Lords Sitting of 7 July 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  VISCOUNT THURSO
  The Right Honourable Sir Archibald Henry Macdonald Sinclair, Baronet, K.T., C.M.G., having been created Viscount Thurso, of Ulbster in the County of Caithness—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD HARVEY OF TASBURGH
The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Charles Harvey, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., C.B., having been created Baron Harvey of Tasburgh, of Tasburgh in the County of Suffolk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

REGISTRATION OF OPTICIANS
3.0 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS rose to draw attention to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Statutory Registration of Opticians (Cmd. 8531); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper in the hope that we may secure from the Government a statement of policy on the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee which was appointed as long ago as September 23, 1949, under the able Chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Crook. I would remind your Lordships that the terms of reference of that Committee were:
"To advise, on the assumption that it would be to the public interest that provision should be made by legislation for the registration of opticians, how registration could best be carried out and what qualifications should be required as a condition of registration."
Your Lordships will appreciate that the subject matter was one of considerable controversy. There were many lively points of view and, in particular, considerable divergence between the viewpoints of medical men and opticians. The
468
opticians themselves were not united in their outlook. Those opticians who examine eyes comprised some five main optical bodies and they all possessed differing points of view. In respect of dispensing opticians, there were two organisations. Each of those had a different approach and they were, apparently, united only in one thing—their opposition to many of the views of the five organisations of the examining opticians. Then there were the eye specialists of the medical world, who also had a completely different point of view from the examining opticians.
To this Inter-Departmental Committee, therefore, the Ministers of Health and the Department of Scotland appointed, in their personal capacity, representatives of all those divergent interests, together with a representative of the hospital world and an educationalist, who was also a Member of another place. All those members were undoubtedly anxious to do something to improve the present position, but all were likely to desire to reach different conclusions by different methods. They all wished to do something because they were all conscious of the weakness of the existing position: the matter of standard qualifications; the multiplicity of examinations; the performance and function of eye-testing in surroundings which were not of the best; the sale of spectacles on sight-testing carried out by customers themselves in multiple stores or by cheapjacks in the markets. For the truth is that, surprising as it may be in these days of a great Government-sponsored Health Service, there would appear to be nothing like the control of opticians that there was in good King Charles's day over 300 years ago.
In 1629, Charles I granted a Charter to the Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers. This Charter provided for
"(1) the better rule and government of spectacle making; (2) the profit and relief of good and honest men; (3) the fear and terror of evil and wicked offenders."
That Company were given quite substantial powers. They had power
"(i) to set down reasonable laws, statutes and decrees; (ii) to provide for honest trade; (iii) to arrange for the punishment of abuses and deceit."

469
These deceits and wrong practices were described as
"uttering bad or hurtful wares whereby our loving subjects may be wronged or abused."
Powers were also given to the Worshipful Company to inspect the premises of those trading, to seize the bad wares and to fine those responsible. In the following year, 1630, the then Lord Chancellor approved by-laws for the Worshipful Company, which included provision as to training in the art of spectacle-making, the suppression of bad workmanship and the elimination of hawkers. Yet, to-day, after all that space of time, there is no provision by law or rule for training; there is no control over the quality of spectacles, and no power to suppress the hawkers who still sell spectacles, I regret to say, to simple inoffensive men and women in the market squares of my own home county of Yorkshire.
It would appear that the Worshipful Company exercised their powers to the full until the breakdown of the old apprenticeship system. Then, of course, the change in the economic life of the country, due to the Industrial Revolution, had some effect. Apparently the Worshipful Company then lost their original interest in controlling their craft, and the hundred years that followed were free of any control in respect of spectacle-making, to the profit of the few and the great harm of the many. Fortunately, in 1896, there was an awakening of a new spirit, and the Court of the Worshipful Company appointed a sub-committee which included two Members of another place, Sir Horatio Davies and Alderman Sir Marcus Samuel, who subsequently came to your Lordships' House as Viscount Bearsted. As a result of the activities of this committee, an examination in visual optics was established. Five years later the Worshipful Company received recommendations from Lord Kelvin, the Earl of Rosse and many other scientists of repute, including Sir William Crookes and the Astronomer Royal, urging that sight-testing be added to the scope of the examinations.
Under the Mastership of another Member of the other place, who was also eventually to become a Member of your Lordships' House as Lord Aldenham, such an examination was initiated in 1904. Nothing further in the nature of any attempt at control of opticians took
470
place until 1926. In that year a Joint Council of qualified opticians promoted a Bill entitled "The Optical Practitioners (Registration) Bill," and after debate in the House an Inter-departmental Committee was appointed. This was under the chairmanship of another distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, Viscount Kemsley. The Majority Report of that Committee rejected registration, although there were two Minority Reports. I will not trouble your Lordships with the relative extract from the Report of 1927, but if your Lordships are interested you can see it in paragraph 15 of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee which we are now discussing.
So it is that opticians have remained unregistered, while Bills have come before Parliament, from time to time, dealing with dentists, nurses, midwives, those responsible for drugs, solicitors, and, of course, the great medical profession. The important section of the community whose services could make or mar the eyesight and lives of the ordinary men and women remain without any legislative provision whatever. But at last there is hope, for, to the surprise of most people, and no doubt largely due to the tact of the Chairman of the Committee, my noble friend Lord Crook, all the divergent views expressed before the Committee were brought together into one unanimous Report by the Committee—a rather remarkable feat.
The Report of the Crook Committee records in paragraph 6:
"We are glad that the Committee, including as it does personnel representative of the medical profession, ophthalmic opticians and dispensing opticians as well as of educationists, is able to present a unanimous Report and recommendation for action."
If, in the public interest, it was possible to secure this unanimous Report from those most closely interested, Parliament should surely be ready to pass legislation to secure the desired objective without undue delay. I have heard, informally, of the keen attention which the Minister of Health has given to this Report, and I hope that in the course of this debate the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, who I understand is to speak for the Government, may be able to indicate that the Government propose to implement the Report by introducing legislation at the earliest possible date. In moving the

471
Motion standing in my name, I would only add that I am sure your Lordships will agree that our thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and to the Committee for the services they have rendered in what, I submit, is a most important matter, affecting, as it does, in no small degree the health and happiness of so many people. I hope that their unanimous Report will receive the prompt attention that it deserves. I beg to move for Papers.
3.10 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I want to say just a few words in support of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, that the Report of the Crook Committee be accepted by Her Majesty's Government. Apart from being a very good Report indeed, it seems to me quite remarkable that the Report should have been signed unanimously by all the members of the Committee. One of the things I am always most pleased to see is the desire of a body of professional people to form a register and to have a council to control their activities. If there is a register not only does it mean that a very high standard can be maintained, but one also finds a good deal of continuity in that standard. My own profession has been lucky to have been in possession of a register for a great number of years, and I am sure your Lordships will all agree with me that the establishment of the Medical Register has done a lot to improve and maintain the standard of medicine in this country.
Further, I was pleased to see in the Report that the General Council which is to be set up will consist, in the main, of persons coming from the profession itself, and not front outside their sphere altogether. That is something which ought to be encouraged. From time to time one sees the type of council being set up where the majority control of the council is not vested in the profession. I am glad to see that in this particular case that that is not so.
There is one point which I wish very tentatively to put in front of the Minister. There seems to be a certain amount of difficulty with regard to one particular group of people who practise orthoptics—that is, the training of the eyes by means of exercise and not by means of glasses. It is rather uncertain from the
472
Report whether these people should come under the General Optical Council or whether they should be left to medical auxiliaries, as I believe they are at present. I hope that the Minister will be able to discuss that matter and to ensure that, on whatever side they come, they come in a contented way, and not in a spirit of discontent. I think I need have no worry about it, as I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will seee that the right thing is done. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer in regard to this matter. I am sure that noble Lords on these Benches, who have been much strengthened by the new edition to our ranks this afternoon, support this Motion.
3.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I rise merely as a layman in this matter, and as one of the consuming public, in support of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds. Some little time ago I found myself in discussion with some friends of mine whose professions lie in the ophthalmic branches of science. They mentioned to me the subject of the Crook Report and its recommendations. At that time I had not read the Report, and in discussion with them it seemed to me, in the public interest and in the interests of the gradual upgrading of professional status, quite essential that certain things should be done; and I scribbled them down on a piece of paper. My friends then asked me, "What have you been scribbling down?", and I said, "Obviously, somebody will have to form categories"; whereupon, of course, they laughed and said, "Well, we think you had better read the Report." Finding, therefore, that the recommendations in the Report were identical with my own mental aberrations, I was naturally fortified in the assurance that we were both quite right.
It appears that, judging this profession alongside any other profession, it cannot possibly be wrong—indeed, that it is clearly much overdue in the public interest—that there should be set up a body having the power and duty to form and maintain categories of specialists in this field. It appears to me also—and I am sure that I shall find no dissent to this proposition in any quarter of your Lordships' House—that the principle of separation of professional advice from

473
any hint or possibility of financial interest in another branch of a profession which may supply things is absolutely essential, both for the protection of the public and for the self-respect and the proper control of that profession. I see that it is considered likely—I think the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, would agree—that in the natural course of events the three categories proposed should be elided and become two: the first, purely advisory, and dealing with the technical study, and the second, the supply and selling of glasses. That again, from a layman's point of view, seems wholly logical and desirable. Therefore, as I say, purely as a layman, I register my support of the words that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds; and may I hope that my noble friend Lord Woolton will in due course be able to bless that Report.
3.17 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, it was suggested to me that, as Chairman of the Committee, I ought to run the risk of boring your Lordships by making some reference to the terms of the Report and its content. May I, however, commence by thanking my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds for initiating this debate, and also my noble friends Lord Amulree and Lord Limerick for the kindly words that they have addressed to the House with regard to the Report. I hope that when the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, who normally smiles at me across the Table, comes to make the Government reply, he will be able to deal nearly as kindly with the Report.
When His late Majesty's Government of 1949 invited me to undertake this task I was faced with the gloomy knowledge that doctors disagreed with opticians, and that the opticians disagreed amongst themselves, not only as between dispensing and ophthalmic opticians but even amongst varied organisations representing the ophthalmic opticians themselves. When I was told, that the Committee were to include representatives of most of those interests, influential members of the medical profession, including ophthalmologists and a couple of professors, I realised that some of the gloomy forebodings were in the main true. But I should like to pay tribute to all the members of that Committee who, after two and a half years of hard work, found
474
themselves getting closer and closer together and who finally were able, in the public interest, to sign a Report which, though it did not represent to any one of them 100 per cent. of what he would have liked to achieve, enabled a unanimous document to be presented for the consideration of the Government of the day.
I believe that the members felt as I do, that it is unthinkable that a nation such as ours, which can embark upon great social and health service schemes such as we have, can live to-day in the position in which one of the great things which we possess, namely, sight, can be treated by people without any legal qualifications whatsoever. I have become ultra-eye conscious since I was made to look at these matters in 1949. I am now in the position where I should fear above all other things to lose my sight and never again to see God's sunlight and blue sky and trees. I think I always knew how great an affliction some of our colleagues suffered, but never so much as when I began to study this problem.
Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, has made clear, nothing has been done by legislation, and over a long period of time the people of this country wanting eye service have to a large extent been entirely dependent upon the voluntary efforts of the optical people themselves. From 1895 onwards, they set up some five different organisations which had varying standards for their qualifications, standards varying not only between themselves but inside their own organisations from time to time. In those early days, many of them had little or no academic training, many had their training only by evening classes or part-time education. Indeed, part-time education exists even now, though of a very much better kind; but it is gradually on the way out. When we look at some of the diplomas granted in the past by some of the organisations we are unable to reach an effective evaluation of their work without regard to a great deal of past history, much of it not available to us.
The standards of at least three of the organisations have been carefully controlled, but in respect of two, as your Lordships will have seen from the Report of the Committee, it was found necessary to express some doubt whether, in the

