Lords Sitting of 27 October 1953

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

  THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS
  2.36 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I have to read to your Lordships' House a letter which I have received from Sir Robert Overbury, dated the 1st October, 1953. It is in these terms:
  "DEAR LORD CHANCELLOR,
  "It is with very great regret that in accordance with precedent I ask your Lordship to announce to the House that I have tendered my resignation to the Prime Minister.
  "I served under successive Lord Chancellors since I was appointed to a clerkship in the Supreme Court in 1910, and I have held a post at the Table of the House for nineteen years, for the last four of which I have had the privilege and honour of holding the office of Clerk of the Parliaments.
  "I would ask you to be good enough to express to their Lordships my very deep appreciation of the kindness and consideration which I have invariably received from all quarters of the House during the time I have served the House.
  "Your sincerely.
  ROBERT OVERBURY:"
  My Lords, I beg to move that the letter be taken into consideration forthwith.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, it will be a matter of regret in all parts of the House that my noble friend Lord Salisbury should have been prevented by a minor indisposition from moving the Resolution which I have the honour to submit to you to-day—namely,"That this House has received with sincere concern the news of the retirement of Sir Robert Leslie Overbury, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments, and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence

  1369
  and integrity with which the said Sir Robert Leslie Overbury has executed the important duties of his office during his tenure thereof." The noble Marquess the Leader of the House asked me to express his deep regret at his absence. He says that he, like the House, owes much to Sir Robert's experience and wise counsel, and that he would have liked to have the opportunity of expressing his thanks this afternoon and of wishing him well for the future.
  The extent of Sir Robert's services must be entered in the Records of the Proceedings of this House. He entered the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1910, and served under successive Lord Chancellors in the Crown Office, as Secretary of Commissions of the Peace and as Chief Clerk. He was appointed Reading Clerk at the Table of the House in June, 1934, and promoted to Clerk Assistant in June, 1937, and he has been Clerk of the Parliaments since May, 1949. As he reads the Records of your Lordships proceedings to-day, we should like him to know how wide has been cur appreciation of the services that he has rendered tous. After almost twenty years' service at this Table, his knowledge of what is right and what is possible according to the practices of this House, has always been at the disposal of Members. That was his duty; but he has fulfilled it with so much patience and such obvious desire to help that he has placed all of us in his debt. I am sure that the noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite will join with my colleagues on this Bench in expressing our gratitude to Sir Robert for the way in which he has so unobtrusively guided us around dangerous corners.
  In paying tribute to the faithful services that Sir Robert has rendered to this House, I should like him to know that he has not only served us well, but that he has endeared himself both to your Lordships and to the staff of the House. We very greatly regret that the accident of some motorist should have injured him and prevented his attendance at the House since we resumed after the Recess. He retires from our service before the age prescribed in his Patent, and by so doing gives to other servants of the House the opportunity for advancement. This action is characteristic of the man who has earned the affection and the respect
  1370
  of all the servants of the House. We trust that he will speedily and completely recover from his injury, and that for many years he will enjoy, in good health, the retirement which he has earned. My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution.
  Moved, to resolve, That this House has received with sincere concern the news of the retirement of Sir Robert Leslie Overbury, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments, and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence and integrity with which the said Sir Robert Leslie Overbury has executed the important duties of his office during his tenure thereof.—(Viscount Woolton.)
  2.43 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, on an occasion such as this there is no distinction between the Government and the Opposition: we speak and we act as a House, and I should like to express my entire concurrence with the observations which the noble Viscount has just made. Sir Robert Overbury was called upon to succeed a very remarkable man, the late Sir Henry Badeley, who afterwards became Lord Badeley, and who in both capacities was known as "Jack Badeley." One might have thought it was impossible to achieve success after Jack Badeley, but Sir Robert succeeded. He succeeded because he was wise enough not to try to copy his predecessor. By quiet, unassuming efficiency and care he endeared himself, as the noble Viscount has said, to the whole House. He took just as much pains in giving advice to the most humble Back Bencher (if, indeed, there are humble Back Benchers) on the Opposition side as he did to a prominent Member on the Government side. It always seemed to me that he had no ambition save this: that he would give of his very best to the service of this House—and that he certainly did.
  This House has been extraordinarily fortunate in the servants it has had. They have commanded the respect and esteem of Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I commit the irregularity of saying this afternoon that I anticipate that we shall be equally fortunate in the future. At the same time, it is a wrench to part with the services of Sir Robert Overbury. I am.

  1371
  sure that I express the wish of all your Lordships in saying that we wish him well in his retirement. I hope that from time to time we may see him here again, for of this I feel sure: if we grew to love the man, the man grew to love this House. Perhaps that was part of the secret of his success and of the hold which he had over us. I wish him every possible good wish in his retirement, and a speedy recovery from the unfortunate accident which for a time has laid him low.
  2.44 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, may I, as an unofficial Member of the House, be allowed to join with the two Front Benches in support of this Resolution? It is the unofficial Members of the House who feel especially grateful to Sir Robert Overbury for all the help and guidance which he invariably gave them. In nothing is the difference between the House of Commons and your Lordships' House more obvious than in the part which is played by what might be called the Table. I rather fancy that in this House the Lord Chancellor has no control over the Officers at the Table, though they work together very well. We ourselves govern our proceedings by our own notions of what is right and decent, and not infrequently we require to know whether some step which we thought of taking would be in accordance with the traditions of the House. These traditions are in a very special sense the concern of the Clerk of the Parliaments, and Sir Robert Overbury has always been available and ready to help in advising us, not only in what to do but also in the more difficult question of how to do it. I personally have the greatest gratitude to him for such help on many occasions. Without saying more, I join most warmly in the feelings of admiration, I think I may say and of affection, which we feel for Sir Robert. He is now giving way for a comrade to take his place, and I have no doubt that the traditions he has done so much to maintain and preserve will be safely entrusted to his successor in the seat of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
  LORD REA: My Lords, one of the more melancholy aspects of your Lordships' House is that when a familiar face
  1372
  disappears from our midst it is more often than not the sad fact that contact will be re-established only in an even more august assembly than this—and then in strict order of rotation. Happily, today it is on a much less serious level that we bid a regretful farewell to the holder—but only as the holder—of an ancient and honourable office, who has worthily maintained the high tradition of his predecessors and to whom we all wish the enjoyment of a long and happy retirement.
  Speaking not only for noble Lords in this quarter of the House, and for my noble Leader, Lord Samuel (who much regrets that he cannot be here), but also for those of your Lordships who, like myself, underwent their baptism of fire from the rest of your Lordships under the paternal eye of Sir Robert Overbury as Clerk of the Parliaments, I should like to pay tribute to his consistent helpfulness, to his logic and his learning and to his willingness at all times to give sympathetic hearing and kindly counsel. If I may, I should like to quote, by way of analogy, two or three lines from the Canterbury Tales:
  "A Clerk there was (of Oxenford also)
  That into Logic hadde, long ago;
  For he would liefer have at his bed's head
  Twenty booker—clad in black and red.
  Tending to moral vertu was his speech
  And gladly would he learn, and gladly teach."
  I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion before your Lordships' House.
  2.50 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY: My Lords, it is my privilege to speak on behalf of the Archbishops and Bishops in support of the Motion that has been so ably proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton. It has been my lot on various occasions to introduce Bishops into this House, and I have always been frightened at the intricate ceremonial involved; but on every occasion I have received patience, courtesy and kindness from Sir Robert Overbury. I had the opportunity of seeing the Archbishop of Canterbury this morning, and he wished me specially to say that he was sorry he could not be here this afternoon. On behalf of their Graces and the Bishops I would associate myself with all that has been said.
  2.52 p.m.
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, in rising to support the Motion that is before the House I can, of course, speak only for myself, but I believe I voice the opinion and feelings of many noble Lords on the Back Benches in this House in saying how much we appreciate all the work that Sir Robert has done while he occupied the important position that he held. Having been a Member of this House for a great number of years, I can recollect Clerks of the Parliaments from before the time when Sir Robert joined in the activities of the Lord Chancellor's office in 1910, so that I have had an opportunity of experiencing the work of Clerks of the Parliaments from before that date to the present time. I do not think, however, that any assurance is needed from me that the happy relations which traditionally have existed between the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Members of your Lordships' House have been not only maintained, but enhanced, by Sir Robert during his tenure of office. I cannot find words to express all that has so adequately been said by others before me as to our appreciation of his ability, kindness and knowledge. I have myself experienced his very wise advice, and at times, when I am sure it was necessary, his correction. On all the many occasions when Sir Robert was approached by Members on the Back Benches he evinced that courtesy, knowledge and wisdom which we all value, and which we have all come to recognise as part and parcel of the man himself. On my own behalf and, I venture to think, on behalf of many Back Benchers in this House, I should like to join in the tributes of praise and thankfulness to Sir Robert for his work during his tenure of office.
  LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, I trust that I may be forgiven if for a few minutes I protract this debate. My excuse must be that my knowledge of, and my working with, Sir Robert Overbury extends to a far longer period than that of any other Member of this House: it began, indeed, thirty-eight years ago. For the greater part of those thirty-eight years I have watched over his progress, from the time when I first came into contact with him, with sympathy, with pleasure and with friendship.
  I first met Sir Robert when he was serving in the offices of the Courts in the
  1374
  Strand, and I was at once struck with his ability, his extraordinary balance of mind, and his capacity to state a case for others, both tenaciously, doing full justice to the case, and also with great respect to his opponent. He came thence to the Lord Chancellor's office, and served as my colleague through the years which the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, has already mentioned—it is now so long ago that I cannot remember the dates. He came thence to the Table, and thence to the supreme place of the Clerkship of the Parliaments. During all that time he applied himself to the duties of his office without any ambition, without ever striving for promotion, solely with the object of doing the work which lay at his hand and doing it as thoroughly as it could be done, and with complete courtesy to those with whom he came into contact.
  It is sometimes thought that this House is misrepresented to the world at large as a place of wealth and privilege. Sir Robert Overbury came with no wealth and with no privilege; and solely on merit he stepped from place to place, until, I believe with the universal acclaim of the House, and certainly with the universal acclaim of all those with whom he worked, he reached the post which we all wished him to attain—namely, the Clerkship of the Parliaments. I most deeply regret his retirement; I most deeply regret the unhappy circumstances which now afflict him. I venture to associate myself, so far as I have the right to do so, with what has already been said in his praise by noble Lords far more competent to address this House than I am.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, the years pass so swiftly that it seems not four years ago, but yesterday, that we were congratulating Robert Overbury on his promotion in succession to our much loved friend, Jack Badeley. I can add nothing to the tributes that have been paid to the work of Robert Overbury in the House itself. But, of course, a great part of the work of the Clerk of the Parliaments is done behind the scenes. He is responsible for the administration of the staff of the House, and on him, more than anyone else, depends the happy working of the House. The staff of the House has been a happy one ever since I remember, but never more so than

