens. This Bill is the answer of Her Majesty's Government to that conundrum. In the last few days I have received a good many letters from trade associations about this Bill. On making inquiries, I find that the Bill became available to the public only on the thirteenth of this month. I would humbly ask the Government whether they would give a little time before the Committee stage is taken in order that the various trade associations who are bound to consider this Bill rather carefully have sufficient time to digest it. I am sure that would save time in the long run.
The Bill imposes wide duties and gives enormous powers to the Ministers. I might almost say, from the speeches we have already heard, that the Ministers have pretty well carte blanche to deal with this question. It might be worth while to go into the facts of the problem we have to deal with so far as they are disclosed in Government reports. In the course of a year the Caterers' Association, which has written to me, tell me they sell some 10,000 million meals to the public. In the report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, for the twenty-one months from April 1, 1950, to December 31, 1951, it is shown that there were 255 outbreaks of food poisoning which were traceable. Of those,
496
41 occurred in hotels, restaurants and cafes, and 31 in works canteens. The other day the Minister gave the figures for the first nine-and-a-half months of this year. Out of 700 traceable outbreaks, 27 occurred in hotels, restaurants and cafes and 17 in works canteens. I think that goes some way to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the extent of cases of traceable food poisoning. When I read the Bill, I asked myself whether we were not making an enormous machine to deal with a comparatively small affair.
Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive deal with the power of the Minister to make regulations, and the trade associations, while they welcome the Bill on the whole, express some fear as to the extent to which the Minister will exercise his power. Clause 3, and the provisions as to the composition of food, might well put birds nest soup or Chinese eggs off the menu. Clause 5 contains regulations about the description of food. I feel that that is a good thing; but I see that my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson is here, and I am certain he will agree with me that a description of food, like "Guinness is good for you," itself is sauce for the Guinness and helps the Guinness to be good for you. Clause 5 (3) might possibly be carried too far. Some of the people who have written to me suggest that the provisions as to food hygiene contained in Clause 6 (2) (f) might extend to forbid alfresco meals and picnics, or, at least, might prevent the serving of meat at such meals. I am sure the Minister will not make regulations of that sort, but, at the same time, I feel it would be a good thing if some word of encouragement or comfort were given to these people. Then they say that under Clause 4 the Minister is empowered to call for the recipe of any dish that appears on any menu. That might be carrying the matter too far. What I have said is not hostile to the Bill, but it does show how wide are the powers conferred by it, and I believe the public would like some information as to the extent to which it is proposed to use these powers.
There is one point which I am bound to say causes me a little concern—namely, the question of the double Ministry. I expect the reason for two Ministers being concerned in this Bill, whereas in the original Act there was

497
only one, is that we still have the Ministry of Food, which everybody hopes will disappear. The difficulty, however, seems to me to be that, if any member of the public is aggrieved and tries to get to the Minister, the highest effective person he will be able to get to, under the system which appears to be intended by the Bill, will be that officer whose duty it is to co-ordinate the work of the two Ministers—unless he were to procure an interview with the two Ministers at one time. It seems to me that some information about that point would be helpful.
Some people are rather troubled that under the original Act the consent of the Minister had to be obtained to any prosecution that was undertaken, whereas in this Bill that provision is apparently waived. I should like to know whether the Government consider that provision unnecessary, or whether they would consider including it in the present Bill. Those are the points I have been asked to put forward. The only one about which I am particularly concerned is that the Committee stage should not be taken too quickly. The people who will be concerned with this Bill, when it becomes an Act, are numerous, and they ought to have a chance of letting your Lordships know what are their considered views of this measure.
5.45 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I should like to join with noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, on introducing this Bill, which aims to put on our tables better food that is, food the character of which has not been altered in any way that is injurious to health by the addition of inorganic substances or by processing. As one who has had the advantage of speaking from time to time to your Lordships on such matters, I would pay a sincere tribute to the noble Viscount for the sympathetic way he has always listened to any suggestion that has been put forward at different times in your Lordships' House touching these matters. In these days, when circumstances call upon us all to be ever more active, both mentally and physically, since without this we cannot survive as a nation, the importance of our getting the right food cannot be over-emphasised.