475
confirmative diplomas, there was the care about academic and training qualifications that we should all like to see. I am glad to learn informally that perhaps some of the criticisms offered in the Report have already had the effect of improving that matter in at least some respects. I think the main thing is that fortunately the public has been able to rely, over a long period of time, on a very reliable body of ophthalmic opticians who in their voluntary effort have gone out of their way to try to create for themselves training and qualifications standards that were not set down by any system of legislation. One of their most recent efforts referred to in the Report, the creation of a Joint Advisory Board which has drawn up a syllabus for a common examination, represents one of the newer developments. I would not be so foolish as to suggest that when the Joint Optical Council is appointed the J.A.B. syllabus should be regarded as completely adequate for future years, but I am certain it represents a perfectly good starting place for the General Optical Council and that it is something on which the profession will be able to build. We have all to realise that opportunities of education for this profession are very limited anywhere in this country, not only because of the small number of schools but also because of the complete absence of some of the most essential parts of the training. Clinical training is fairly unknown; at any rate, not to exaggerate, it is certainly not present in any large degree.
That leads me automatically to an important point which I would press upon your Lordships—that is, the absence of co-operation so far, in the training of these opticians, of the members or the medical profession. For various reasons, many of them quite good ones, members of the medical profession, to the extent that they have taken any part in the academic education or training at all, have largely been devoting themselves to anatomical and physiological aspects, and have played little or no part in any other medical assistance in clinical studies. To date no ophthalmic optician student has ever had a chance of access to a hospital. It must be clear to all that in the eye departments of both teaching and general hospitals are to be found large numbers
476
of abnormal eye cases in respect of which training should be given. Only if the optician has the opportunity of training by medical men will he finally be as effective to do his job as I know he wants to be. I realise that hospitals are fully occupied with the large volume of work which falls to them and the teaching duties necessary in respect of the medical profession, but I feel that in the Report the close co-operation which was achieved in the Committee by the doctors and opticians and the great co-operation there was generally in that two and a half years of work between the two who had been rivals augurs well for the future, and I hope we may see the spirit that was present then and which I know has continued to be present, go on and provide the opportunity for continued co-operation in the interests of the public.
The ethical standards of the profession in general were the subject of some comment in the Report. Obviously, the only ethical standard possible is that imposed in a voluntary way by the profession upon members of its own organisations, through the possession of diplomas. While it is true you cannot create ethics by legislation, it is also true that unless an ethical standard is backed in some way by powers there is little hope that it will be completely effective. Until it is possible for a General Optical Council to insist upon the standard of ethical conduct which I am glad to say is true now of the optical profession, we cannot hope to get the complete professional standards we desire. I urge upon Her Majesty's Government that the General Optical Council, when, as I hope, it is set up, shall be given the fullest possible disciplinary powers and the fullest possible opportunity of dealing with ethical standards for the guidance and, if necessary, the control of those inside this profession Advertising, about which I will not detain your Lordships in detail, was one of the several matters which I know have worried opticians over a long period of time. I do not think it can be right that ophthalmic optics should be practised as a 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. part of one's job by a working jeweller, watchmaker or radio technician; and while I admit that Parliament in its wisdom has (I think we should all consider rightly) been chary of taking away the livelihood of people at present performing certain functions, one of the early tasks of the

477
General Optical Council ought to be to review the position for the future and to see that the profession is made one which is completely professional. It might well base itself in its general and ethical standards on the excellent standards which the medical profession has drawn up for itself and enforced so emphatically over a long period of time.
I think a good deal of the work of the General Optical Council will have to base itself, so far as its professional and standards go, on systems which the General Medical Council have evolved. I can think of nothing better than some of the advice given by way of evidence by the G.M.C., in co-operation with the doctors, dealing, for instance, with methods of inspection and the way in which, by the giving of advice and follow-up, they are able, without sanctions, although the ultimate power is there, to secure all the standards they desire. I should be the last to suggest that academic institutions should have that complete freedom which they normally like to possess taken away from them by legislation of this kind; but powers of inspection and at least of guidance and advice for the establishment of standards must be one of the least of the things that is given.
I think, however, that there stands out clearly to anyone who cares to look for himself one glaring scandal with regard to eye practice—I refer to the ability of members of the public (this is a matter to which my noble friend, Lord Milner, has already referred) to go into a chain store establishment and select glasses for themselves. During the course of this Committee's work, I took the opportunity of going into two or three of the branches of a well-known firm of chain store proprietors, in order to watch the sale of spectacles. I observed ladies going up to the counter, taking up a sheet of type, and then trying on various glasses until they found that the particular type at which they were looking could be read satisfactorily; and then they would order a pair of glasses by the number of that type. Noble Lords who, like myself, are accustomed—or apprised, as we are by the newspapers, and by inference, if not by experience—to the time a lady takes to choose a hat, may be interested to know that, according to my observation, it takes about one-hundredth part of that time for
478
a lady to choose a pair of spectacles which may ruin her eyesight for ever.
The plain truth is that examining bodies and organisations of opticians have carried these matters, so far as I can judge, as far as they can carry them by years of voluntary effort. There has been half a century of work in building up standards, trying to control ethics, trying to see that the public interest is guided and guarded by them. Voluntarily, they have gone as far as they can in this way, and unless the ultimate control of a council, with the benefit of sanctions if necessary, is made available, they cannot go further. I should not be so foolish as to suggest to the noble Viscount who is going to reply to this debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that he will be able to tell us now that, when legislation is advanced—as I most earnestly hope it will be—every single recommendation in the Report will be adopted, and on the lines suggested. Indeed, as I understand it (the noble Viscount and I know each other well enough for me to say this), if the Chairman of any Committee of Inquiry sees action taken while he is still alive, on anything that is in his Committee's Report, instead of knowing that it is safely interred in a Whitehall pigeonhole, he is fortunate. He will be well satisfied, at least, to be assured that there is to be any legislation at all.
I believe that I shall be able, whilst still young, hale and hearty, to see the Government put into operation the main grounds of this Report by way of legislation. I am encouraged in that belief by the unanimity of the members of the Committee, to which reference has been made, and by the way in which divergent interests have managed to get together to sign this Report and to try to help the public interest. I am further encouraged by my knowledge of the great interest which the Minister showed in the Report and by my further knowledge of the way in which the Civil Service—the "back room boys," who have been responsible for this kind of thing—have taken such a lively, intelligent and knowledgeable interest in the job. They have done their best to see that every single relevant factor has been put before all concerned. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, when he comes to reply for Her Majesty's Government, will be as anxious as I am to tell the members of the Committee—who I am glad to know

479
have been afforded the opportunity of being present in our Galleries this afternoon—how much we owe to them, and how warmly we thank them for the job which they did. It was a job which meant for them "all kicks and no ha'pence." It was a job which took up a great deal of time, and I think the finest tribute they could have, and the best thanks which the noble Viscount could give to them, would be to pass to them the knowledge that not only will legislation on this matter be forthcoming but that it will be forthcoming at an early date.
3.36 p.m.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I venture to address your Lordships on this topic because I am myself an optician, though I practise as my noble friend on the other side of the Chamber would wish: I do not sell spectacles, I only test eyes. I also wish to urge Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill on the lines of the Report. I read the Report when it came out, and I have read it again since, and I agree with every word of it. I think it offers the best and the most just compromise which can be obtained. It was no small achievement to bring in a unanimous Report, and this one represents the highest common denominator of the general and professional views of those concerned. Any representations made subsequently to the Ministry strike me as being backstairs lobbying. The suggested Bill would be for the protection of the public.
It is of the false security of an inadequate eye examination that I wish to speak. I am an examiner for one of the qualifying bodies. What is the use of "ploughing" someone if he does not come up for re-examination but "gets in through a back door"? Those bodies which let people in through back doors do not let in many, but they should not let in any at all. It is true that they have very small membership but, nevertheless, in my view they keep this back door still open. Personally, I do not so much mind the trade in spectacles which is done by chain stores. A man cannot, in fact, hurt his eyes by wearing the wrong spectacles—certainly not by wearing the wrong reading spectacles—when he is in middle life. In the case of children it is different: a squint can be
480
started by fitting a child with the wrong spectacles. All the harm that one of your Lordships could do to himself by buying spectacles at a chain store would be to give himself a headache. And that would "larn him," so that he would, I should hope, go off and have an eye examination by a qualified practitioner. If he did not give himself a headache he might, in consequence of not having had an examination, be left in ignorance of something which it would be well for him to know. The eye is the one place where you can inspect blood vessels in working order. The first sign of high blood pressure is to be found in the eye.
I would welcome a prohibitive Act, but in this connection I would rather that it should be directed at sun spectacles. These are much more likely than reading spectacles to cause harm. Sun spectacles, when they are put on to children, are very habit-forming, and they retard the development of the eye. I feel very strongly, with the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, that dispensing and prescribing should be wholly divorced. I am always very glad when my own prescriptions go to a dispenser, and not to an ophthalmic optician. I do not consider that there is anything in the contention that the man who prescribes should also dispense. If there is anything important to be attended to in the dispensing it is up to the prescriber to write it on the prescription. As Lord Crook says, the present ill-qualified man must remain. Parliament will not take his livelihood away from him. But where eye-testing is only a sideline—that is in cases where the people concerned have two "rackets"—I think it would be right to insist upon a choice being made of one or the other. Anyway, there are far more opticians than the nation needs, and that condition leads only to drumming up trade, such as the recent agitation for the compulsory testing of the vision of motorists, which the trade journals favour. That sort of thing would lead to a nation of spectacle-wearers, as there is across the Atlantic. I spend my time telling people to throw their "specs" away.
My noble friend Lord Amulree touched on orthoptics. Actually, orthoptics are exercises to straighten squints in children. They also relieve headaches in adults, but that is a minor consideration. Orthoptics may, or may not, be coupled with the prescription of spectacles. And may I