  1375
  during the term of office of Robert Overbury. I should like to say to him, on behalf of all his colleagues, that we think he has done a grand job; and he will carry into his retirement the friendship, the affection and the esteem of every one of us.
  2.58 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, so many warm and sincere tributes have been paid to Sir Robert Overbury that little remains to be said; but your Lordships may think it proper that the Lord Chancellor, who is brought into such close and constant association with the Clerk of the Parliaments, should add a few words. Indeed, I have a special reason for associating myself with the warm tributes that have been paid: the occupant of the Woolsack is an isolated and conspicuous figure, and the errors of procedure that he may make are only too visible to the whole House. If the present occupant of the Woolsack has been fortunate enough to make few such errors, that has been due to the generous, ungrudging measure of support and help which has always been given to him by Sir Robert Overbury. I, for one, shall always remember with gratitude the way in which he has guided my steps in ways hitherto unknown to me. To what has fallen from your Lordships upon his general services to the House, I can add no words. I would only say that he departs from this place leaving behind him a host of friends who will remember him for his kindliness and friendship, as well as (and I use the words of the Motion) for "the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity "with which he has performed the duties of his high office.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Lord Chancellor do communicate this Resolution to Sir Robert Overbury.
  Moved, That the Lord Chancellor do communicate the said Resolution to Sir Robert Overbury.—(Viscount Woolton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty laying before
  1376
  Her Majesty a copy of the letter of the said Sir Robert Leslie Overbury and likewise of the Resolution of this House, and recommending the said Sir Robert Leslie Overbury to Her Majesty's Royal Grace and Bounty.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
  3.1 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that Her Majesty has been pleased to appoint, by Letters Patent dated the twenty-seventh day of this instant October, Francis William Lascelles, Esquire, Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, upon whom has been conferred the Decoration of the Military Cross, to the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments vacant by the retirement of Sir Robert Leslie Overbury, the late Clerk of the Parliaments.
  THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I should not like this occasion to pass without saying to Francis Lascelles, on behalf of the whole staff, with what delight we have heard of his appointment. He is the friend of us all, and we know that he will maintain in every way the traditions which have been handed down to him by his distinguished predecessors. I know that the whole House will unite in wishing him a long and very happy term of office.
  Patent read; and the said Francis William Lascelles, Esquire, C.B., then made the necessary declaration (which declaration is set down in the Roll amongst the oaths of the great officers), and took his seat at the Table.

  CLERK ASSISTANT OF THE PARLIAMENTS
  3.6 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that by virtue of the power granted to me as Lord Chancellor by the Statute 5, George IV, Chapter 82, Section 3,I have appointed Victor Martin Reeves Goodman, Esquire, Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, upon whom has been conferred the Decoration of the Military Cross, to be

  1377
  your Lordships' Clerk Assistant in the room of Francis William Lascelles, who has been appointed Clerk of the Parliaments.
  I beg to move to resolve, That this House do approve the appointment of the said Victor Martin Reeves Goodman to be your Lordships' Clerk Assistant in the room of Francis William Lascelles, who has been appointed Clerk of the Parliaments.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Resolution agreed to nemine dissentiente.

  READING CLERK AND CLERK OF OUTDOOR COMMITTEES
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to acquaint your Lordships' House that by virtue of the power granted to me as Lord Chancellor by the Statute 5, George IV, Chapter 82, Section 3, I have appointed Anthony Henry Jeffreys, Esquire, to be your Lordships' Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees in the room of Victor Martin Reeves Goodman, who has been appointed Clerk Assistant.
  I beg to move to resolve, That this House do approve the appointment of the said Anthony Henry Jeffreys to be your Lordships' Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees in the room of Victor Martin Reeves Goodman, who has been appointed Clerk Assistant.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Resolution agreed to nemine dissentiente.

  SPEED LIMIT FOR HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES
  3.8 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to allow the situation disclosed by the Road Research Board to continue indefinitely, namely, that over 90 per cent, of the drivers of heavy commercial vehicles exceed the existing 20 mile limit.]
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I regret that I cannot add to the statements made on behalf of Her
  1378
  Majesty's Government by my noble friend Lord, Lloyd on July 14, when the noble Earl asked a similar Question.

  REVISED HIGHWAY CODE
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in ray name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is proposed to lay the revised Highway Code before Parliament.]
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, a draft of the revised Highway Code has now been approved by the Departmental Committee on Road Safety, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation intends, within the next few days, to circulate it to interested organisations. The Code will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after their comments have been received.

  WORLD TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
  3.10 p.m.
  LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: 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 have anything to report to the House about the result of the special study which the Paymaster General stated was being made during the economic debate on the 29th April about the plans to cope with any sudden change in economic conditions resulting from some material reduction in the armament programme, particularly in the United States of America, and whether Her Majesty's Government can say if any plans to deal with this possibility have been made.]
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the strict and short answer to this Question would be "No." It would not be possible to announce in advance details of the plans which might be put into operation should there be a slackening in world trade. Such plans must inevitably depend on the circumstances at the time.

  1379
  The noble Lord can, however, rest assured that the Government are making a continuing and special study of the problems which might react adversely on the policy of Her Majesty's Government of maintaining a high level of employment. Such a study is no more than common prudence. It does not imply that we expect any slackening in world trade; but it is a recognition of the common duty which we share with the United States of America, and indeed most countries of this highly integrated world, to ensure that any tendency which appears likely to lower the general level of employment is quickly countered by appropriate and considered action. We hope further, now that our economy has become rather less rigid, that it will be more readily adaptable to meet changes in the world economy which must always be expected.
  There are, in any case, limits to what could be done by one Government alone in the economic field, and the details of our policy would in large part depend upon the policies of other Governments, notably those of the United States of America, Canada and the other Commonwealth countries, and the countries of Western Europe. Her Majesty's Government will therefore continue to work side by side with the Governments of these countries towards the objective of economic strength and independence.
  The noble Lord refers specifically to the armament programmes. No material reduction in these programmes is, unhappily, yet in sight, so that the conditions which the noble Lord foresees are not yet imminent.