498
As noble Lords have stated, in the immediate past there has been an increasing tendency to add to food various substances which appear to achieve an immediate advantage in handling or keeping, without considering the long-term influence of such substances on the national health. As your Lordships will remember, that eminent medical authority, Sir Edward Mellanby, one-time Secretary of the Medical Research Council, has for years been pointing out tie dangers that may arise from food manipulation. The conclusions reached by the Medical Research Council, when he was Secretary, as to the effects of agenised bread were immediately taken note of by the Government of the United States of America, which excluded the use of agene as an improver. How different was tie view of His Majesty's Government of that day! Not long ago, in 1951, I think, Sir Edward Mellanby stated:
"The present apparent official complacency to the ingestion of agenised flour in this country is disturbing not only in itself but because it indicates a reluctance to consider seriously the wider problem of chemical manipulation of food and its relation to health aid disease. The chemical manipulation of food may well be the basis of some of these errors in living that are undoubtedly developing at the present time, and the problem requires investigation."
The noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, by the introduction of this Bill, has shown how different is the view of Her Majesty's Government in regard to these problems, than was the case several years ago. In the Bill, the words "rendered injurious to health" appear a number of times. Surely a definition is required of these words. An application to the Ministry of Food leads one to the assumption that the various local authorities will have to apply their own interpretations, since it is they, presumably, who will have to enforce the Bill when it becomes an Act. Surely, it would be better for a specific definition to be incorporated in the Bill to avoid the wide divergence of practice that is otherwise bound to arise. With regard to the question of labelling, of which a good deal is said in the Bill, there is immense room for improvement here. For instance, "full fruit standard" jam bears no relation at all to the product that "mother used to make," which was a product of fruit and sugar, since it often contains only 20 per cent. of fruit, and that preserved with benzoic acid or

499
sulphur dioxide, and not less than 68 per cent. of soluble solids, presumably sugar, pectin and various synthetic colours and flavours. Such a title, therefore, as "full fruit standard" is entirely misleading, and I hope that in these new circumstances before us it will be abolished.
May I take another example, that delightful product which we sometimes get, meringue, which is, or rather should be, entirely a white of egg and sugar product. To-day, as was recently pointed out by the City analyst of Birmingham, it is no such thing at all; it is, instead, a vulgar, synthetic impostor, made of a mixture of methyl cellulose, an artificial product made from cotton which has a superficial resemblance to white of egg but no food value, to which has been added an allied substance, ethyl methyl cellulose, together with potato starch just to round it off. Strange to say, this vulgar fantasy was approved by the Ministry of Food. I suggest that the Bill does not give the Ministers sufficient power to prohibit the use of substances or processes which may have a deleterious effect on health. I suggest, therefore, that when we come to the Committee stage Clauses 2 and4 require considerable modification, so as to remove the possibility of manufacturers, or packers, of food products or substances added thereto, from sheltering behind any bad habits of the past—as, for example, the fact that such substances were commonly used in the preparation of food before January 1, 1940.
Clause 10 (1) (b) of the Bill refers to
"…prohibiting the sale for human consumption of milk obtained from cows milked in any market or other place…"
As I understand it, the inclusion of the words "other place" would surely prohibit such admirable ventures as the milking of cows in the recent Festival of Britain agricultural section. At a time when the Milk Marketing Board are to have their freedom of action restored, it is surely ludicrous that their hands should be tied so as to prevent their carrying out such an excellent piece of propaganda.