481
mention to my noble friend that modern orthoptics were introduced into this country by my profession and not by his? I urge a strong Bill and urge that there should be three registers, particularly the third, that of those who prescribe and do not dispense. I also urge restrictions on multiple or chain opticians, especially those who sell cameras, barometers and "what have you." as well as testing eyes in their shops.
3.42 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, for assuring us that when we next buy spectacles in a store we need expect nothing more than a headache as the result of wearing them. I feel that we owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Crock for the work he did on this Committee, and for the excellent and clear Report that the Committee have placed before us. I had an opportunity of seeing some of my noble friend's tactful and efficient work on one of the most difficult Committees of the United Nations, the Fifth Committee—only a little less difficult than the Fourth—and I was full of admiration for the way in which he conducted the affairs of that Committee, so far as British interests were concerned, so that I am not surprised that he did so well on this Committee.
I have no knowledge whatsoever of optics or of opticians, but it happens that the President of the Association of Dispensing Opticians is a gentleman whom I know, and he has written to me and asked me to present to your Lordships the views of the Association. As the dispensing opticians are very much affected by the proposals in the Committee's Report, and will be by any proposals that the Government may make as a result of the Report, I think it only right that their views should be placed before your Lordships and, in particular, before the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton. The Association of Dispensing Opticians would like me to point out that paragraphs 66 and 69 of the Crook Report recommend that, subject to safeguards, the first dual-function register should be closed at some time in the future and that a General Optical Council, analogous to the General Medical Council,
482
should have power to effect this closure. The Association agree with that proposal. They say they wish to see the high standard of dispensing which their members practise become general throughout the country. Dispensing and sight-testing are separate entities, each entailing a full-time operation, and the Association admit that in expanding the training and examination of ophthalmic opticians, dispensing has been neglected. They feel that it is contrary to the public interest that the professional view should be influenced by the knowledge that that view can provide a further source of profit. It is felt that the opportunity and temptation of this further profit should be removed from those who might be liable to fall into the temptation. Failure to make any provision for, or even reference to, any closure perpetuates the present situation and gives no incentive for improvement.
I understand that the Government are not prepared to give a General Optical Council, or the Privy Council, or, for that matter, Parliament, the power which the Crook Committee suggested to close the first register to new applicants. It is not suggested by the dispensing opticians that old applicants should be excluded from the register. They do not even propose to have three registers, as the Report suggests, but they feel that there should be a closure of the register so far as new applicants are concerned. Roughly, and possibly inadequately, these are the reasons why the Association of Dispensing Opticians believe that the Government should carry out the recommendations of the Crook Committee which are found in paragraphs 66 and 69 of their Report.
I confess my ignorance of this problem, but I feel that it is a strong point that we should remove the temptation of further profits in the case of people undertaking sight testing. If the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, is to be believed, most people would be better off without glasses altogether. To give people who are going to test sight the possibility of making profit from the provision of glasses appears to be running not only against common sense, but also against the advice given to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood. These are all the observations that I have to make in this matter. I trust that the

483
noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, will take into account the views of the Association of Dispensing Opticians.
3.48 p.m.
LORD KENSWOOD: My Lords, I feel certain that those who, like myself, have for a good many years taken an active interest in sight saving and the prevention of blindness, must welcome this Report. It is an excellent Report and we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and his colleagues, and to all those witnesses and assessors, who have helped to make public certain evils in our system. I must say that, although welcome, the Report seems to indicate that a great deal more research work and negotiation will have to go on. We find in Paragraph 108, on Page 27, the statement that there are far too few ophthalmologists to cope with the patients who should go to them for eye inspection. That means that opticians will have to go on for a good many years—do not let us blink at it and use other names—diagnosing and prescribing treatment. I want to know where prescription and observation begin and end, and where treatment begins. I speak from personal experience, and I know that frequently glasses are prescribed, even by ophthalmologists, not merely for correction, but as treatment to satisfy some further end. Certain opticians will do that, and I believe that means diagnosis. It means that you recognise a certain eye defect which you want to improve.
The noble Lord, Lord Charnwood—he will correct me if I have misunderstood him—has upheld the ability of opticians to test eyes and prescribe glasses. That does not seem to me to be in accord with paragraph 117, on page 28 of the Report, where it says that opticians have not had sufficient clinical training, and have not had sufficient advice and lectures from ophthalmologists to fit them for diagnosis. What happens, in general, is this. You find that you cannot see so well as you think you ought to be able to do. You therefore go to an optician, or you go to a chain store and pick up some glasses. I believe there must be millions of people wearing glasses which they have procured from hawkers or from chain stores. I remember the late Lord Passfield saying that he bought his glasses from a hawker; that he was always satisfied
484
with them, and never had to change them. It is something like a lottery: he picked on some glasses, and was lucky; and I believe many people have done the same thing and have still retained sufficient vision to help them in their trade or profession. But that is not good enough. What an examination of the eyes should reveal is something which probably a correction of refraction cannot reveal.
I do not know much about ophthalmology—in fact, my knowledge is nil—but Professor Sorsby's recent report shows that there is among the people of this country a great deal of glaucoma. That is a complaint which comes on in middle life, at the same time that your refraction changes, and it need not exist if attended to early. You go to an optician, he examines your eyes and gives you a pair of glasses which suit you and you think that your trouble is over. You do not necessarily get headaches, because if he is a skilled optician he will give you glasses with the proper correction. But what he does not see, possibly, is that there is incipient glaucoma; and unless that is treated at once, you go blind. There are no two ways about it. I feel that unless opticians can get far more training than it is possible to give them, they should not be allowed to diagnose or even to act without a prescription by an ophthalmologist. I know that is the counsel of perfection, and it cannot be implemented to-day because there are simply not enough ophthalmologists to do the examinations.
I know that I shall come in for criticism, but I do not mind that. I can quote my own case. A good many years ago, when my sight began to trouble me, I went to several of the world-famous ophthalmologists, one in London and one in Vienna. None of them noticed anything wrong with my sight, other than a certain degree of myopia, which they corrected. That was that. Three years later I was not satisfied with my sight, which got so bad that I could no longer read, and I went to two other famous ophthalmologists. They said that it was too late and they could no longer do anything for me, but that had I come earlier they could have saved my sight. Mine is not an isolated case. You cannot argue from the particular to the general.

485
I believe there must be thousands of cases similar to mine. If it is so difficult for an experienced ophthalmologist to diagnose an ailment, how much more difficult is it for an optician, who has had neither the training nor the experience?
With regard to clinical experience, I believe that patients in a hospital get a good deal of worry from the number of students who look at them and mess them around. I apologise for this statement but I feel strongly about it; and I have had three years as chairman of hospitals. After all, it is not only the students who matter; it is the patient who matters. Here in this Report we are envisaging the possibility of opticians gaining more experience by being sent into eye hospitals and being allowed to examine the patients. That may be a pis aller, but certainly it is not an ideal. The ideal we have to seek for is a sufficient number of well-trained and qualified ophthalmologists. I certainly feel it is criminal to allow hawkers or chain stores to sell glasses, and that should be stopped once.
My last point is this. If we give a special position to opticians, to a particular profession, surely, the public are also entitled to be protected against any possibility of monopoly or trust on the part of those opticians. I do not want to say anything personal about opticians as such—I think they are an honourable class of men and women, doing their best and performing a great service to the public—but it is just possible that there may be a movement towards taking advantage of their situation and getting higher prices. I know what the price of spectacles was before 1914; I know that the price of spectacles to-day is out of all proportion to the rise in the cost of living and the rise of wages. It may well be that this rise is well justified, but it does make me wonder whether we ought not to safeguard people against anybody exploiting their privileged position to the disadvantage of the public. I hope that as much as possible of this Report will be implemented by Her Majesty's Government as soon as possible. I am fully aware, as I mentioned earlier, that the Report bristles with difficulties; that a great many different points of view will have to be straightened out; and, above all, that something will have to be done to see that the service, after removing
486
hawkers and chain stores, will be adequate to supply the needs of the people who have defective vision.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, it might be convenient if I, with your Lordships' permission, were now to interrupt the debate to make a statement on Business. Owing to the number of Amendments which have been set down for the Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant. Bill to-morrow, Thursday, it has been arranged, through the usual channels—and we hope it will be with your Lordships' general consent—that there shall be an adjournment for dinner from 7 o'clock until 8.30, when the Committee stage will be resumed.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware whether we are to have a second day for the Committee stage of that Bill? We have asked for a second day, I believe.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, so far as I am aware at the moment, one day has been arranged with all the Parties.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I did not understand that there was any arrangement between all Parties. It is very late to inform us that we may be here until some unknown time after dinner tomorrow, if necessary. Noble Lords on this side, as well as noble Lords opposite, are quite prepared to sit until late at night, but is it really necessary? Is it not better to have two days, so that we can complete our work in the proper manner, in ordinary hours, on this important Bill? This is a very important Bill which will affect millions of people throughout the years, and I do not see why we should rush it through in one day.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: So far as I am aware, it was arranged through the usual channels that one day should be given on the programme, as agreed at that time. It was not known that there would be forty-seven Amendments on the Marshalled List. Of course the noble Lord will recall that in the days when noble Lords opposite sat on this side of the House we often sat very late indeed on some of their Bills.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am in a difficult position about this matter, because I have not had a note from my noble and learned Leader about any conversations through the usual channels. That may be the fault of our side. I only wish to protect the position of noble Lords who are engaged on the further stages of this Bill. We were rather concerned that such an important Bill should be discussed in Committee for the first time as other than the first Order of the Day. It was only after considerable heartburning that we consented to have some of the Amendments which would have to be considered on this Bill dealt with as a later Order on the first day. For the noble Earl to come along now, after we have consented to take some time upon that day, and suggest that we should sit after dinner, when many Members of the House have made pressing engagements for that evening, is quite unreasonable. We should be quite willing to start the Committee stage of the Bill after the first Order had been disposed of and carry on until a reasonable hour, but not thereafter.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think it will be remembered that the reason why this Committee stage appears as second Order on the Paper is entirely due to our efforts to meet noble Lords opposite. The Second Reading of the other Bill was postponed after arrangements had been made. I am quite certain of my facts there. This suggestion was put forward to all noble Lords, and no difficulty has been raised until now. It is impossible to judge how lone one of these Committee stages is likely to take until the number of Amendments can be seen on the Marshalled List; and as noble Lords know, they come very late in the day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: All I am saying is this—I am hampered because I have not had an opportunity of speaking to my noble Leader about this. We are quite ready to start consideration of the Amendments to-morrow. We understand that that is necessary because we had to postpone the debate on the Civil Defence (Armed Forces) Bill. We feel, however, that we cannot say that we will sit to any hour of the night to-morrow. Perhaps in the course of this evening we can have a
488
continuation of conversations through the usual channels.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would say this to the noble Viscount. I personally saw the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who is dealing with this Bill for the Opposition, and he said quite definitely that he would prefer this arrangement. I know that it is not quite so convenient to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Also, I have conferred with the noble Lord the Chief Whip through the usual channels, and presumably the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has passed it on to his Party.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The difficulty may have arisen from this side, as I said before. We certainly had no notice that an announcement to that effect was to be made this afternoon.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is the usual practice, when the Whips have agreed something—as this was agreed with the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and and Lord Silkin—that one of the Ministers or one of the Whips makes a formal announcement about the agreement made. Since I have been in the House, which is some years now, that has always been the common practice, and I am sorry if the noble Viscount was not informed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have not heard a word about it, and it will be extremely awkward for me.