  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  3.12 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STAMP: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill this afternoon, I feel that I owe your Lordships some explanation. At first sight I may seem to be taking up your Lordships' time unjustifiably, in view of the fact that, even if the Bill is given a Second Reading, it obviously cannot possibly make any
  1380
  further progress during the present Session of Parliament. But I believe there are many advantages to be gained by discussing at the present time the general objects of the Bill, and the reasons why it is considered necessary. In the first place, I entertain the hope that it may be possible so to enlist the support and sympathy of Her Majesty's Government that, in spite of the demands on their time, they will be prepared to reintroduce it as a Government measure—a course which would obviously be preferable. Or it may be possible to obtain the support of a private Member having the necessary facilities for it to be reintroduced in another place. Again, whilst I fully appreciate that this is not the occasion on which to discuss points of detail, it may well be that your Lordships have some important points to make and valuable suggestions of a general nature to raise. In the light of such comment it might well be possible to amend the Bill in various details before it is reintroduced, either in this House or in another place. This would undoubtedly expedite its progress. For these reasons, all concerned feel that a most useful purpose would be served by giving this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon.
  Before proceeding to outline the main object of the Bill I should like to emphasise that it is not concerned with euthanasia or the slaughter of animals, which might well be the subject of separate legislation, now that the Northumberland Report, dealing with the slaughter of horses, has been published. Nor, of course, does it deal with scientific experiments on animals, which are subject to the provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. The main object of this Bill is to bring the law up to date so far as it concerns the use of anæesthesia in connection with operations on animals. Since the passage of the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act of 1919, there have been a number of important advances in the development and range of anæsthetic agents which can be applied to animals. Moreover, there have been equally numerous developments as regards new operations and the invention of new techniques for applying anæsthesia. Furthermore, in 1948, a new Veterinary Surgeons Act was placed on the Statute Book, which placed additional restrictions on veterinary sur-

  1381
  gery by unqualified persons. In the light of these considerations, the veterinary profession has felt for some time past that an amendment of the law relating to the use of anæsthesia for animals was long overdue. As the Government of the day appear to have found some difficulty in finding the necessary time to introduce the required amending legislation the profession itself has taken the initiative in having a Bill drafted to achieve such amendment of the law as they consider necessary. This is the Bill which I submit to your Lordships this afternoon.
  As a medical man I do not claim to be an expert or authority on veterinary matters, but I am assured that the Bill which I have introduced into your Lordships' House has the complete support of the veterinary profession and of a number of organisations which are concerned with the matters with which it deals. For instance, the draft of the Bill itself was prepared by the British Veterinary Association, which, in the veterinary field, is the equivalent of the British Medical Association. It has also the support of the Scottish Branch of the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and the Animal Health Trust. The National Farmers' Union, the National Cattle Breeders' Association, the British Horse Society, and the Kennel Club all give it full and strong support. I am further informed that the R.S.P.C.A., in principle, are glad to support the Bill. The P.D.S.A. has expressed a similar view It may well he that other organisations concerned may equally be recorded as supporters of the measure, but in view of the fact that it was printed only at the end of July there has not yet been time for all concerned to express themselves on the subject. It is, however, encouraging to note that up to date the British Veterinary Association, who have taken a leading part in the matter, have not been informed of any opposition.
  Returning to the Bill itself, I would emphasise that whereas the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, 1919—which by Clause 4 of my Bill we seek to repeal—applied only to a limited class of animal, namely, horses, bovines, clogs, and cats, this amending Bill will apply to all animals, but not to birds, fowls, fishes, and reptiles. These have been left out because I am informed there is as yet no
  1382
  anæsthetic development which is satisfactory for use in operations applying to them. It is, of course, conceivable that this position may change as years go by, and for that reason it might be possible to consider adding to the Bill at some later stage an amendment giving the Minister power, after suitable consultations, to bring some of this category within the Bill if he should think fit.
  Furthermore, the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, 1919, as well as being concerned with only a limited range of animals, was concerned only with a limited number of operations upon them. Sat out in six Schedules to that Act are three lists of specific operations—on horses, dogs and cats, and bovines respectively—for which a general anæsthetic is obligatory, and a further three lists for those classes of animals for which a local anæsthetic is obligatory. The veterinary surgeons are satisfied that those lists have become completely out of date. Some of the operations for which general anæsthesia is obligatory could be far more humanely performed, if indeed they have to be performed at all, with the use of an up-to-date local anæsthetic.
  There are, moreover, numerous absurd anomalies arising under the 1919 Act. I should like to quote one or two examples. First, the 1919 Act lays down that the operation for the removal of the ovary in a bovine must be carried out under general anæsthesia. The facts are, however, that under modern conditions ovariotomy is far more safely and efficiently performed, with the animal fully conscious and standing, under spinal anæsthetic. Again, the operation of stripping the wall and sole from the claw or hoof of any animal may be carried out with any anæsthetic, except for the horse, where a general anæsthetic is scheduled—and this in spite of the fact that the local anæsthetic known as nerve block anæsthesia is more easily, more frequently and more efficiently effected on this animal than on any other. Thirdly, operations for extensive tumours are included in the case of the horse but are not mentioned in the case of the dog, the species in which such operations are most often performed. The Act provides for such rare operations as quittor in the horse and enucleation of the eyeball, yet many common operations are not included, even though in some cases they require complicated anæsthesia—for

  1383
  example, reducing of fractures and dislocations, opening of joints, pinning and screwing of bones, amputations, operations on chest, lungs, heart or brain, and so on. The Act protects the horse for certain dental operations, such as the removal of a molar tooth, even in an old horse where the tooth is falling out, but no reference is made to tooth extraction in the dog, the species in which dental disease is most common and in which dental extraction is often necessary.
  It is true that machinery is provided in Section 3 of the 1919 Act for modifying and extending the Schedules, but modifications on the scale required to-day are considered to be quite impracticable. Nor would they remain up to date for long, as knowledge of animal aæsthesia is continuously progressing and new operations are being developed. The veterinary profession take the view that it is now quite impossible to lay down in scheduled lists the kind of anæsthetic to be used for different kinds of operations. This must be left to the veterinary surgeon, since he is the only one capable of assessing all the requirements. The Bill which I have introduced therefore makes it possible, and indeed obligatory, for the veterinary surgeon, in all operations involving pain, to use whatever anæsthetic he considers most suitable. So far as machinery is concerned, the Bill proposes to make use of the enforcement machinery of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and to lay down that if henceforward anyone performs an operation on an animal without using an efficient general or local anæsthetic, so as to prevent the animal from feeling pain throughout the operation, it shall be deemed to be an operation which is performed without due care and humanity within the meaning of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. He will thus become liable under that Act to the same penalties which apply to a breach of the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, namely, a maximum of £25 and imprisonment not exceeding three months.
  In Clause 2 we define the type of operations to which the Bill is to apply, that is to say,
  "any operation with or without the use of instruments which involves any surgical interference with the sensitive tissues or the bone structure of an animal. …"
  1384
  It is, however, necessary to exclude certain minor operations for which it is not usual to use an anæsthetic and in which the pain involved is so comparatively limited, or so quickly over, that it would be impracticable to insist on the use of an anæsthetic. These minor operations are set out in a Schedule, and include such operations as the docking of dogs' tails before their eyes are open, and also operations which may be necessary in an emergency to save life or relieve pain. It may, however, be necessary as time goes on to make certain modifications in this Schedule in the light of experience, or in the light of new experiments with anæsthesia. In Clause 3, therefore, power is given to the Minister of Agriculture, after consulting the interests concerned, to make alterations in the Schedule, after seeking the approval of Parliament. It will be observed that in its present form the Bill does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. I am informed, however, that since the Bill was introduced, the Scottish interests have made it clear that Scotland should be included, and as this can be achieved without much difficulty by the introduction of certain Amendments, I can give an assurance that, if the Bill makes any further progress through Parliament, steps will be taken to introduce the necessary Amendments for that purpose.
  So much for the detail of the Bill. With regard to its principles, I would emphasise once again that its main object is to ensure that the advances in scientific knowledge in the field of animal anæsthesia are applied in practice without legal hindrance. The veterinary profession are convinced that the time has now come when all painful surgical operations on animals should be carried out under conditions which will reduce the pain to the absolute minimum possible. My Lords, I trust that I have said enough to indicate why the Bill is considered so necessary. I also hope that ways and means will be found to bring it speedily to the Statute Book, and that this afternoon's debate will materially contribute to that end. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Stamp.)
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I trust I am not out of order in putting a question to the noble Lord, to