As I said before, when we discuss food in your Lordships' House we always think of the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, to whom we all owe so deep a debt of gratitude for the remarkable work he did during the war as Food Minister, and I congratulate him in
500
sponsoring this Bill. I have every confidence that the noble Viscount will give the most sympathetic consideration to the questions that your Lordships and I have submitted, since no one recognises better that the health of our nation cannot receive too much thought. As your Lordships are aware, in certain aspects it gives rise to justifiable anxiety. It has been said by some eminent biologists and medical men that the main reason for poor health in our country is the number of toxic elements in our food. The most important question of all—which, rather surprisingly, is not specifically mentioned in the Bill—is the health of the children, and to this matter more attention should be given.
In conclusion, there is a startling increase in the degenerative diseases, and these degenerative diseases should be carefully considered, particularly when they are noticed in the forty-five to fifty age group. For instance, the incidence of killing cancer in men has increased by 56 per cent.; of strokes in men by 45 per cent.; of strokes in women, by 27 per cent.; of angina and thrombosis in men, by 175 per cent.; of angina and thrombosis in women, by 80 per cent.; of high blood pressure in men, by 195 per cent., and of high blood pressure in women, by 550 per cent. All these significant figures are based on the datum line of the 1940–1950 average figures. These figures have been compiled by Doctor Bicknell, Chairman of the Food Education Society, of which my noble friend Lord Horder is President. I submit that they emphasise how vitally important it is that the food on our tables should be the natural product, free from the adding and extracting ministrations of the food chemists, and treated with great discretion by the refrigeration and processing technicians.
5.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I feel bound to intervene for two minutes, having devoted a good part of my life to this subject of food production and the purity and non-sophistication of natural foods. I should like warmly to endorse what my noble and ever-active friend Lord Sempill has said on two subjects. First, I rejoice to find that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, has charge of this Bill, because I think we must all be agreed that we have never

501
had a more efficient Minister of Food than he proved to be during the war, or one in whom the general public had greater confidence. On the other subject, which I quite expected my noble friend Lord Sempill to mention—what he called the agenisation of bread—I can only venture to hope, as there is obviously much difference of opinion won the justification of this particular ingredient or mode of so-called "improvement" of bread, that this matter is still being persistently explored by experts, with a view to our having a greater confidence in its use or the possibility of its disappearance altogether in days to come.
I wish to refer to this question of street barrows. I view with horror the exposure on street barrows of certain foods which are particularly susceptible to infection—I refer particularly to fruit, including apples. I happen to be a large grower of apples, and I think fruit growers generally take great care as to the quality and cleanliness of the fruit which they put upon the market. I have seen apples being sold in the streets of London without any protection. Bear in mind that they are particularly susceptible to ferments and enzymes which rapidly make use of any germs that there may be in the streets. I have seen people, obviously suffering from influenza, or from some other pulmonary trouble, coughing over apple stalls in the streets. Those apples are without any sort of covering, often owing to their attractiveness. Incidentally, apples sell more readily for their appearance than their flavour. However that may be, many of those apples, duly impregnated with germs, find their way into the bodies of many human beings—with what morbid results I dread to think.
There is another matter about which I wish to speak—one which has exercised the county medical officers of health in this country for many years, and is still exercising the Medical Officer of Health in my own county: I refer to the question of the non-adulteration of milk. I know perfectly well—and the noble Viscount will tell me so presently—that milk is in most respects excluded from the provisions of this Bill, having already been dealt with in the 1950 Act. What I object to is the fact that there still remains, if I remember aright, and if I am not misinformed, what was called the "appeal to
502
the cow" as to whether milk has, or has not, been watered. I have never yet met a medical officer of health who has not protested against that provision, which I believe occurs in the Food and Drugs Act of several years ago, as being unfair to the public. After all, let us make no bones about it, milk can be diluted through the body of the cow. I do not think anyone has ever refuted that suggestion. I am going to be perfectly plain; perhaps the most popular breed in this country is the British Friesian breed. There is no breed that has improved itself so much as the British Friesian. In old days, it gave what we farmers used to call "blue milk"; and often that milk fell below the statutory limit of 3 per cent. butter fat. The answer, when that happened, was always: "Well, the appeal is to the cow"; and if it could be shown that the cow did, in fact, yield milk of less than 3 per cent. butter fat, there was no misdemeanour on the part of the producer. I think the time has come—if not in this Bill, at any rate in that consolidating measure to which Lord Woolton has referred—that we should once for all get rid of that "appeal to the cow" as being unfair to the consuming public, and particularly unfair to those of us who do cur best to produce high quality milk.