REGISTRATION OF OPTICIANS
4.5 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we now come back to the discussion introduced by my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds. We are all grateful to him for having given us the opportunity of discussing the Report which my noble friend behind me will not mind my calling the Crook Report. We all share a feeling of thankfulness to the noble Chairman of that Committee, and we are pleased to see the large amount of unanimity which has been achieved in the presentation of the Report. For my part, I do not change very much in the views I have held for the last thirty years: that whilst I am entirely in favour of getting the finest

489
education and academic training possible, and whilst I am in favour of improving in the highest degree the professional services to the general users of such services, I have an inherent objection, and have had for years, to what I call the setting up of closed corporations. I always remember the words of Robert Waldo Emerson, who said:
"Whoso would be a man, must be a Nonconformist."
In many of these things for setting up closed corporations I am very much of the Nonconformist. However, the general idea of raising the standards is excellent.
No one could listen without being moved by the last speech we heard, from my noble friend, Lord Kenswood, whose academic experience and whose own magnificent triumph over his physical difficulties have always brought him the highest respect in this House. His personal experience of the tragedy of not receiving the right advice or treatment required in time is, of course, an exceedingly powerful factor to be brought to bear upon those who are forming opinions on the Report before us to-day. Having said that, I would say that in my working lifetime I have always spoken for one of those bodies which are referred to in a considerable section of the Report as corporate bodies—namely, companies or societies incorporated for ordinary business purposes. Judging from this Report, it is apparently considered undesirable, in view of certain precedents which have been created, that any new approval should be given to the registration of bodies carrying out optical and dispensing work unless they have a majority of qualified opticians or ophthalmic people upon their board of directors.
I think that is a most amazing situation. It is true that it has been tried in certain other respects. It was brought into effect under the control of the Dental Board. But, of course, anybody who knows how that has been worked, knows that you can drive a coach and six through it at any time. You set up a little separate organisation and put three dentists or three opticians on it, and then they carry on the work with the corporate bodies. That really is nonsense from the ordinary business point of view. But when we come to the position, say, of a co-operative society—now representing about 11 million shareholding
490
members in the country—who have their own proper standards and constitutional rules for the election of their management, it is, in my view, quite improper to say that they cannot carry on with their running of efficient optical advice, prescription and treatment because the democratically-elected members of the board are not all, or in a majority, qualified people.
It reminds me of some of the attacks that are made from time to time upon trade unions and trade union practices. I must say, however, that in my experience of what goes on, stage by stage, these exclusive professional bodies are the most powerful and independent trade unions in the whole country. It is so with the medical profession, it is so with the legal profession; it is so now in the dental profession—and, of course, the opticians want to be the same. There is a whole list of other people who are coming on. Even the undertakers, who dispose of our remains at the end of our lives, are now seeking incorporation, with special qualifications, and the like, coming into consideration. I suppose the next will be the butchers and the slaughterers of animals for our food—
LORD SILKIN: And hairdressers.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My noble friend reminds me that we shall soon have hairdressers applying for registration in the same kind of way. It is an extraordinary situation. Whilst there are many things in this Report, especially with regard to education and training, which I think are admirable, I object strongly to the kind of provision I have mentioned being foreshadowed in the Report. When the Government come to make their decision, I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, for example, who has far greater experience in one branch of corporate work than I have, will not be short of advice from the people concerned. He needs to go only to Selfridge's, to John Barker's, or to any of those people to see for himself what a corporate body can do in the way of providing optical treatment and similar services. I would oppose most strongly the idea that it is only the individual optician who can give the best and the highest professional service. I say that in many of the cases the services provided by the corporate

491
bodies are not only as good as, but better than, and are better furnished and provided than, those of the individual, because of the additional capital behind the concern.
If one goes to John Barker's, Selfridge's or to the Leeds Co-operative Society—I could name many others—and has a look at the provision made for the actual professional service rendered, there can be no possible case, when this Report comes to be implemented, for saying that it is fundamental that there must be a majority of professionally qualified opticians upon the board of directors. I hope we are not going to perpetrate in legislation any more such nonsense as that. It is certainly something which could never he justified in the case of great democratic bodies like the cooperative societies, who claim the right to elect their own people. They have no reason to cheat themselves, because they are setting up a service for themselves, both from the point of view of personal health and from the point of view of personal economy. I hope due notice will be taken of that point of view.
There is one other matter which has been referred to this afternoon and which interests me very much: that is, the proposed separation of optical treatment, keeping it apart from other business. Why should it be? If there is a man practising in one of the scattered districts of Northern Scotland, who is a qualified optician and who also keeps an establishment, not only for selling his spectacles but also for selling cameras or doing repairs to lenses in cameras, as he would repair lenses in a pair of spectacles, why should he not carry on thus? I know well that in many districts, if it were not for the movement with which I am concerned, with its organisation and its men, it would be almost impossible to get the service to outlying places. Proper equipment and proper provisions are taken into all those places.
LORD CROOK: I am wondering whether the noble Viscount would be perfectly satisfied at receiving medical treatment from a tobacconist who spent 85 per cent. of his time selling tobacco.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think that such an interruption from my noble friend is irrelevant.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is very irrelevant. I said that if a man is a properly qualified optician or ophthalmic adviser, why should he not also deal in photography if he wishes to? I thought we had a little more freedom in this country than that. A few people get together and say: "No, you keep outside, because you are going to do some other business as well as that of an optician.
'We are God's chosen few
All others will be damned.
There is no room in heaven for you
We can't have heaven crammed.'"
We know that attitude of mind very well indeed. I have much more sympathy with the view of my noble friend Lord Kenswood, about the need for training more qualified people to deal powerfully with the situation. I hope, however, that it will not be said that we shall have to wait until every one of the additional entrants we want in the profession has had a kind of university career or a high level career in the academic sphere. I have seen in the engineering profession, in the accountancy profession and in other professions, some of which have become corporations, the most remarkable results obtained from giving freedom of opportunity to all classes of the community, including the working classes, provided they get their technical qualifications on top of their practical work and experience, even if they have to do it through evening classes and the like.
When I listened to the various speeches that have been made this afternoon, I felt a little anxious lest we should be paying far too much attention to purely paper academic qualifications and not giving the proper opportunity to the boy or girl who goes into the business at an early age, perhaps as soon as he has obtained his General Certificate of Education. He should then be able to get the beginning of his practical training and go on for his higher educational training in the technical sense. I hope we shall not pay too much attention to purely academic qualifications, because I want to see more people technically qualified on the lines that my noble friend who last spoke mentioned this afternoon.
I do not think I need take up more of your Lordships' time. I shall, if necessary,

493
reserve detailed criticism of some of the proposals for the occasion when they are included in a Bill and submitted to Parliament. But, generally speaking, I would say I am in favour of anything which comes out of the Report and which will lead to a higher standard of qualification and of commercial practice. But I will oppose, and oppose rigidly, any proposal which seeks to set up a closed corporation and unreasonably refuses proper admission to those who are qualified for the service of the public.
4.20 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose views I am representing this afternoon, wish me to assure your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, how greatly they appreciate the fact that this debate has taken place. I have listened to it, with just a modicum of support from this side of the House, with very great pleasure. It has been one of the characteristic debates in your Lordships' House. I know of no subject on which anyone dare embark in this House without expecting to find expert knowledge confronting him. The noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, gave us quite exceptional expert knowledge, and we were all particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, who assured us that his expert knowledge was nil; it was the one point on which the noble Lord did not carry any conviction with the House. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough for having livened up the debate. I did not understand why it was that none of the medical profession got up and dealt with him. They seemed, I thought, to be singularly calm under the lash that he used on them, but probably they too are waiting for a subsequent opportunity.
We are all, in this House and in the Government, most grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Crook, whose Committee has produced this valuable Report. He embarked upon the Chairmanship of a Committee composed of representatives of people who, historically, were warring factions; and by his own skill and tact as a Chairman he has produced unanimity. As a City Company man I was most interested in Lord Milner of Leeds'
494
rush back to the "good old days" of Charles I, when, to a high degree, we had control, inspection and training in many of our industries, and no general councils other than the City Company, were required for dealing with offenders. And if there was any failure, or any rude behaviour of the apprentices to their masters, ethical standards were maintained quite definitely, quickly and rigorously—the punishment being that the apprentice was stripped to the waist and duly chastised. I gather that the noble Lord would not suggest that there should be an immediate revival of that particular type of treatment in order to deal with this particular trade or profession.
I thought the noble Lord gave us a most interesting account of the various Committees that have considered this subject. It rather alarms me sometimes to hear of the long periods for which Committees, consisting of all sorts of people, sit on these problems, produce Reports; then, when they have been duly considered and forgotten, another Committee is appointed, with the advanced knowledge of the times, to go through the same process. I think the noble Lord, Lord Crook, looking well, as I am glad to see he does, may have reasonable hopes for the views that he expressed—that perhaps in his lifetime there may be some form of legislation as a result of the work that he has done. When the Committee were appointed, thereby reflecting the views of the Government of the day, they embarked on their task with terms of reference which assumed that there would be registration. That was the basis on which they proceeded to work and, so far as I can see, all the evidence that they collected supported that view.
May I repeat two things which the noble Lord said? One was to express the gratitude of the Government of the day, whichever day it may be and whichever Government it may be, to the people who are good enough to give up their time and skill to serve on committees of this nature. The present Government are most grateful to the members of this Committee who had the privilege of serving under the noble Lord, and I should like to join in the testimony that has been paid to them. The other thing that I liked so much about what the noble Lord said was the tribute