  1385
  ask him why this Bill has not been made to apply to Scotland. The noble Lord has not made that clear in his speech. It seems to me that any Bill such as this to bring the law of anæsthesia for animals into line with modern practice should be made to apply to the whole country, to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. Yet I see in Clause 4 that the Act of 1919, as far as it relates to Scotland, has not been amended. I am sorry I did not see the noble Lord before the House met to ask him personally. I hope he will excuse my putting this question, but the position seems to me rather strange.
  LORD STAMP: My Lords, I think I mentioned that, since the Bill was introduced, the Scottish interests have made it clear that Scotland Should be included, and we are proposing to introduce an Amendment to that effect if the Bill makes any further progress. I have said that already. I am sorry the noble Earl did not catch my words, but that is what I said.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I did not hear that. I thank the noble Lord.
  3.30 p.m.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords. I rise to support the noble Lord who has moved that this Bill be read a second time. It seems to me that while in the medical profession, to which I also have the honour to belong, we have our anæsthesia up to date, in the veterinary profession they have not. They are lagging behind now. They are governed by an Act of 1919, which is a very long rime ago, particularly in a world which is affected to a large extent by scientific discoveries. In fact, since 1919 there have been revolutionary discoveries in regard to modern medicine, and that applies equally to the veterinary sciences. The changes that have taken place since 1919 in the application of knowledge to medicines for human consumption and to anæsthetics for human use have been revolutionary. Changes have also been revolutionary with regard to animals, and it is quite clear from what the noble Lord has said that the present regulations governing the veterinary profession are out of date. What, in fact, this Bill proposes to do is to bring matters up to date. May I say (and I hope the noble Lord will agree with me) that it is quite
  1386
  clear that nothing in this Bill affects vivisection—I understand from the noble Lord's gesture that that is so. Vivisection is governed by other laws and not by this Bill at all, so I do not think that aspect of the matter need bother your Lordships in any way.
  I do not propose to go into the detail into which the mover has gone, but the fact is that there has been a great deal of support, and no opposition, from all sections concerned with veterinary work, and from farmers and all those who know about the day-to-day details of work with animals. That shows clearly that the world which is mostly concerned with animal life is satisfied that this is a necessary reform. Under the present law it may be essential to use a general anæsthetic; for a particular operation when, in fact, a local anæsthetic is much better and causes less trouble. It may be that there are a number of points of that kind. In fact, the question of the use of anæsthetics in the veterinary profession is really out of date I hope therefore that this Bill will receive its Second Reading to-day. It is highly desirable that it should go through. I know it is the usual custom, when Private Members' Bills are moved in this House, for opinions to be aired and the matter concerned to be discussed. I hope it will be discussed by a good many noble Lords this afternoon.
  But that does not necessarily mean that the Bill will come on to the Statute Book. For myself, I do not see any reason why a Bill of this kind, which has no political repercussions at all, should not receive its Second Reading and go forward. It is quite clear, for another reason, that this particular Bill will not be treated in that way, because the Session is coming to an end in two days' time. Apart from that, however, a Bill of this kind, initiated in this House, should be able to be passed through the other place, because this Bill deals with a matter which is of great scientific interest and of humanitarian and, in fact, general importance. There is practically no body of opinion of any kind against it. Therefore, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, and I hope the Bill will receive a Second Reading this afternoon.
  3.35 p.m.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like briefly to give my support to the Bill which is at present before

  1387
  your Lordships' House. It has two great advantages: in the first place, it is extremely short, and, secondly, it is a comprehensive Bill. I entirely agree with my noble friend that there is no point in extending the Schedule of the 1919 Act, because, with the changes in practice which occur from time to time, it is difficult to carry forward such a Schedule.
  The real point of the present Bill is that it places firmly upon veterinary surgeons the responsibility of seeing that they carry out their surgical work in the most humane, sensible and reasonable way possible; in other words, it makes their work approach that of the members of the profession to which I belong, in which one does not have to do one's work by rule of thumb laid down in a Schedule. It is for that purpose that I trust your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, and in that connection I support every word that my noble friend has said.
  3.37 p.m.
  LORD AMWELL: My Lords, it is a welcome feature of the presentation of this Bill that not only the veterinary profession but every kind of organisation interested in animal welfare is behind it and cordially supports it. As one who has been for many years associated with the P.D.S.A., I should like to support the Bill from that standpoint, and to put on record that we recognise its great importance, in view—as the preamble to the Bill itself says—of the scientific advances in anæsthesia that have been made during recent times. I am a layman, but from my contact with animal welfare I know that there have been revolutionary changes, and, from every point of view, these should be represented in all sections of practical, professional and administrative work connected with animal welfare. The P.D.S.A. has had a lot of experience in respect of anæsthesia for animals. It has always been much interested in the subject and has made it part of its policy that on all occasions where deep surgery is undertaken on animals an anæsthetic shall, wherever possible, be applied. That has been found possible, even under the conditions which prevailed before these revolutionary changes occurred. On behalf of all sections of
  1388
  animal welfare, as distinct from professional veterinary interests, I cordially support this Bill.
  3.39 p.m.
  LORD DOWDING: My Lords, when the noble Lord who introduced this Bill is replying to the debate, I hope he will enlighten my ignorance in one particular respect. I am a little apprehensive about paragraph 3 of the Schedule which concerns the castration of any male or female domestic animal before it has reached the prescribed age. I do not know what the definition of a domestic animal is. For instance, I do not know whether a horse is a domestic animal. But the law as regards the castration of horses has, I think, been lamentably defective up to date. If I am right in my recollection, the castration of horses up to the age of two years can be performed by an unqualified person. I think there is no provision that even after two years an anæsthetic must be applied when this very agonising operation is carried out. So I should like to be assured that not only in the case of horses but in the cases of all other animals when there is a question of castration, their interests shall be fully and adequately safeguarded. In other respects I fully endorse the Bill. It has my most cordial support.
  3.40 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I am sure that we are all interested in, and would wish to support, any measure which has as its object the prevention of pain and suffering among animals, and I should like to say at once that Her Majesty's Government have every sympathy with the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, in introducing this Bill. I have listened, as I am sure all your Lordships have done, with great interest to what he has said. I think he has given the House a very clear picture of what may be, and often is, involved in operations on animals.
  I do not think there is very much that I need say, except that the Government support the Bill in principle. Perhaps I should also say that, short though it is, I believe some details of the Bill will need further study. In particular, I have in mind the provision in paragraph 3, of

  1389
  the Schedule to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, has already drawn your Lordships' attention. The effect of this provision is that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may, after consultation, make regulations for prescribing the maximum age at which, exceptionally, an animal may be castrated without the use of an anæsthetic. This is a question which might conceivably prove to be rather controversial, and as my right honourable friend's Departmental responsibility in this matter rarely goes beyond the farm, I think it would be better if the Bill itself were to specify the exceptions, rather than leave them to be dealt with by a regulation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, will agree that this particular point needs looking into rather carefully. As the noble Lord has said, there is no prospect of this Bill making any further progress this Session—there are only two more days left. I am afraid that I cannot give him any undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will be able to find time to take up the Bill themselves. All I can say at this juncture is that Her Majesty's Government support the Bill in principle.
  3.44 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think the course of this debate has shown that the different interests affected by the Bill, the veterinary interests and the animal welfare interests, and the agricultural interests which are represented by the Department for which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, speaks, regard this as a good Bill. There has been absolute unanimity about the principle of the Bill. I think the fundamental consideration is that if it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain to animals then it is clearly right (and this is what the Bill proposes) that all operations involving pain, apart from certain classes of operation specified in the Bill, should be carried out under an anæsthetic. I have one question to ask about the Schedule. Obviously, an intention is not enough, and I should like to know whether it is absolutely clear in the Schedule that any operations conducted by scientists for experimental purposes, where consciousness of the animal is essential, are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. I think it is important that that point should be looked at, and that,
  1390
  if necessary, an alteration should be made at the Committee stage.
  Apart from that, I have only one thing to add. It seems to me a pity that a Bill which has won such general approval should have no opportunity of passing into law. It will, clearly, be dropped at the end of this Session. May I address a request to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—namely, that, during the course of the next Session, the Government should seriously examine the possibility of including in their legislative programme a Bill on these lines? I know how heavy a legislative programme is. I am not sure whether I ought to be addressing this request to the noble Lord opposite or whether I ought to be addressing it to the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton. However, I am sure that he will give sympathetic consideration to what I am saying. Whether this should be a request to the Ministry of Agriculture or to the Home Office, I am not clear. It is a little difficult, in matters of this kind, to define Departmental responsibility. However that may be, I should like to ask noble Lords opposite who represent the Government to give this matter their consideration. It would be a great pity if the Bill again failed in the next Session simply because it was a Private Members' Bill and there was not the Parliamentary time for it which would be required if it was to pass into law.
  3.47 p.m.
  LORD STAMP: My Lords, I feel that there is little that I need add to my previous remarks, except to thank all noble Lords who have supported this measure, and to assure them that any suggestions or comments they have made will receive the fullest consideration when Amendments to the Bill are being considered. With regard to the point raised by Lord Dowding, I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that the interests of horses in regard to the matter of the age of castration will be fully safeguarded. I might emphasise once again—I mentioned this earlier—that the Bill does not apply to scientific experiments on animals, which are adequately safeguarded and covered by the provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.I see no reason why a sentence or sentences emphasising that point should not be put into the Bill, if that is considered desirable. As several noble Lords have