There is one small matter which I should like to mention. Dispensing chemists and druggists are rather apt, when they receive a doctor's prescription, to paste a label on the container over the name of the drug. A great many of these proprietary drugs, of considerable value, are being dispensed for the public at the present time; and that chemist's label covers up not merely the name of the drug but also, what is so important, the formula of its composition. I should like to see it made illegal to put those labels over the name of the drug. One other point is this. Clause 5 (2) of the Bill says:
"It is hereby declared that for the purposes of the said section six, a label or advertisement which is calculated to mislead as to the nutritional or dietary value of any food is calculated to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of the food."
That provision will be extremely difficult to enforce. I do not see for the life of me how any regulation that is drafted is likely to be brought into actual effect.
I want to mention, in connection with that, an interesting parallel. Forty years

503
ago exactly, when I was in another place, I got set up a Select Committee (on which I served), on patent and proprietary medicines. What we found, amongst other things to which I strongly objected, was that certain journals—and the newspaper people, including the British Medical Journal, were at fault—allowed advertisements to be inserted actually "booming" remedies for incurable complaints. One result of that, of course, was that the law has been strengthened in that respect. I venture to mention that case only because the amount of advertisement that one sees to-day, "booming" various foods and synthetic preparations as likely to enhance health, or, shall I say, to improve general being, is enormous. Such advertisements are very prevalent; and many poor ignorant people, of the type to which my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson has referred—and, indeed, the general public as a whole—are grossly ignorant about these matters: far more so than people in many of the new countries, particularly New Zealand, where in most of the schools the young people are trained to these matters. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for butting into this debate, but these are important matters with which I have had a great deal to do over many years.
6.7 p.m.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I will not detain you for many moments but I should like to support this Bill. If I may have the impertinence to use almost the same words as the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, used in his introductory remarks, I should like to call it a "Clean Food Bill." I hope the public at large will get to know this Bill fully. I look upon this as a very important matter, but as many noble Lords who have spoken before me have covered most of the points which I was going to talk about, I will say only that I look upon this Bill from the point of view of how the local authorities are going to administer it. I consulted the public health officials of a local authority as to what view they take of it. I found they looked upon it with considerable favor. I am informed that they had difficulty under the existing regulations in exercising their powers; they found these powers somewhat awkward and cumbersome at times. Under
504
the proposals of this Bill, however, local authorities will be enabled to exercise these powers much more simply and quickly. I am very glad to hear this, because most local authorities in this country are only too keen to see that all food establishments, however large or small, in whatever category, are properly run and that the food reaches the public as it should do. With these few words I should like to welcome this Bill very much and to support its Second Reading.
6.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount a question on a matter which is of great and of increasing importance to the agricultural industry of this country. The noble Viscount will be aware from his knowledge of the work of both the Food Ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture, from the time when he was their overlord and from knowledge derived from those days during, the war when he prodded me very successfully into increasing the output of milk, that we are now almost within sight of a glut of milk in this country, involving consequent considerable trouble for Lord Carrington's boss, the Minister of Agriculture. I have just returned from a brief visit to the United States, where their problem is very much the same; but they have extended very largely the markets for milk and its byproducts, and have thereby prevented a drop in the average consumption of milk per head of the population. I venture to think that something similar will have to be done in this country.
Undoubtedly, one of the valuable food products of milk is cream. The making and selling of cream, free from control, has only recently been permitted, but its further use is at present definitely circumscribed by the manufacturers of ice-cream. These manufacturers, as no doubt all your Lordships will remember, were hampered during the war by the absence of milk and milk products, and with considerable skill and ingenuity they devised alternative methods of making what goes by the name of ice-cream. The natural cream content of that ice-cream is negligible, if, indeed, there is any at all. I should like to know particularly whether the noble Viscount thinks that Clause 5 (2) will enable him to take steps, and whether if it does so enable him he will take steps, to prevent the use of the word

505
"cream" to cover anything except the natural product of the cow.