495
that he paid to the profession, or trade (whatever it may be), at the present time. We really do not get any further by assuming that there are a large number of rapscallions engaged in widespead trade in this country, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord say what he did. If there are some who require just a little guidance and correction, then that is the proper business of legislation. But what this Report is trying to do, and what I think probably those engaged in it to the extent of some 95 or more per cent. want, is that this trade shall become a profession, with ethical standards of conduct, with a Council to govern it—a Council with quite clear definitions of its functions and having disciplinary powers.
Reverting, to what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said, the Committee propose that the ophthalmic opticians who test sight and dispense glasses should be registered, but that subsequently the register should be closed. Maybe. But this Council is going to have considerable powers. We, as a legislative assembly have to be careful about this matter. The purpose of such a Council—as indeed the purpose of any professional register—must be to protect the public. It is not primarily, but only incidentally, for the purpose of enhancing the status of a number of people, however desirable it may be that that status should be enhanced; and Parliament has always been disinclined to intefere with those already earning their living in any trade or profession, except in so far as it may be necessary to do so in the interests of the public. It may therefore be expected, that in any proposal brought forward there would be the minimum of disturbance to the present people in the method of carrying out optical work.
I was interested in, and felt myself very much in accord with, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, about treatment; but matters in regard to which technical and professional considerations arise are normally left to be settled by a professional governing body, although they are always subject (I think this is the provision that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough had in mind) to the subsequent control of some body such as the Privy Council. On the stalwart plea of the noble Viscount, Lord
496
Alexander of Hillsborough, for the corporate bodies, I wonder if I may be sufficiently personal to say that he and I have had much the same experience in our lives, so perhaps your Lordships will understand that we have a considerable amount of respect for the jobs that we have done in the past and are not, therefore, inclined to condemn corporate bodies. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Crook, would not want to condemn corporate bodies in general.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, has pointed in his Report to a danger. It is for those who are concerned with subsequent action to take those views into account, and to see what should be done. I was obliged to the noble Lord for saying, modestly, that he did not expect us to agree with everything that the Report says. Very rarely does it happen that a Government finds itself able to put into legislation everything that a Report says; indeed, it is so often so much easier to define noble and general principles than it is to define the precise terms of legislation. But I can assure the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, that the Government are taking the greatest interest in this subject.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Health, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Crook, knows, has already had considerable conversations, and they are still proceeding. Perhaps (if I may use the vernacular) when they "get down to brass tacks" they find there has not always been quite so much unanimity as there was in the noble Lord's Report. But they are arriving now, I am told, at a very good understanding. The interested bodies are meeting the Ministers with harmony, and I hope that I shall satisfy your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, when I say that the Government certainly have legislation in mind. I will not say when, for no other reason than that legislation of this nature has, of course, to find its place, as noble Lords opposite know so well, in the legislative programme of the Government. But I can assure your Lordships' House of the interest that those in the Government have in this subject and of our general sympathy for it; and, as I have said, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, for having introduced this debate.
4.34 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I am grateful to all those noble Lords who have taken part in this very useful debate for the generous support they have given to the Motion which I had the honour to submit. I hardly know what to say to my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, on his main point regarding co-operative societies and similar bodies, but it seems to me that that is rather a matter of detail. He has himself suggested one very obvious solution—to a lawyer, at any rate—and I have no doubt that there are numerous other solutions which could be suggested I feel confident that that matter would receive attention in any legislation that any Government thought fit to bring forward. I was a little sorry to hear his remarks about corporate bodies, which include one for lawyers. He appeared to think that such bodies as the Law Society and the General Medical Council, and others, were formed for the protection of members of those bodies. That is not so at all. They, like the proposed Optical Council, are formed for the protection of the consumer, which is much more important. My noble friend, with whom I am on the best terms, will, I hope, bear that in mind.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Sometimes it works both ways.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Sometimes it works both ways. I am greatly obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton. This Report, I would remind the noble Viscount, has lain on the Table since April, 1952. It is now July, 1954, and having regard to what I hope may be its non-controversial character, I am certain that all noble Lords in this House and, I imagine, a great majority of the Members of another place would be grateful if such a measure as this, which would be useful and not troublesome, could be given attention at a very early date. I thank your Lordships for the reception you have given me, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AIR NAVIGATION (SEVENTH AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1954
4.37 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Air Navigation (Seventh Amendment) Order, 1954, dated and laid before the House on the 3rd of June, 1954, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose to be very short, in view of the serious ordeal which apparently this House is to go through to-morrow, and I do not want to keep your Lordships here late to-night. I trust that those noble Lords who will, I hope, support my plea will follow my example. I am very perturbed indeed about the far-reaching effect of this Order. My reason for seeking its annulment is that it appears to me a deliberate curtailment of the right of the citizen. There appears to be now no protection against any of the activities carried on by any State Department or any aircraft manufacturer: they can do exactly what they like, ignoring the interests of the citizen. There is no power now to sue in any court or make an appeal to any authority against what has become a great tragedy in the lives of a considerable number of people. The Common Law which existed, and I hope will still exist in the future, that no person or organisation, or the State, can damage the property or interests of any citizen without compensation, seems now to have become a "washout."
On June 29, my noble friend Lord Selkirk, in reply to a Question by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, made one or two rather significant statements and admissions; and I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to read one or two of them. He said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 188 (No. 85), col. 95):
"Her Majesty's Government are aware, and the manufacturers themselves are aware, that this inevitably causes some inconvenience to those in the immediate vicinity of airfields."
But then he also said (col. 97):
"I must ask noble Lords to bear in mind that there is a conflict here between individual right and national interest, and we cannot pretend there is not."
With regard to the second statement, it appears to me that the individual right to which the noble Earl referred has now become non-existent. Surely Her Majesty's Government do not intend to

499
give aircraft manufacturers carte blanche to carry out any of their operations, with total disregard to the interests of the community. I cannot believe that such a thing can happen in this country, where the individual is supposed to be a free man with all the liberties that we expect as citizens.
It will be within your Lordships' recollection that both Lord Silkin—I am glad to see him here to-day, and I hope that he is going to say a few words—and myself, on April 7 of this year, referred to the precarious position of the interests of the citizen. The Times newspaper, in a leading article on this subject on June 5, referred to this matter, and concluded with a remark which I entirely endorse. It is quite short, and I will read it:
"If the right to sue is taken away, it should be replaced as a restraining influence by specific regulations laid down by the Ministry. Possibly such regulations could be made as part of an order under the 1949 Act. But in any case the general question of control of noise and vibration and the further crucial question of the control of the location of new manufacturers' airfields need the most careful examination."
The Times also said—and again I entirely agree:
"It is a serious matter, however, to exempt airfields from the ordinary restraints of common law, without substituting any other form of control. The exemption of airfields owned or licensed by the Government may possibly be justified on the ground that direct public control is already exercised. But this is not true of manufacturers' airfields."
I cannot see why the right to sue for damages should be taken away, although doubtless the Government are right to make sure that the aircraft manufacturers are not impeded by injunctions. I make the strongest possible appeal to Her Majesty's Government to think again on this most important question, with the idea of giving the ordinary individual some protection against the exploitation of property without the right to sue for damages. I have made the strongest case I can on the point that I feel is most important in regard to this matter, and there I am going to stop. I beg to move for Papers.
4.44 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I think that everyone will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has certainly made out a very powerful case indeed, and one which the Government will be at
500
some pains to answer. The Amendment Order, as he said, extends the power of the Minister to prescribe the conditions under which noise and vibration may be caused by aircraft which are operated, being manufactured, or used, by private manufacturers. There was a similar power previously with reference to Government aerodromes, but this Order now extends the power to cover aerodromes of private manufacturers—manufacturers who are operating their own aircraft on their own licensed aerodromes or on Government aerodromes. As Lord Teviot has said, this is a very important matter for the subject, for the prescribing of conditions by the Minister does, ipso facto, exclude the jurisdiction of the court. The citizen can no longer sue a manufacturer or anyone else who is making a noise on an aerodrome provided that the person making the noise is carrying out the work which he is doing in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Minister.
So here we have the whole issue, as it were—the Department of the Minister against the subject, and the exclusion of the powers of the court—brought up into the sharpest and clearest perspective. Moreover, not only is the Minister the sole arbiter of the particular cases—as indeed he is in so many cases now—but he can prescribe over a wide field that there shall be no recourse whatsoever to the courts; that the subject shall have no power to object or complain of injury which he thinks is being done to him. I feel that in these circumstances it is obligatory upon the Government—indeed, it would be upon any Government—to make a very clear case indeed.
When the Question referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was asked of the Government last week the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who replied, said that the national interest is paramount. I feel certain that every one of us will agree that the national interest is paramount—there is no question of that. But to say that the national interest is paramount does not at all define the conditions under which these regulations are to be made. What most of us, I think, feel is that we do not want the Minister to act in cases where in fact the national interest is not involved—where there is a question merely of Departmental convenience, or where it is a question of ease

501
of manufacture. It seems to me that to say that a manufacturer may make as much noise as he likes without anyone being able to complain, gives him such wide latitude that it is a very dangerous thesis altogether unless there is some sort of restriction by the Minister when he prescribes the conditions.
The problem of noise with which we are concerned is one of the great factors of our time, as we know only too well. Noise and the smell of fumes from buses and cars and the like are two of the great curses of modern times. Those of your Lordships who were brought up in the horse age know very well how much the human ear has had to get attuned to the variety of strident noises which impose themselves upon it at all hours of the day and, in many cases, during hours of the night as well. We have just been talking about the eye question and we have now come to the ear question. We are concerned as to whether this Order will affect the drive in which the Government and manufacturers are involved in trying to lessen noise.
In another place on June 28, in a statement made on behalf of the Government, there was set out at length measures which are being taken to reduce aircraft noise. The Government are having a special study made of the by-pass engine in relation to the noise problem. They are having a detailed analysis of the noise of a jet-engine, operated with various alternative types of nozzle, on an open-air test-bed. They are experimenting with the construction of a brick baffle wall at London Airport. They are obtaining competitive tenders for the design of two types of mobile ground mufflers. They are also having a series of tests made by the College of Aeronautics under contract from the Ministry of Supply. Four aircraft manufacturers are employing a firm of consulting engineers to advise them on the use of specially designed pens for muffling the sound of aircraft the engines of which have to undergo running tests on the ground.
I am sorry to say that on the whole of this vast research—or what should be vast research—into one of the great curses of our time, the Ministry of Supply are spending this year the estimated amount of only £100,000. This seems to me a fleabite in comparison with what ought to be spent on this important problem.
502
Your Lordships will have noted no doubt from the answer of Mr. Sandys in another place that most of the research is going to take place on noise made by aircraft while in the air or "running up" on the ground. But I take it that this Order is concerned mainly with noise in the manufacture of aircraft, or noise of engines being tested in testing beds. If that is so—and if it is not, I stand corrected—I cannot understand why the knowledge that we already have with regard to the blanketing of noise is not used by manufacturers.
If the Minister will make a journey down to wildest Wales, he will find that at the beginning of the Rhondda Valley, at Treforest, the British Overseas Airways Corporation have a factory where they have testing beds. One can stand talking near there with ease while aircraft engines are being tested at full revolution. I have seen at Schipol Airport, in Holland, engines being tested right on the aerodrome, within a comparatively short distance of the restaurant and waiting salon, without any noise being noticeable at all. When I asked my Dutch hosts who had invented and installed these remarkable testing beds, from which noise was so well excluded, I was informed that they had bought them from Britain, and that it was a British firm which had invented and installed them. When there are firms in this country doing that, I cannot understand why manufacturers of aircraft engines cannot seek the aid of their colleagues who make these testing bed mufflers; why they cannot instal them on airports, instead of appealing to the Government for this amenity.
There is little else I have to say, except that I think we must have a clearer definition from the Government of what constitutes the national interest. We have recently had a great deal of objection to the noise of helicopters over London. Of course, no one can object to the objection, but it has been misplaced, because the helicopter is an important machine of the future, and we must test it. The whole purpose of the helicopter is to fly into the centres of towns. It is no good having helicopters flying from the fringes of our cities; from the point of view of civil aviation, a good deal of their purpose is lost if they do not fly into the centres of cities. It is important that