  1391
  pointed out, this is a non-controversial measure, and it has evoked such widespread support and sympathy from so many groups of people, and is so obviously necessary, on humanitarian as well as on utilitarian grounds, that I cannot conceive that it should be subjected to delay or should be shelved at any stage. I therefore greatly welcome the general support given by Her Majesty's Government, though I must confess to some disappointment that they do not see their way to undertaking to sponsor the Bill's future progress. But with their blessing I trust that a way will be found speedily to bring it into law.
  On Question, Bill read 2ª.

  BENEFICES (SUSPENSION OF PRESENTATION) MEASURE, 1953
  3.49 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure 1953, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this Measure is not so substantial as would appear at first glance, and I do not think I need take up the time of the House with a long explanation of all its provisions. It is fully dealt with in the Comments and Explanations submitted by the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly, which are printed as an Appendix to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Your Lordships will observe that the desire to make certain amendments, to which I will refer in a moment, has been taken as a suitable opportunity to consolidate two existing Measures—the Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure, 1946, and the Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure, 1949.
  The question whether or not it is desirable that a patron's right of presentation should in certain circumstances be suspended, and a benefice thus be allowed to remain vacant for a considerable period, was decided in 1946 when the first of the two Measures was passed. At that time it was hoped that the situation with which the Measure was required to deal would be only a temporary one,
  1392
  and the life of that Measure was therefore limited to ten years, which will expire in 1956. At the same time, the Measure provided that a suspension could be made in the first instance for a period of five years, and could be renewable for periods not exceeding two years, but so that the total period of suspension should not exceed seven years. Thus, suspensions created in 1946 must come to an end this year. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons it has been found in most dioceses that it has not been possible to proceed as rapidly as was anticipated in 1946 with the reorganisation which unfortunately was necessary. Therefore, the principal change which this Measure makes in the existing law is to extend not only the life of the Measure until 1965 but also the total period for which a suspension can subsist. In the Measure as it now stands, a suspension can be ordered in the first place for a period not exceeding five years, as before, but it can now be renewed any number of times for periods not exceeding five years, in each case within the life of the Measure.
  There is one other less important amendment to which perhaps I should draw your Lordships' attention. It is contained in subsection (2) of Clause 1, in which the period during which a suspension may be exercised has been extended from seven months from the occurrence of the vacancy to twelve months from the occurrence of the vacancy. The reason for this extension is simply to give the Bishop more time to set this machinery in motion, after the right of presentation has lapsed to him, than was allowed in the previous Measure. The Measure passed through all its stages in the Assembly without a division, and in fact with very little debate. It has been favourably reported upon by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will consider it is one which ought to proceed. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure, 1953, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Ely.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  ENEMY PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
  3.53 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The references are to Bill No. 107 as first printed for the House of Commons]
  Clause 3, page 4, line 9, leave out ("custodian") and insert ("competent authority")
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment was accepted by the Government in another place in the interests of uniform wording. Clauses I and 2 of the Bill use the expression "competent authority" and it was thought that the same expression was appropriate here. Of course, "competent authority" is a wider term than the word "custodian." I think this is a useful tidying-up Amendment, which I hope your Lordships will see fit to accept. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 11, page 13, line 43, after ("property") insert ("seized from Germany")
  Clause 11, page 13, line 46, leave out ("as property seized from Germany")
  Clause 11, page l4, line 20, after ("was") insert ("seized from Germany and was")
  Clause 11, page l4, line 22, leave out ("as property seized from Germany")
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, these four Amendments, which all go together, were made by the Government in another place to make it clear that the clause covered only property seized from Germany. These were made in answer to a point raised both in your Lordships' House and in another place. Her Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that the difficulties expressed were reasonable, and introduced these Amendments to clear up the point. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDME.NTS
  Clause 11, page 13 line 43, leave out from ("time") to ("imported") in line 45 and insert ("within the war period").
  Clause 11, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
  ("(2) The last foregoing subsection shall have effect in relation to bearer certificates, and in relation to sterling currency (in the form of notes or coins), as if the war period had continued up to, and ended with, the passing of this Act; and, in the application of that subsection to bearer certificates, the references in paragraphs (a) and (b) to the property shall be construed as references both to the certificates and to the securities to which the certificates related.
  In this subsection the expressions "bearer certificate" and "securities" have the same meanings as in the Exchange Control Act, 1947.")
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, these two Amendments go together. They were made in response to the suggestion, again raised in your Lordships' House and in another place, that if the operation of this clause of the Bill had to extend beyond the war period, it ought to do so within as narrow limits as possible. The effect of the two Amendments is to confine the clause in general to the war period—that is to say, the period beginning September 3, 1939, and ending July 9, 1951, when the state of war with Germany was terminated—while extending it to the passing of the present Act only so far as concerns certain property which was removed from Germany after the end of the war. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 15, page 17, line 9, leave out ("include") and insert ("and to a Minister of the Crown include respectively").
  Clause 15, page 17, line 10, at end insert ("and (in relation to a department of that Government) to a Minister of Northern Ireland.")
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the Amendment to Clause 15, at page 17, line 9, and the next one, at line 10, also go together. They are required simply to deal with the technical point that the term

  1395
  "Minister of the Crown," which is used in Clause 9, is not appropriate in so far as the Bill extends to Northern Ireland, where the correct expression is "Minister of Northern Ireland." These are drafting Amendments, and I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 15, page 17, line 20, at end insert ("and as including references to the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953 (which by section two of that Act were substituted for those Regulations).")
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is also a drafting one. It is required because the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, has become law since the present Bill was accorded a First Reading in your Lordships' House, as long ago, I am sorry to say, as March 17 of this year. The Act referred to embodied in permanent legislation the substance of the Defence (Trading with the Enemy) Regulations, while at the same time it repealed the Regulations themselves. Your Lordships will see that it is necessary to amend the interpretation clause of the Bill to fit in with this change. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not rise to criticise this Amendment, or even to seek for an explanation. I think the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, of this and all the other Amendments has been clear and requires no further elucidation. But I think it only right to say one word about all these Amendments, as we took a great deal of time over this Bill during its progress through your Lordships' House and went into it with meticulous care. As one who took some part in the progress of the Bill, I am gratified to find that it has gone through another place fairly unscathed. The Amendments which the noble Lord has moved to-day are minor Amendments, mostly drafting Amendments, or,
  1396
  even if they go beyond that, Amendments of no great moment. It looks as if this House has rendered good service in going through the Bill with such care that Members of another place have had little to do but pass a few minor Amendments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN NEW TOWNS
  LORD LUKE LORD LUKE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that in the new towns playgrounds and playing fields are being provided ready for the use of the new population as they arrive; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful that time has been found to include the debate on this Motion in the present Session. I put down this Motion on the subject of recreational facilities in the new towns in the hope that we may be able to clear the issue between the development corporations and the local authorities who will ultimately be responsible for playing fields and playgrounds in their new areas. It is common knowledge, or should be, that these new towns, at any rate on paper, should be models for new communities. On paper, everything is provided for: there is housing accommodation, factories, shops, churches, cinemas, open spaces for recreation, and community centres—the list is a very long one. All the plans are agreed and the new towns themselves are taking shape; the buildings are making progress, and the people have begun to arrive. A great deal of money has been spent and will, of course, continue to be spent until these townships have been completed.
  The financing of the development of the open spaces which have been provided, so as to make them suitable for games and recreation, is, I feel, causing some concern. It is recognised that these are open spaces; but green blobs on maps do not automatically become first-class grounds for recreational activities. In many cases they need levelling, draining, seeding down with grass and maintenance. But, unlike factories and houses, the financial return on the capital expended is hard to assess in pounds, shillings and pence, though there is an indirect return through rates and taxes and from fees payable by clubs and organisations which