I do not disguise from your Lordships that it is going to be no easy task. He is going to be up against extremely strong vested interests. There is one very large combine that makes a particular type of ice-cream, and there is another combine, almost equally powerful, that makes ice-cream under another trade name. In the United States there is a legal prohibition against selling anything under the name of "cream" unless it is made practically exclusively from the product of the cow. That, I venture to think, is a matter of supreme importance to the future of the agricultural industry. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, quoted the case of a methyl cellulose, which is used to produce an imitation of the white of eggs in meringue; but I am told on good authority that it is also used in imitation cream in the cream bun and the cream puff which is sold in some of the cheaper restaurants throughout the country. As the noble Lord said, this cream puff, so far as it contains methyl cellulose, contains no nutriment whatever. Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he thinks that this clause will enable him to bring in a prohibition of that kind, and furthermore whether, when he does get this Bill through—and I hope it will pass fairly soon—he will give the matter his earnest consideration, in spite of the vested interests that I know he is going to find himself up against.
6.13 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down enables me to put my question definitely. He has been talking about food that is not food and yet comes within the ambit of the Ministry of Food, so far as regulations are concerned. The question I wanted to put was whether this Bill will apply not only to restaurants, as we have been assured, but to bars and public-houses where drink is sold, because I am quite sure that a good deal of cleaning up could be done in respect of the supply of a commodity which comes within the charge of the Ministry of Food but which, in my judgment, is not food. The noble Viscount who is just about to reply will remember that, when he was wrestling with these problems at the Ministry of
506
Food during the war, drink came within his jurisdiction, to some extent. I inquire whether the sale and service of this commodity, which I hesitate to say has any food value—it is almost a complete fiction to talk about drink as having a food value; yet it comes within the charge of the Ministry of Food—also conies within the terms of this Bill.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, perhaps I had better set the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, at rest straightaway on the subject of drink. The Bill does apply to all drink, except water, and you will notice that in Clause 28 the definition for the purposes of the Bill is clearly given. I am sure it will give the noble Lord much satisfaction to know that. My noble friend Lord Hudson has put a question to me and he will not be surprised when I say that I should like to give a provisional answer and not to commit my right honourable friend the Minister of Food. But my reading of the Bill was quite definite. I should have said that Clause 5, subsection (2) and subsection (5), made it quite clear that cream that was used for food was included. The noble Viscount was altogether too wide in his generalisations when he talked about creams, because all cream is not food. For instance, cold cream is not generally regarded as a food for human consumption.
I am most grateful to noble Lords for the reception that has been given to this Bill. This House is ever mindful of food problems. Sometimes in debate we are just a little imaginative, I think, of the dangers that might occur to us. I am sure the noble Lott, Lord Sempill, is going to make a speech on the subject of agene on the relative clause in the Bill; in fact, when I read the Bill for the first time, his name immediately came to my mind. Since he to-night quoted a previous head of the Medical Research Council, I shall endeavour on that occasion to fortify myself with the latest report of the scientific work that has been done on that subject by the Medical Research Council. I can assure the noble Lord, from my certain knowledge, that investigations have been going on all the time, and when I was Lord President of the Council I had a report on the subject from them. Perhaps he will therefore not expect me now to go any further into that question. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe, whom

507
we are always glad to see and to hear, speaks from very long experience. He asks me whether Clause 5 (2) can be made effective so far as it concerns chemists' labels. Well, I think it can. I can see no reason why it should not. In regard to the point that he has raised about chemists covering up with their own label the trade label giving the contents of the bottle, I think that will be prohibited under this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, rather took me aback because I was not clear for whom he was speaking. He said that some people, I gather trade associations, have not been given sufficient time. They ought, of course, to make their representations to the Minister. I am sure that my right honourable friend Major Lloyd George would be glad to receive their representations and then, subsequently, to instruct me when we come to the Committee stage of this Bill. But the noble Lord asked me one peculiar question. He said, if I am quoting him correctly (I hope I am), that the public want to know whether we intend to use these powers, But certainly. What hypocrisy it would be for us to come to your Lordships' House, making protestations about the necessity for regulations, if we did not intend to use them! I was just a little surprised that the question should be put to us. I am assured by those who are in charge of the matter that before we go on to the Committee stage, there will be plenty of time for any trade which feels itself affected by these proposals (there are indeed many) to give full consideration to the Bill. The noble Lord asked me why two Ministers were involved in this Bill. Well, this is a sort of "belt and braces" precaution. We know now that we have two Ministers. We do not know whether in the future there will be both a Minister of Health and a Minister of Food, because my right honourable friend Major Lloyd George is reputed to be rapidly organising himself out of a job. When that happens (if it does happen) there will still be a Minister of Health, but only one Minister will be involved.