503
we should test the helicopter, and if there is noise that is one of the matters that should be tested. Personally, I should be prepared to put up with the noise.
Finally, I would ask the Government for these assurances. First that in prescribing, as the Order says:
"the conditions under which noise and vibration may be caused by aircraft (including military aircraft) on Government aerodromes, licensed aerodromes or on aerodromes at which the manufacture, repair or maintenance of aircraft is carried out by persons carrying on business as manufacturers or repairers of aircraft,"
the Minister will ensure that the noise and vibration are, in fact, necessary in the national interest; secondly, that "national interest" is strictly defined; thirdly, that neither administrative convenience nor manufacturing ease is sufficient to constitute "national interest"; fourthly, that the local population have every opportunity of making representations before the conditions are prescribed; and fifthly and lastly, that from time to time the position will be reviewed in the case of every single aerodrome affected by the Order.
4.56 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, this is another of those cases which I think it is right that your Lordships should examine. It is a proposal by the Executive to exempt certain sections of the community from the normal processes of law, and to do so on the ground of national interest. I submit that it is particularly important when this exemption affects the well-being, comfort and indeed health of considerable numbers of our citizens. For a moment I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—that of national interest. Of course, there can be no question in the mind of any noble Lord on any side of the House that the national interest must be paramount, if our nation is to be safe and lead in the air; but we must see whether the powers which the Minister asks for are really necessary in the national interest. This proposed Order covers the noise on the ground made by manufacturers of aircraft and repairers of aircraft on Government licensed aerodromes. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, would differ from that.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I would say, on unlicensed aerodromes.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: But aerodromes must be licensed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation if aircraft are to be allowed to fly from them. It would be appalling if the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, were to be accepted. That would mean that anyone setting up an aircraft works in a perfectly unsuitable field would thereby get immunity for all the noise made. I think if the noble Lord reads the Order, he will find that it is on aerodromes licensed by the Government on which the repair and manufacture of aircraft take place.
LORD TEVIOT: It is in the Order.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I find it difficult to reconcile with the national interest the exemption from the processes of the law of a small aircraft-manufacturing company at a small aerodrome in Sussex, having no connection at all with the production of Service aircraft and engaged in the manufacture of small aircraft, or possibly doing what I would call jobbing repairs, if it makes a nuisance of itself. I believe that this Order is drawn too widely if it includes, as I understand it does, such concerns as I have described. I hope the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will inform me of the grounds of national interest upon which the small light airplane manufacturer can claim this exemption from the normal processes of law.
My second point is this. If, in the national interest, a large section of aircraft manufacturers engaged in manufacture and repair must have exemption—and I do not dispute that they must have exemption, if it is really in the national interest—is it right that they should have this exemption without any safeguard to the aggrieved citizen that he can bring forward his complaint with an assurance that it will be properly dealt with? On the last occasion when your Lordships discussed this subject, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that public opinion would sway in these matters, and that the Minister would bring pressure to bear on manufacturers. Those assurances are comfortable, but inadequate. I do not believe that this Order should go forward in its present form unless we first have an assurance from Her Majesty's

505
Government that there is to be some machinery, beyond an assurance by the Minister, that safeguards the rights of the aggrieved citizen.
It is not for me to advise on machinery, but, in all humility, I will put forward one suggestion for consideration by the Government. My suggestion is based on an admission, that, in the vast majority of cases, the national interest must be paramount. The assurance that the citizen desires is that the manufacturer who is causing this nuisance to him is using all the modern resources for sound suppression and is spending all the money that could normally be expected to be spent in trying to get rid of the nuisance. Could not the Government set up a Committee of what I would term outside, disinterested experts, such Committee to have knowledge of what are the latest developments dealing with this problem of sound? Then, if and when the citizen is so aggrieved that he feels he is not being dealt with fairly, the matter could be referred by the Minister to this advisory Committee—I suggest only an advisory committee to the Minister, with no executive powers—whose function it would be to inquire whether everything possible had been done by the manufacturer in question. That Committee, if satisfied, with knowledge supplied by the Ministry of Transport and other Departments, could say to the Minister and the aggrieved person: "Yes, everything possible has been done": and then, in the national interest, the aggrieved person would have to accept that position.
If, on the other hand, the Committee were to say: "We feel that the manufacturer has not done everything he might do," then let that be made public, and let the aggrieved person and the Minister have knowledge of it. Then I, personally, would be content that public opinion would be such that the firm in question, and the Minister in question, would be forced to act. That is only one suggestion I make; there may be others. Unless we have a clearer definition of "national interest" in relation to these small civil aircraft firms, which I believe should not have this exemption, and unless we have some further assurance that there is a safeguard to the citizen who is forced to suffer because of the national interest, I would earnestly press the Government
506
to suspend the pushing through of this Order to-day. I would ask them to take it back, and bring it forward again with the larger description of "national interest" I have asked for, and some undertaking that there will be machinery—advisory, if you like, but at any rate some form of machinery—which will safeguard the rights of the citizen who has to suffer in the national interest.
5.6 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had not thought of taking part in this debate this afternoon, and I did not put my name down, partly because I have had a professional interest in this particular problem, in so far as I have acted for an individual who has had recourse to the courts. I have advised him, and he has been able to arrange his particular dispute to his satisfaction, and I hope also to the satisfaction of the aircraft manufacturer. However, as I have no particular interest in the matter to-day, from that point of view, there is no reason why I should not say a few words. I find myself this afternoon in the happy position of agreeing almost entirely with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye; I think it is almost a unique position, because I do not remember having agreed with him so cordially on any other matter that has ever come before this House.
It is a serious problem that we are facing this afternoon, and we must recognise that it is also a difficult problem. There is a serious conflict between the public interest and the rights of the individual. We all have to recognise that, in particular, the development of aircraft at the present time has to go forward; that it must not be capable of being interfered with by the action of an individual, and that an extension of the existing protection may, therefore, be necessary. It is an essential part of the production of aircraft that they should be tested, and there is no known method at present of testing them without making a certain amount of noise. In this small island of ours it is inevitable that this testing must interfere with the normal lives of individuals and the comfort and enjoyment of their premises. Therefore I believe the public interest would require that it should not be possible for an individual to stop the process of testing aircraft.

507
This statutory instrument, however, goes much further than that. It is one thing to say that the individual must not stop the testing of aircraft, but it is quite another to say that he must not retain his rights to claim damages if he has suffered serious loss as a result of the action of an aircraft manufacturer. There are many people who have been literally ruined as a result of the activities of aircraft manufacturers, particularly in the testing of aircraft: people whose homes have been rendered valueless and unsaleable, whose livelihoods have been interfered with, and whose normal enjoyment of their homes has been rendered nugatory. Those people, if this instrument became effective, would have no remedy whatever.
At the present time they have the normal remedy of an application to the courts for an injunction, and for damages. As I have said, it would be reasonable to allow the Government to take away from the individual the right to obtain an injunction from the courts; that would be in the public interest. But is it reasonable for them to take away from the individual the right to damages if he has suffered? This is a serious constitutional point. In the normal course of events, any individual who suffers as a result of the action of somebody else is entitled to go to the courts and seek damages. Here we are taking away those rights, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye said, we are imposing upon the aircraft manufacturer no obligation to take the slightest precautions to prevent suffering of private persons. It would perhaps be reasonable if the individual had a right of action provided that he could satisfy the court that no reasonable steps had been taken; or, better still, if the manufacturer was under an obligation to satisfy the court that he had taken all reasonable steps. But there is nothing of that in this Order. It simply takes away, by one stroke, the rights and remedies which the individual has had throughout. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, rightly said, it goes much further than the manufacture of aircraft for purposes of defence: it applies to any manufacturer of aircraft in the country.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Or repairer.
LORD SILKIN: Or repairer. Is that really necessary in the public interest? Nobody in this House is suggesting that the repairs are not necessary, but is it necessary to go so far as to deprive the citizen of his rights at Common Law? Furthermore, this instrument takes away from the manufacturer and the repairer any inducement to take active steps to minimise noise or nuisance. He is given a complete indemnity. No action can be taken against him, so why should he take any steps? What is his particular concern to take steps, which may be costly, to minimise or reduce the amount of noise or nuisance?
I am in a dilemma in asking the Government to go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, goes in asking that this instrument be taken back, though I think it needs taking back for the purpose of serious amendment. If it were taken back—if I do not say it the noble Lord who is to reply will—what would happen? In the meantime, in view of the publicity which has been given to this matter, it would be open to anybody to go to the courts to seek an injunction. So far as I see it, as the law stands at present, there would be no answer to it. Nobody wants a situation of that sort. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, does not want anyone to be able to go to the court and stop the testing of aircraft engines. Therefore, the dilemma we are in is that for the Government merely to take the Order back is not the right solution. But if I myself and other noble Lords do not press that, it does not mean that we do not feel most strongly that this Order is inappropriate. It goes too far; it deprives individuals of their Common Law rights. So I beg the Government, if they do not take it back, to bring forward another Order at the earliest possible moment, limiting themselves to what is strictly necessary—that is, to aircraft manufacture and repairs which are specifically in the public interest—and providing the citizen with a right to get damages if he can make out his case: he always has to do that. If he does make out a case that he has suffered damage, and the manufacturer is not taking reasonable steps to minimise it, then the Order ought not to deprive him of the right to obtain damages.

509
My own personal view, for what it is worth, is that this Order is ultra vires. I think it is going beyond the powers that are conferred upon the Minister under Sections 8 and 41 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. That is a legal point, and Her Majesty's Government can accept it or otherwise, as they please. I have given the matter careful thought, and that is my own opinion. I think the Government would be well advised to study this Order again and not lay them-selves open to the possibility of attack on the ground that this Order goes too far and is not sanctioned by the relevant sections of the Act. There is a remedy to this problem. It is possible to take steps to reduce noise and vibration. They are costly, but I submit that, in the aggregate, the cost of these steps would be considerably less than the loss, damage and suffering that is being caused at the present time throughout the country by the existing noise and vibration. It should not be entirely a matter of money. I hope, therefore, that the result of this discussion, for which we are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will be that the Government will think again, and that we shall have an assurance that this statutory instrument will be modified in the direction that has been suggested in this debate.
5.18 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think we must all have a great sympathy with the people on whose behalf my noble friend has raised this Prayer, because there is no doubt about it that in many ways they are and have been suffering great inconveniences. Noble Lords who spoke have suggested various alternatives to the Order for which they seek annulment, and I should like to mention one or two of those first of all. I am not a lawyer myself and, therefore, I cannot possibly pronounce on the legal practicability of giving the citizen the right to sue for damages and, at the same time, the inability to obtain an interim injunction. To a layman it does not sound right, but, coming from the lips of so eminent a lawyer as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I assume there must be some way of doing that.
The other thing which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested was that we should withdraw this Order and make a new one because, among other things, he thought this was ultra vires. I am not fitted to
510
argue at this Dispatch Box whether any Order put forward by Her Majesty's Government is or is not ultra vires. It is certainly a matter which would have to be considered by a lawyer, and he would have to challenge them in some way in order to get that matter cleared up.
LORD SILKIN: To clear up this point, may I say that I have not the slightest intention of challenging the Order in the courts. I put this forward merely as a piece of friendly advice, but I have no interest in challenging it.
LORD HAWKE: I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does not intend to challenge it. One cannot get away from the fact that we live in a jet age and that jet engines make a frightful noise, particularly when they are being tested on the ground, when the noise is likely to be more prolonged than when they are taking off for flying. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, showed some slight misunderstanding here. When these engines are being tested at the works, they can be, and are, enclosed in sound-proof structures. It is when they are put into aircraft and have to be tested under flying conditions that the sound is emitted. It does not come from the works.
LORD OGMORE: I am not under any misapprehension at all, having visited many aircraft factories and aerodromes. What I meant was that the sustained noise which people complain of generally is more likely to come from an engine which is out of an aircraft and is being repaired, maintained or perhaps manufactured, than from an engine which is in an aircraft and is being run up or tried in that aircraft. In my short experience, if there was any major work to be done on an engine, the engine was generally taken out of the aircraft so as not to injure the frame. It can then, I suggest be put into some sort of machine or bed which is noise-proof.
LORD HAWKE: If it goes back to the works, there are the noise-proof beds there and at the major places where it stands to be repaired. The production of this noise is vital to our defence programme as well as to our export trade. The question is, to what extent can we reduce the noise that we cannot help creating? This particular problem is only one of many vexing problems which are at the moment in charge of my right