  1397
  wish to use the fields when they are completed. I say that the return is indirect because, as regards rates, there can be an increase in the value of a dwelling to the occupant because recreational facilities are readily at hand for the family, and, as regards taxes, because healthy recreation increases earning capacity. But I am afraid that these amenities are rather low in priority when it comes to finance. At the same time, I think, and I hope your Lordships will agree, that adequate playgrounds and playing fields are vital for growing populations: they are vital as places on which young people may spend their leisure hours, and they are vital especially for keeping young people off the roads. Those considerations do not, of course, stop at new towns.
  I would not wish your Lordships to think that nothing is being done in this matter, because already progress is being made by the development corporations and by the local authorities in the different areas in which these new towns are situated. But I would suggest to your Lordships that progress would be much quicker if the relative responsibilities of the corporations and the local authorities concerned were clarified. Perhaps the answer I shall receive is that they are already defined, and that these responsibilities lie with the local authority. But I think there is a point here, owing to the peculiar position of the new towns. A new town is not a local authority undertaking. Those who undertake to put it in commission, as it were, are the development corporations appointed and financed by the Government and responsible for creating a new town, later to be handed over to the local authority on terms to be approved by Parliament. A new town will obviously be deficient unless recreational facilities are provided in step with the incoming population. It is therefore the clear duty of a development corporation so to provide them, and the relative responsibilities of the corporation and the local authority, which in many cases will be newly created, can be settled when the hand-over takes place.
  There is a point here on the land transactions between development corporations and the local authorities. It would be of advantage if the local authorities could purchase the land for their playing fields on reasonably favourable terms. After all, local authorities cannot be expected to pay a high figure for land
  1398
  for this purpose and then be expected to bear the cost of maintaining it. As a result of a conference held last April to discuss this aspect, the basis of valuation hitherto adopted has, I understand, been withdrawn, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Circular No. 41/53, which generally deals with the terms of local authorities' land transactions, specifically excludes transactions relating to land of development corporations which, in the words of the Circular, "have given rise to a number of special difficulties," and the Ministry now propose to deal with this matter separately. The previous basis for transactions in respect of playing fields and open spaces was one-quarter of the housing value for any particular land. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is going to reply can tell your Lordships what new basis is proposed. For instance, Harlow Development Corporation at some time estimated their housing-land value at £3,000 per acre—and development costs are increasing. If this figure is accepted, then the local authority, on the previous basis, will be required to pay £750 per acre for land for playing fields, and they are not prepared to do so, although here, as a temporary measure and in an endeavour to alleviate the position, the council are undertaking certain maintenance, but no capital expenditure, in the hope of an early settlement of the basis upon which they may acquire the land.
  Another aspect of finance for playing fields, which affects other communities all over the country as well as the new towns, is the withdrawal of grants by the Minister of Education for the development of playing fields and playgrounds. This has been a serious blow to progress with much needed amenities, and if it were not for the assistance (I hope the noble Lord will forgive my mentioning this) of the National Playing Fields Association, which is giving grants from its comparatively meagre resources—all voluntary funds—there would be practically no progress at all, except in the larger urban areas who are doing all the financing themselves. I apologise once again for bringing that particular aspect in; I know it is a larger aspect than is the matter for this debate—it might possibly form the subject of another debate—but it does inevitably affect progress in the new towns.
  Would it not be possible for playing fields in the new towns to be the subject of special consideration in the form of grants, either under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, or Section 12 (2) of the New Towns Act, 1946? I am aware of the possibility of assistance under Section 11 of the 1946 Act, but why not recognise the playing fields issue as a general problem in new towns, and, by means of an out-and-out grant and low purchase price, make it possible for local authorities to get on with this necessary provision? These matters have been outstanding for a long time, and I see from a leader in the December, 1952, issue of New Towns News—which is published by the District Councils (New Towns) Association—that local authorities were at that time far from satisfied with the position. I can assure your Lordships that I know only too well what encouragement promises of grants for recreational facilities have on local communities who are eager for their amenities, and who become enthusiastic in endeavouring to raise from voluntary sources the balance of money required.
  I am also aware of the Exchequer position at the present time and the difficulty it has in allocating the moneys at its disposal. But it is, of course, indicative of the low priority given to recreational facilities that the grants for this purpose were the first to go when any cuts were made. Is it too much to hope that the priority for this purpose, especially in the new towns, may be raised so that the grants may be reinstated ahead of others? It has been suggested to me that there might be an improvement in matters if the grant-aiding powers for recreational facilities were transferred from the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. This might have the effect of speeding up administration. But I do not know whether the Exchequer regards the Ministry of Housing and Local Government any more favourably than the Ministry of Education. Last year I tried to suggest to the Minister of Education that these cuts could be put back, but I am afraid I did not get much change.
  In some new towns new local factories are being urged to develop their private grounds, but this does not really make provision for the general public. I pre-
  1400
  sume that the development corporations are driven to this expedient because the Treasury will not let them provide the playing fields that they ought to provide. At a conference held on October 10 last, called by the Town and Country Planning Association, a resolution was passed asking the Minister to receive a small deputation to consider the matters referred to at the conference, and to discuss ways and means by which the building programme in the new towns may become more satisfactory from the social standpoint. I hope the Minister will receive this deputation and that progress can be made. I have kept my remarks as short as possible. I have not given details of progress, or lack of it, in the new towns, although I have them available. I feel that at the moment the attitude seems to be that these things can wait and take their chance, and I think that is wrong. At a time when every endeavour on the part of the public and local authorities elsewhere to make up arrears of playing fields in older communities is making headway in spite of the Treasury's damping of their ardour, we surely cannot let the new towns develop lopsidedly and leave out one of their most vital component parts. I beg to move for Papers.
  4.13 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we on this side of the House fully support the Motion and associate ourselves wholeheartedly with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Luke. He has left me little to add to the case which he has made. The noble Lord is quite right when he says that the plans for the new towns provide for an adequate amount of playing fields—indeed, in the designation which preceded the making of the plan, the playing field requirements were fully taken into account. There has been some criticism of the amount of land which has been designated for the new towns. There have been attempts to encourage a higher density of development. But the justification at the time when the designations were made was that ample provision had to be made for playing fields. Furthermore, in the plans that have been made, based on the area of designation, there is ample space. Unfortunately, far too often that is where the plans have stopped: and young people cannot play on a space marked out on a plan. The difficulty, as

  1401
  we all know, has been that the Treasury have laid it down that acquisition of land is not to take place ahead of requirements, and unfortunately they have not yet been persuaded that playing fields are part of the requirements of a new town. Even on that general principle, one can accept the fact that all the playing fields are not required at the beginning, and if only the Treasury would permit the acquisition of land pari passu with the development of the town, so that when half the town has ban completed then half the playing fields would have been acquired, then I think there would be no reasonable criticism. The fact is that in far too few cases have the Treasury been willing to permit the acquisition of land for this purpose, and consequently it has not been possible to go further with the laying out of over playing fields.
  In those cases where land has been acquired, the next difficulty has been the question of responsibility for the laying out of the land. Then there has been a good deal of what is vulgarly known as "passing the buck." The local authorities in whose area the playing fields are situated have power to spend money in order to lay out the playing fields, but they have received little or no encouragement, because if they do spend any money they have to do it entirely out of their own funds, since they receive no Exchequer grant towards it. The development corporations have, theoretically, the power to spend money on the laying out of playing fields, but they have to obtain the approval of the Treasury, and that is equally difficult. The National Playing Fields Association have been exceedingly generous, but their budget is a restricted one, and, after all, this is a matter which should not depend upon private effort: this is a national effort. We regard the problem of the young person, and the need to provide him and her with adequate recreation, as one having a high priority. Everyone pays lip service to that, but we do not seem to be prepared to pay money. It is, after all, only a question of money. The noble Lord has rendered a great service in raising this matter this afternoon. It is a pity that there are only three speakers on the paper on this subject, where we are dealing with the welfare of young people, whereas on the Protection
  1402
  of Animals (Amendment) Bill, which we all supported unanimously, there were eight. I hope that that is not representative of the interest taken in those two subjects. I feel that the words which have been uttered by the noble Lord in moving this Motion will somehow find their way to the Treasury. I hope that before long the doors will be lifted a little, so that it will be possible both to acquire more land for the purpose of playing fields and to encourage local authorities or the local development corporation to spend more money in laying out the land.
  The noble Lord, Lord Luke, said that it was difficult to estimate, in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, the return on this expenditure. It is difficult, my Lords, but it is not impossible. If we were to make a calculation of what we should save in the prevention of crime and of ill-health, with its burden on the hospitals and medical services, we should find that every penny spent on playing fields would provide us with ample financial return. I do not think that any of us wants to make that financial calculation—that is not the basis of the demand for more playing fields. The basis of that demand is to give our young people a healthier, happier and fuller life. So many of our young people, especially those who are now going into the new towns, have not had the opportunity of living a fuller life. They have come from the slum and congested areas of London and other big cities, and if we can give them an opportunity of a better life than they have had hitherto, we ought not to grudge the relatively small expenditure involved. For these reasons I hope that it will be possible in the near future to make much greater progress in the provision of playing fields in new towns than we have made hitherto.
  4.22 p.m.
  LORD KENSWOOD: My Lords, I feel almost apologetic for intervening in this debate. My justification is that I wish to say a few words to voice the claims of a very small section of the community who might otherwise be over-looked. Both speakers have stressed the great importance of making provision for these open spaces and playing fields for the enjoyment of the young—and I am grateful to them for having done so. But I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the need for making provision for