LORD SALTOUN: May I for one second interrupt the noble Viscount? Of course I realise that these powers will be used. I was trying to point out that some of the trade associations feel that the powers are extremely wide, and, though
508
they have no cause to think that they will be used to excess, they feel alarm at the very wide extent of the powers granted.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I amobliged to the noble Lord. I was much impressed by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, on the importance of the encouragement of voluntary instruction. He referred, with commendation, to the work of the Order of St. John. Of course in the end, as I tried to indicate at the beginning, we shall depend very largely upon the interest of the public in this matter, and upon their determination to have the clean food which is their right. But I am sure that if we can get public opinion active in this matter—active because it is informed—we shall much more quickly arrive at the position which we want.
The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, was consoling to me because, as Lord Silkin has remarked, when we sat on those Benches opposite we made certain observations about the number of regulations which the Government of the day had found it necessary to bring in. I was much comforted by the fact that he was suggesting that here we were doing the right thing—I hope he will convince the rest of his colleagues on that side when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. But the thing that impressed me most was that he asked that the regulations should be in plain English, and easily understood, not only by those who were to apply them but also by those to whom they were to apply. I will transmit that piece of wisdom to the Minister of Food, who I am sure will welcome it. I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that he hoped the Bill would be regarded as open to any part of the House. I am quite certain that this is not at all a matter for Party politics, and any improvements in the Bill that noble Lords opposite suggest will certainly not be regarded by us as anti-Government suggestions. We want the best Bill that we can get. Of course, Lord Silkin was right in saying that the Bill was difficult to understand because of its constant references back. I can assure him that at a very early stage—that remark is purposely left vague—the consolidating Bill will be available to enable us to follow more clearly the intentions of this Bill.
LORD SILKIN: May I just get this clear? Is it intended to produce the consolidating Bill during the progress of this Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): Perhaps I may answer that. As the noble Lord knows, I happen to be Chairman of the Consolidation Committee, which will be meeting next Friday. I shall certainly call the attention of that Committee to what the noble Lord has said. As I have said on a previous occasion, there is a long queue of Statutes awaiting consolidation. There is only a limited, though very skilled, staff to deal with them, but I will certainly bring to the notice of my Committee what the noble Lord has said
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord now realises the reason why my reply to him in regard to this matter was somewhat "cagey."
My Lords, I do not think there is anything else that I need say. I am grateful to the House for the way in which this Bill has been treated. I am sure it is a matter of profound public interest. I hope that anyone in your Lordships'
510
House who has any influence with the trade associations will urge upon them the importance of welcoming the Bill. This is good practice. If I may be allowed to say so, it is good business practice. I would add that I am sure that it is good hygiene and also good salesmanship, and that trade associations, who after all are the servants of the public, as well as of their individual members, will realise the immense value to the health of the nation which this Bill may have when it becomes an Act. Consequently, I hope that they will give it their fullest possible support.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
6.30 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: the Amendments made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before seven o'clock.