511
honourable friend the Minister of Transport. It is certainly not the least of them. As noble Lords have said, it is one of the great problems that face us to-day. What was the situation before this Order was issued? There were in this country something like 270 active aerodromes, both Government and civil, and out of these there were twenty-two that were not licensed for passenger flying. All, except these twenty-two, were exempted from any law-suits in respect of noise and vibration, under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, and its orders and regulations. The other twenty-two aerodromes are used by manufacturers for testing and the like, and I am assured that all twenty-two are being used by manufacturers who are producing aeroplanes definitely in the national interest.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Would the noble Lord include Redhill aerodrome, where there are adjacent to a residential area one or two small manufacturers engaged on civil aircraft only?
LORD HAWKE: Among my papers I have a list of all the twenty-two, and my recollection is that, quite definitely, Redhill is not in the list of twenty-two. Whether it could masquerade under another name or not, I do not know.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: But if this Order goes forward, the Red-hill civil aircraft manufacturers could make as much noise as they cared to and could get exemption from the law: is not that so?
LORD HAWKE: I understand, no.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: We must get this clear.
LORD HAWKE: It is not in the list of twenty-two aerodromes.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May we get this clear, because I think your Lordships will agree it is important? There is at Redhill, let us say, a small aircraft manufacturing concern, a worthy civil aircraft manufacturer. If that Order goes forward, that small civil aircraft concern can get exemption under this Order.
LORD HAWKE: Redhill is not among this list of twenty-two. Redhill is already protected, and the manufacturer there can make noise without risk of being sued for damages.
LORD SILKIN: No, the noble Lord must be wrong. The new protection is a two-fold one: first, under present conditions there is no protection merely on the ground of testing. No protection at all is given. Secondly, it brings in a new lot of airfields. This Order provides a dual extension. If at Redhill they are engaged solely in testing aircraft, then at the moment they cannot be protected.
LORD HAWKE: I understand that at Redhill they are protected at this moment. If I prove to be wrong in my statement, I will certainly take any opportunity I can of correcting it. The airfield which has provided the immediate reason for this Order is at Dunsfold in Surrey, and is used by Hawkers to assemble, test and finalise the Hunter fighter. Recently, a local resident sued the firm on account of the noise they were causing and the case was settled out of court. Immediately, there came the possibility, if not the probability, that similar action would be taken by other people living near to this field or to any other field. The danger was not so much of damages (which incidentally would tend to fall on the taxpayer, as swelling the cost of the machines) but of an interim injunction which might paralyse a field and deliver a crippling blow at our defence programme and exports while the case was being decided.
I know that several noble Lords have suggested, as I have said before, that it should be possible to sue for damages without the possibility of obtaining an injunction, and I said at the time that it did not sound to me, as a layman, a very proper legal course, but I could not pronounce in this very real conflict between public interest and private rights. The Minister had to come down, and come down quickly, on the side of what he must conceive to be public interest. The Minister could have succeeded by turning those fields into either licensed aerodromes or Government aerodromes, in which case they would have obtained automatic protection, but in the one case this would have been rather an abuse of the system and, in the other case, it would have resulted in employing a body

513
of quite unnecessary controllers to serve what in effect would have been a legal fiction. His alternative course was to make this Order, and in so doing he has brought the twenty-two unlicensed aerodromes into the same fold as the other 250 or so active ones. I submit that, in the circumstances, it was vitally necessary to take immediate action, and this Order was the best way of taking that action. He could not, in fact, have failed to take action to prevent the possible paralysation of our defence programme.
In doing this we have had to take away some of the rights of the subject, and it is important to consider what we have put in in place of those rights. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye produced the original suggestion that there should be some form of consultative commission—something on the lines that we have for the railways—whereby an aggrieved citizen could complain and make sure that the operators on the airfield were taking the maximum amount of precautions to stop the noise. My right honourable friend the Minister will undoubtedly be interested in that suggestion, which certainly has some farreaching and wide effects.
First of all, what we have put in the place of the rights taken away is that in the Order it is clear that the Minister may prescribe conditions under which noise and vibration may be caused. It would be possible for the Minister to meditate and cogitate and finally to prescribe such conditions, but it would be extraordinarily difficult to put anything on paper which is flexible enough not to paralyse the operations and, at the same time, is effective enough to provide relief. Every airfield varies in this matter, and the state of experimentation against noise is not really ripe for any precise regulations to be made. There is a danger of starting works which may turn out to be of the wrong sort. There are still doubts and disputes as to the best way of dealing with this noise. In fact, I have been told of a technical conference in the United States where one manufacturer said that he had the most wonderful answer to the whole of this problem, and another manufacturer said that it was not of the slightest use at all. So there are still doubts among technical people, and by producing regulations there would be a
514
danger of freezing remedies into a shape which ultimately was found not to be the best remedy. Of course, any regulations would tend to freeze these remedies on those particular lines. For that reason the Minister has thought it best, in the first place, to rely on the co-operation of industry, knowing that a great deal of research, both on Government and on private account, is being carried on into this question of jet noise.
First of all, what is happening in the field of research? My right honourable friend the Minister of Supply, in reply to a Question in another place, circulated some information in Column 901 of the the OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons) of June 28, to some of the contents of which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred. I can summarise the most relevant points from the statement in the following words: research and experiments are being conducted, both privately and under Government auspices, into all aspects of jet engine noise. It is being tackled particularly on four fronts: first, the problem of the shape of the nozzle through which the air enters the engine, which is the thing that produces the shrill whine; secondly, various forms of muffler to damp the roar at the rear of the engine; thirdly, screens of various sorts to surround the aircraft while it is running on the ground; and fourthly, a special study of the by-pass engine which is likely to be less noisy than the conventional jet.
The latest information I have is that the Ministry of Supply have actually placed orders for four mufflers—two for single-engined aircraft and the others for multi-engined types. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, the Ministry are going to spend £100,000. He rather derided that sum of money; but there is a large sum of money, the total unknown, which is being spent by firms, universities and research institutions, so it would be wrong to say that £100,000 is the sum total of what is being spent in trying to solve the problem. Perhaps the most hopeful line at the moment lies in the experiments which act on the air when it leaves the jet and provide something in the nature of a gigantic exhaust box. Of course, in addition to these scientific methods operators can do a great deal by taking the precaution to run jets in a place where, either because of geography

515
or because of wind conditions, they are least likely to be offensive to the neighbouring inhabitants.
I spent yesterday morning at Dunsfold where the engines and fuselages of the Hunters are fitted together and then tested and assembled for delivery. I experienced the noise from twenty yards range upwards, and nobody attempts to deny that it is a tremendous noise. It appears to be most intense at a position which I can best describe as being that of third man and long leg if the nose of the engine is facing the bowler. But in a motor car quite close to it, with the windows up, the noise is appreciably reduced. The precautions which are being taken on that particular field are these. There are available for testing several sites which are used according to the prevailing wind, as far as possible to prevent the maximum noise from impinging on the houses round about; screens are used, and there is some natural muffling as well from rising ground and trees. Hawker Aircraft Limited have ordered, and hope to have ready before very long, a big structure in the shape of an acoustic pen into which the whole machine can be put, with a muffling chamber to take the exhaust at the end, and they hope that this will be effective. Similar and other steps are being taken at other manufacturers' airfields. All these things which are being done at the moment are, of course, not absolute remedies; they are in the nature of palliatives—some are better and some are worse, though we have hopes that the muffling chambers, when ready, will prove to be much better than palliatives.
I think we must realise that we live in an age of noise and, whether we like it or not, we are going to have to endure far more noise than we should have dreamt about a few years ago. One must remember that there are some extremely noisy operations in industry which the operatives have to endure for the whole of their working lives—weaving, boiler-making, shot blasting, riveting and steam hammering. These noises have been with us for generations. The difference to-day is that we can in no way escape from the noise of industry by retiring into the country, because aircraft are everywhere, overhead if not on the ground. Indeed, there are few places to-day which are
516
immune from the popping of some form of internal combustion engine "down on the farm." It is a long time since I personally experienced perfect silence for any length of time in our countryside.
All this is the price we have to pay for living on a small island which is a leader of industrial development, in the air and on the ground. Industrial progress has always created nuisances far ahead of our being able to solve them. To-day we are at least more conscious than we were of our moral duty to clear up the nuisance we create in industry. We are slowly tackling the pollution of our rivers; we are even starting to tackle the problem of smoke, which has been with us for over a hundred years. In the past, remedies have lagged far behind the abuses they sought to cure, but I think the time-lag is definitely shortening, and some of the finest brains in our country are to-day engaged on trying to solve the particular problem of this noise almost on the heels of the progress which has brought the noise.
I hope that I have managed to convince your Lordships that though we have, of necessity, taken away some liberties from the subjects living near these airfields, we are doing everything possible to limit the discomfort which they suffer. It is, however, a very difficult problem and it would be idle to pretend that we expect to find a solution within months. In the meantime, we are using all the immediate palliatives which the brains of Government scientists and private contractors can suggest. It would be wrong to think that the Government or private contractors are satisfied or complacent: they are not. In many directions the nation is paying a price for progress in the air. The people concerned in the industry are always willing to accept for themselves the discomforts and dangers of the pioneer. It is their great regret that they have not yet been able to remove the discomforts to outside parties, but they are working.
These suggestions which I have mentioned and those put forward by noble Lords will have the consideration of the Minister, because, rather appositely, he will have an opportunity of speaking on this very subject in about a week's time in another place. During the interval he will be able to digest the various suggestions, some of which are most interesting, that have been made to-day, and he