  1403
  some older people; and I refer specifically to the blind.
  Nearly 80 per cent. of the blind in this country are over the age of fifty. These older folk, as well as the young blind, are, as a rule, debarred from participating in the amenities provided in the form of playing fields. If the development corporations would bear in mind the need which these people have for recreation in the open air they would be rendering a great service tothe blind, and would be making their lot considerably easier. The development corporations should, in my opinion, envisage the need for considering the demands of the blind—although they will not have direct responsibility for them, since it is, of course, the duty of the local authority to provide for them. But if, at the outset, while they are making their plans, they will bear in mind that this need does exist for a large number of people, they will make matters very much easier for the local authorities the moment they take over. I will not detain your Lordships with details as to exactly what should be provided, and what could be done fairly cheaply and reasonably. The noble Lord who will be answering for the Government would satisfy me perfectly if he would undertake at least to bring the need which I am now expressing to the notice of the authorities and obtain from them a promise that they will at least take into consideration the few remarks I have made.
  4.25 p.m.
  LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Luke, has said. I am glad that he has brought this Motion forward, for he speaks with great authority on these matters—as great an authority as anyone in the country. One point which he mentioned was the question of factory playing fields. It is surely very important that a factory should have easily accessible playing fields, and that they should not be, as it were, thrown in with the general playing fields provided for the community as a whole: they should be handy to the factory. I am not certain, looking at the plans, whether provision has been made in the layout of factories for playing fields for the specific use of the people working there, or whether they are just left to get hold of apiece of land if they can find one handy.
  1404
  Then there is the question of the difference between open spaces and playing fields. That question sometimes causes some confusion. Both open spaces and playing fields are, of course, necessary. There should be open spaces where people can lie on the grass on a sunny day during the lunch-hour, without being troubled by other people kicking a football about; and there should be playing fields where people can indulge in such games. The value of a playing field depends very much upon expert layout. A comparatively small field, expertly laid out by people who know their job, can be more useful than a large field in which much ground is wasted. No one knows that better than Lord Luke. Above all, I feel that, in these days of motor accidents, when the casualty figures are going up and up, and children are being killed daily on our roads, it is essential that these new communities should start with plenty of room, so that there is no excuse for children to play elsewhere than in the playing fields. Children have got to play somewhere—and so have adults. Therefore I earnestly support Lord Luke's Motion, and I hope that it will melt the heart of the Treasury.
  4.28 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have spoken in this short but interesting debate in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for having placed his Motion on the Order Paper. Nobody can speak with greater authority or more knowledge of this subject than Lord Luke. He referred very modestly to his own position as Chairman of the National Playing Fields Association. He is, I know, intimately acquainted with the needs of the whole country in this connection; and his Association, with voluntary funds at its disposal, has rendered very great service. The noble Lord referred to the Association's contributions as being "meagre." Perhaps in relation to the needs of the country as assessed by his enthusiasts—and a very high ideal is their aim—they are not very large. If I have read aright the Report of the Association for 1952, the resources and, more important, the grants are on a very generous scale indeed. Grants for 1952 from the noble Lord's Association were, I think, about £37,000; for 1953 they were in the neighbourhood of £60,000, for, I think, about 400 different projects.

  1405
  I should also like to thank the noble Lord for the sympathetic and understanding way in which he has dealt with this matter. He is as aware as I am of tine financial difficulties which lie at the root of the whole problem and which prevent the provision of so many amenities. If the noble Lord has any suggestion to make, I can assure him that it will receive my right honourable friend's careful consideration. I should also like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, whose particular point I am certain was received with great sympathy by the House, that his very special considerations will also be taken into account. I must confess that the point he raised was one to which hitherto I personally had not given consideration, but I now recognise this very peculiar and difficult problem. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his helpful remarks, took me back to the speech he made, I think some six months ago, when we had that most interesting debate that he himself initiated on the subject of the new towns generally. I remember his words when he talked about the importance of providing
  "that people should find their employment, their recreation, their social activities, indeed their whole life, within the new town itself."
  That was the wording used by the noble Lord in the debate on this subject which I attempted to answer some six months ago. Nothing at all divides us on this matter. We are at one in realising the urgent necessity of building up this balanced picture, and of making certain that these playing fields have their full and proper part in that picture. The only thing that divides us, unfortunately, is the question of capital expenditure, though I have a sneaking suspicion that if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, were speaking from this Dispatch Box instead, of from where lie did this afternoon, he would find himself confronted with exactly the same problems as those with which my right honourable friend finds himself confronted to-day.
  There is one point I should like to make in reference to the actual wording of the Motion. If I have read it correctly, the terms of the Motion imply that our aims should be to provide these playing fields even before the new residents arrive in the town, so that they will be ready and waiting for immediate use as and when the families arrive to
  1406
  occupy houses and take up their employment. I believe that no Government, even on the crest of financial prosperity, as we naturally hope this Government will very soon be, would be wise in providing from national funds ready-made Facilities available for a population before it has arrived. Surely, it is for the people of the towns themselves to determine what they want and if, through their own voluntary effort, or through their elected representatives on the local authority, they have some share in the design, the initiation and the responsibility, they will not only secure what they want but will experience the satisfaction of having had a share in its creation. I should have thought the National Playing Fields Association rather hinted their agreement with this view by making their grants only when they are satisfied that playing fields are to be permanently established and that their future maintenance is assured. This usually means that they are being developed or taken over by a local authority. Here, I should like to add this point which my noble friend Lord Carrington, the Under-Secretary for Agriculture, has asked me to make. Much of the land reserved for playing fields in the new towns is at present, of course, in agricultural use, and the corporations, in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, endeavour to retain such land in production until it is actually needed for development.
  The next point I should like to mention is a point which has been made by both the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: that is, this question of the plan itself, the master plan. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out, I think quite fairly, that one cannot expect children to play football on a green patch on a map: that a playing field on paper is a very different thing from a playing field on the ground. Whilst the noble Lord was making that remark, he sent my mind back to a conference that I once attended during the war, when a French general, with more optimism than knowledge of the facts, gave a wide and sweeping picture of the plans which he suggested we should immediately put into effect. My own general listened to him quietly for sometime and finally said: "Très bon, mon général; très bon sur papier." That is an easy accusation to level, that plans

  1407
  are very good on paper; but, if they do not exist on paper in the first place, we should obviously have chaos and confusion. The master plan must contain the provision for these playing fields. Nobody in his right mind would suggest that the master plan alone is adequate to produce the playing fields in due course for the children to play on. I have never been over-enthusiastic about planning merely for the sake of planning. Another point I should like to mention is that you would get nowhere if the original plan did not show that green blob.
  The noble Lord, Lord Luke, generously recognises that a good deal has been done by both the development corporations and the local authorities. Perhaps I might give your Lordships one or two short facts and figures to show that something has been done and that good progress is being made. About 225 acres of land for playing fields have been acquired by development corporations: some of it is laid out and in use, while the rest of it is now in the course of being laid out. During the same period, forty acres have been added by local authorities. The total of these new playing fields—that is, 265 acres—corresponds to the new population in these towns of approximately 45,000 people. If I have done my sums correctly, that works out at about six acres per 1,000 population. That compares very favourably with all the plans that I have seen. I think it is something—at any rate a start, something of which we can be justly proud.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hampton. spoke about private playing fields. Of course, private playing fields will and must be provided by industrialists for their workpeople, and by private clubs for their members. Naturally, they are not available to the general public, although in many cases in the new towns institutions and firms have been most generous in lending their well-laid-out playing fields for use by the public until the public have their own playing fields available. But I would point out that those private playing fields are a very necessary contribution to the health and general well-being of the towns and do provide facilities for no inconsiderable proportion of the inhabitants. I do not
  1408
  think it is generally realised that the development corporations are able, with my right honourable friend's approval, which is readily given, to provide and lay out playing fields for private use—for example, by industrialists or private clubs and associations—at an economic rent covering the cost of land acquisition, layout and overheads, though I think there is much to be said for encouraging these firms and organisations to undertake the work themselves. As I have said, a good deal of this work has already been carried out.
  Now, I should like to turn to this vexed question of responsibility. The provision of public playing fields and open spaces has normally been undertaken by the local authorities, who have statutory powers to do this and who, of course, collect the rate income from which it should be financed. The Physical Training and Recreation Act, to which more than one noble Lord has referred, empowers my right honourable friend the Minister of Education to make a grant towards the capital cost of playing fields, and this can be supplemented by grants from the local authorities. It has never been the intention of the present Government or, so far as I know, of their predecessor, that development corporations should take over the responsibility of local authorities in the new town areas, or that the Exchequer should subsidise expenditure on services which ought properly to be borne by the rates. Section 11 of the New Towns Act, 1946, allows the corporations to assist these authorities financially if the carrying out of their functions in new towns would place too heavy a burden upon them. One can well foresee circumstances in which that can happen, but it was always envisaged that the development would rest primarily upon the local authority.
  May I now say a word about this Ministry of Education grant, which is, of course, wrapped up with the immediate financial difficulties. Owing to capital investment and general financial problems, of which the House are only too painfully aware, the Ministry of Education are, and have been for some time, unable to pay any grants towards the provision or development of playing fields, except (and this is a very big exception which I will develop in a moment)

  1409
  in so far as they are provided for new schools. Local authorities willing to undertake their responsibilities for public playing fields are faced, therefore, with the unpleasant prospect of having to shoulder the whole cost, with such help as they can get from the corporations. The special need for the resumption of grant aid in respect of playing fields in the new towns has been most sympathetically considered, but my right honourable friend the Minister of Education has to bear in mind that this kind of need is urgent not only in the areas of the new towns but in many other parts of the country.
  My right honourable friend is only too fully aware of all the difficulties and points that noble Lords have raised this afternoon, and all the arguments for and against. But let me emphasise once again this one big exception. Where a local education authority provides a new school in a new town, and there are a number of such schools, the Minister of Education's ban on the development of playing fields does not apply. I do not think that is fully realised. Nor do I think it is fully realised that about eighty-six primary and secondary schools in the new towns are in the Ministry of Education building programmes for the next two to three years, and about twenty-six of these will be secondary schools with substantial playing fields, ranging up to twenty acres. The rest will be primary schools which do not have playing fields, but do have playgrounds, which, of course, are a vast improvement on the gutters and the back streets of the towns from which we hope these children will be coming. I thought it right to emphasise this exception because it is fair to say that this puts quite a different complexion on the policy of the Ministry of Education, when one realises what a contribution these schools will be making to playing field accommodation in the new towns.
  My Lords, I am afraid Her Majesty's Government cannot go so far as to accept the principles which are so strongly advocated by the National Playing Fields Association in their last Annual Report, that the development corporations, which, after all, are financed by national funds, should provide everything necessary for the new towns, including playing fields, and hand them over to a local authority when the whole is complete, on terms then to be
  1410
  agreed or fixed by Parliament. It seems to us that free enterprise, the local authorities and statutory undertakers, such as for gas, electricity and so on, have always been expected to take their part. Houses and industry, of course, had to come first, and amenities as soon as resources were available. The co-operation of all authorities concerned, each within its proper sphere of responsibility, is essential, and it is no real help to the other interested authorities to foster for a moment the idea that everything is to be done by the corporations alone out of national funds.
  My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has told all the new town development corporations that the fundamental responsibility for the provision of playing fields rests with the local authorities, and he has asked the corporations to work in the closest possible co-operation with them, as, of course, they are very ready to do. Briefly, the policy can be summarised by saying that the provision is a matter for the local authorities; but if they are unable to make it and the need is urgent, the corporations can provide the land and lay it out for use to the minimum standard necessary. We expect that in all cases the local authority will take over playing fields at a figure reasonable in all the circumstances and will be responsible for the maintenance costs. In appropriate cases, in order to facilitate agreement the development corporations are able to make a contribution towards the cost of providing playing fields under their powers in Section 11 of the New Towns Act, which I have just been discussing, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government will approve such arrangements so far as he is financially able to do. My noble friend Lord Luke referred to the question of the one-quarter-housing value. As he rightly said, the old basis of disposal of land for playing fields by development corporations to local authorities was at one quarter of housing value. That basis has been withdrawn. I am afraid I can tell the noble Lord only this: that a new basis is in course of negotiation between my right honourable friend the Minister, the local authority associations, and the development corporations, and I hope that the new formula will soon be in operation.

  1411
  If I may sum up this interesting and rather difficult subject, I must say at once that no promise can be made that the new towns can have special consideration by way of grants under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937. I should be holding out very false hopes if I said anything to the contrary. No doubt the National Playing Fields Association itself is aware of claims outside the new towns which are no less strong from the point of view of local need. So far as that Act and the Education Act are concerned, the only possible answer I can give at this juncture is, I am afraid, that the representations made by the noble Lord on behalf of the new towns will be given their proper place amongst the other representations from other claimants whose claims have not been advanced to-day but which may be equally good. Nor can I really agree that there would be any financial advantage in transferring the powers of administration of the 1937 Act to another Ministry. As to the assistance available under the New Towns Act, 1946, I think I have already mentioned the powers of the development corporations to make contributions under Section 11. These are contributions by the corporations out of moneys advanced to and repayable by them. They are not grants to the corporations under Section 12 of the New Towns Act. Such grants cannot be made in respect of capital expenditure, and, even if they could, there would be no advantage that I can see to the national finances to make them instead of grants under the Physical Training and Recreation Act.
  My Lords, there is no easy and ready-made solution to meet this fully-recognised need for playing fields. The land is being reserved, and will be kept available at the right places and at the right time. It seems to me that the local associations and the local authorities must now do their part as best they can. Let them go to the development corporations and work out an agreed programme of development with realistic estimates of what financial provision they can make from their growing membership and their increasing rate resources. The corporations can then place before my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government their own proposals for dealing with the situation, and he will go as far as he is able, within the resources at his
  1412
  disposal, to ensure that there is a steady progress in the provision of playing fields. The rate of progress and the prospects of the resumption of grants in aid are matters on which I am afraid I can add nothing useful on this occasion.
  Let me conclude by saying this. The need for playing fields is fully realised by the Government. Every point that has been made by the noble Lords who have spoken to-day seems to me to be a point to which, on that score, no exception could be taken. They, in their turn, I am quite certain, appreciate the financial difficulty; they appreciate also the claims of other bodies. I do not pretend for one moment that all has gone well. I do not pretend that, in one or two cases, there is not a good deal of justification for Lord Silkin's accusation about "passing the buck." I have, I hope, given some indication of the way in which Her Majesty's Government think the procedure should work, and if there are any specific cases which noble Lords have in mind where they think that delay or "buck passing" has taken place, I shall be only too happy to consider them. I am sorry to end on this rather depressing note of being unable to hold out any very great prospects to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, about meeting the demands which he has so reasonably made. All I can say is that the need for meeting these demands is realised by nobody more readily than by my right honourable friend the Minister, and, with the possible exception of myself, there will be nobody more happy than he when those demands can be met.
  4.50 p.m.
  LORD LUKE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the trouble which he has taken to deal with my Motion and the detail which he has given in his reply. I can assure him that I shall study what he has said very carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am glad that Lord Mancroft himself admitted that his statement was not very satisfactory. I did not think it so either. However, I am glad that this debate has taken place, and I should like to thank those noble Lords who took the hint from Lord Silkin when he suggested that there were not enough noble Lords taking part in this debate as compared with the number who took part in the previous one. I am most grateful for their support. I will not now reply to

  1413
  any special point which Lord Mancroft made, but will only say once more, "Thank you." I am glad that a new basis for the disposal of land is under negotiation, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.