517
will be able to announce any conclusions to which he wishes to come. I only hope that, in the meantime, I have managed to satisfy my noble friend that it would be folly to press this Prayer and so risk crippling our air defence.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate. I thought it only fair to the noble Lord who has just spoken that I should listen to the case he had to make out on behalf of the Government. I was profoundly disappointed. It seems to me that there are two questions involved: first of all the difference between national interest and private rights; and secondly, the steps that are being taken to remedy this state of affairs. As regards the second, it did not seem to me, with respect, that the noble Lord made out any case of any real activity. From what he has described it seems that there is no sort or kind of real financial incentive to the manufacturers concerned. As I understand it, these manufacturers are using the resources of the Government and getting repaid for it. If, by any chance, at the end of the experiment they say, "We are very sorry; we have done everything we could think of, but have failed," the only people who will suffer financially are the taxpayers, because the cost of the experiments will be included in the cost-plus basis on which aeroplanes are built—I understand that is correct.
LORD HAWKE: Is not the noble Viscount putting forward a very strong inducement for manufacturers to continue the maximum number of experiments if they are being paid for by somebody else?
VISCOUNT HUDSON: No. Because the incentive to see that the experiments are successful should be a financial one, so that, if they fail, firms will suffer in their own pockets.
LORD HAWKE: It is also a moral one as I brought Out.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: I am concerned with the effective question of finance which, over a long period of years, I have always understood to be the most effective incentive one can get. Morality comes into it, but as between moral and financial incentives I think the more effective incentive, even with big firms,
518
is the financial one. A fault I find with this Order is that it contains no sort of suggestion of a time limit within which an individual firm should take steps, either by using existing known methods or by the invention of new methods, which would effectively diminish, if not entirely eliminate, this noise.
On the point about the definition of "national interest," I think that everyone concerned will realise that the climate of public opinion has definitely changed in the last few months, even in the last few weeks; and that in many cases the defence about a thing being "in the national interest" is wearing pretty thin. We all admit that in the last resource national interest must prevail—no one will deny that. But there has been an enormous gradation in various Ministers in the past—and even in the present, for that matter—in their exact definition of where "national interest" begins and ends. I can only suggest to the noble Lord that he should advise his colleagues, more especially those in some of the Service Departments, of what I say: that public patience is wearing rather thin and that the climate of public opinion is very definitely veering towards a much stricter and more limited definition of "public interest" where it conflicts with private enterprise or private property than has been the case in the past.
It is also worthy of note that this question of noise is not one between a small number of people owning property and a large national interest; it is a matter increasingly affecting not tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands of persons living up and down the country near these various aerodromes; and it therefore becomes far more important and affects far more people than a narrow question of taking a piece of land belonging to a private individual. I agree that the Government cannot withdraw this Order, because of the danger of leaving themselves open to injunctions and payments for damages; but I do not see why the Government should not consider allowing this Order to stand and considering at a very early stage superseding it by a new Order which would take account of these various points, with some set time limit for these operations and inventions. The noble Lord talked of £100,000 as being quite a lot of money, because the work was supplemented by other inquiries being made privately by

519
firms. But the total, even supposing it is doubled or trebled, is still a fleabite in relation to the total problem; and, quite frankly, had this sort of question arisen during the war it would have been solved in no time at all, because the Prime Minister would have put through one of his famous minutes, "Action this day"; and action would have followed. I think my noble friend Lord Hawke had better advise his colleagues to see whether some really drastic action to expedite what is being done could not be taken.
5.48 p.m.
LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but in reply to what has just been said by my noble friend I would suggest that the noble Lord has not been quite fair. The general idea is that people who are making these noises are not aware of them; that they are rather careless of the public interest. I know sufficient to know that the people who are making these noises are very concerned: they are doing everything they can, using the Government facilities and their own, to try to reduce the noise nuisance of which they are perfectly well aware. If we are to have these high-powered aeroplanes, and to have high priority in the air, and to lose no time in catching up, I beg your Lordships not to presume that nothing is being done, and not to interfere with what has been done.
I have no doubt that if I lived near such an airfield I should feel as savage as do the rest of these people—I am well aware of that. But this work is necessary. I know of organisations that have taken their testing apparatus to various parts of the country, in order to get away from populous areas. Instead of doing this work in the most convenient places, they have gone to inconvenient places. These people, I repeat, are well aware of the nuisance they are creating. But it is a nuisance which is part of the price we have to pay for this tremendous drive which we are putting forth with regard to jet engines. We do not yet know the whole story, but I am sure that as time goes on facilities will become available for reducing noise. In the meantime, I support the Minister in suggesting that my noble friends do not press this any further. They have aired their views, and I am quite sure that the Minister
520
and all concerned will now know of the anxiety that exists in your Lordships' House about this problem. The rest of the world, and particularly those who suffer from the nuisance, will learn of the interest that your Lordships are taking in this problem, and I am sure that those who are making this noise will take to heart everything that is being said, and will do their best to quell the nuisance as soon as they can.
5.52 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I also, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson and the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, had not intended to take part in this debate. But I really do not think that the House is being quite fair to my noble friend, Lord Hawke. I have very great sympathy with those who have raised this debate. Of course, we all know that the noise caused on aerodromes, especially by racing engines on the ground, at places where 'planes are manufactured, is a very real nuisance. I speak as a sufferer myself, for I live in the neighbourhood of one of the largest aircraft factories in this country, and I know from my own experience how wearing is the sound that comes from it at certain hours of the day. It causes great irritation to us all. The question is: what practical limit is there? The suggestion has been made that, though the noise should be allowed, because we cannot, from the national point of view, allow the manufacturer to stop work upon which he is engaged, house owners should be allowed to claim damages. Over how wide an area? Take a place like that at which I live. It is a fairly highly populated district. Are you to say 100 yards, a quarter of a mile or half a mile? I live about a mile away from the factory. Can I claim? Are you going to have these myriad claims put in from every householder in the neighbourhood of every aerodrome in the country, enterprising solicitors and other lawyers encouraging their clients to put in claims? I believe that you would reach a situation which would be quite intolerable from the national point of view.
LORD SILKIN: May I be allowed to intervene to deal with the question which the noble Marquess has just asked?—it was not entirely a rhetorical one. The answer to it is that anyone who goes to the

521
court goes at his peril. Anyone who claims damages has to prove damage. If he fails to prove that he has suffered actual damage then he becomes responsible for paying the costs of other people. I can assure the noble Marquess that people will not lightly go to court.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: A great many people, I think, will. There is no definite distance, no definite outside limit, beyond which a claim cannot be put in.
The sort of suggestion which has been made is that this is a new situation which has never occurred before. But it has. Look at the railways. There are large numbers of people who since 1840 have lived in close proximity to the railways. We all know that, as we travel out from the great London stations, we see immense numbers of houses practically abutting on the railway. Great roaring trains run past them at every hour of the day and night. There is much whistling, and abundance of other noise—indeed, the noise is far greater than that which is experienced in the neighbourhood of aerodromes. Do the people living in those houses get compensation? Not a penny! And they never have done. The reason, I suppose, is that when the relevant Act was originally passed in 1840, or whenever it was, it was considered that the individual must give way to the greater good of the community. And we are now considering, I think, a case of that kind.
Obviously, there must be an effort to find a way of limiting the noise, some new invention which will abate the nuisance. We are all agreed on that, and from inquiries which I have made in the last few minutes I learn that every possible effort is being made in that direction. There is a sort of assumption—so it seemed to me as I listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson—that, if only people had tried, a remedy would have been found long ago. He said that if the Prime Minister had sent out one of his minutes, as he did in the war, the nuisance would have been dealt with within twenty-four hours. Well, the Prime Minister is still there. It is still open to him to send out a minute. But I think that he would be far too realistic to think of doing such a thing. So far as I know, this is rather a novel problem.
522
A very careful study is being conducted concerning it at the present time, and I hope and think some remedy will soon be found. I do not say that a complete remedy will ever be found. None has been found yet for the noise caused by trains. But I think that every effort must be made to find one in this case.
As for Lord Hudson's suggestion of a time limit, whilst it sounds attractive I do not quite see what is to happen at the end of the time limit. A certain date, presumably, would be agreed, and after that date the protection given would suddenly lapse. Then everyone, I take it, would immediately be able to go to the court and make as many claims as they like. I do not think that, in practice, the noble Viscount would find that that would work.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: I think that a manufacturer faced with that possibility might be stirred up to the greatest possible activity.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it would only cause most extraordinary anomalies. There would be people who, during the period when this was to operate, would receive one kind of treatment, and then at the due date all their neighbours would receive a completely different form of treatment. I do not think that that would work.
My Lords, I do not in the least complain of the raising of this matter in this House—indeed, it is just the sort of difficult problem which can very properly be dealt with here, where we are accustomed to considering such problems from a broad national point of view. But I do ask noble Lords to believe that every effort is being made, and will continue to be made, to solve this problem. In the meantime, it is just one of those unhappy situations which cannot be immediately cured, and would not be cured if people were allowed to put in claims. Indeed, if they were allowed to put them in, then the situation, from a national point of view, would be much worse.
LORD OGMORE: Before the noble Marquess ends his speech may I intervene to say just this? I think that, possibly through his not having been here throughout the debate, he may have misunderstood the general tenor of it. What a number of us were saying was this. We did not at all object that this Order

523
should be made, if it was in the national interest; but we wanted a clear definition of "national interest." As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, pointed out, there might be cases where it was a matter purely of the interest of private people. We are not prepared, in that sort of case, to allow manufacturers to make noise without anyone having the right of action against them. That was the basic point of our contention
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What exactly is in the national interest? You might have a private industry doing very valuable work for the country, but you could not say that it was in the national interest, in the sense in which the noble Lord is using the term.
LORD OGMORE: This is a Government statement. As we understand it, they have said that the Order has been made because it is in the national interest. That was the Government statement, not ours. We asked what is "the national interest." While we agree that the Government should have this Order in "the national interest." we ask: Will you please define what you think is the national interest, as we have not heard a definition?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that all the twenty-two fields which are concerned are being used for purposes of the national interest. I trust that the noble Lord will believe that. Personally, I would go further. For the moment, though, perhaps I may return to the analogy of the railroads. There was an unhappy situation where, in order that the country should be prosperous, it was necessary that certain individuals must suffer. What I would not agree with is the suggestion of some noble Lords that there is no inducement to the manufacturers to put this thing right. Apart from the lack of popularity with their neighbours, there is also the condition of their own workpeople who suffer from this noise. They have every inducement to put the situation right. I do not know when that will be. I think this is something which has to be submitted to for the time being, in the circumstances which the Government have to consider. I certainly do not think that an attempt to annul this Order would be anything but disastrous and unrealistic.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to ask the Government one question, as I was mentioned by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. There are twenty-two aerodromes which this Order may exempt. As I read the Order, it will still be possible for anyone to be number twenty-three or twenty-four or twenty-five, should they start a private manufacturing or repairing aircraft works or an airfield. If that is so, the trouble may extend far beyond twenty-two. That is the point I should like to get clear.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I understand that that is correct; but does the noble Lord really anticipate that there will be more new airfields set up to create new noise nuisances?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: That is my objection to the Government's taking this very wide power. I do not object to the twenty-two aerodromes, if they are necessary. What I object to is the blank power for others, in the near future.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord's point is covered when I say that the Minister is having a week or so to digest all the things that have been said in this debate. The point he raised never occurred to me, but I am sure that it will be carefully considered by my right honourable friend.
6.2 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, this debate has developed a long way from the attitude I adopted in approaching the subject and has moved to the technical question of aerodromes. The noble Lord who replied—and I thank him for his reply—need not be under any apprehension that I am going to try to divide the House. If I had intended to do that, I should have given the Government Front Bench every indication beforehand that I was going, to do so.
I should like to make two points. Apropos of what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said just now, will the Government see to it that the question of the location of any new factories for the manufacture of aeroplanes or any new aerodromes will be seriously gone into? The noble Marquess the Leader of the House told us how he is suffering.

525
I am suffering, too, and if they had only listened to the local people they would have known what was going to happen and that there was a perfectly good site five or six miles away at which they would not have had any of the troubles they now have. The other point is with regard to the national interest. Of course, the national interest always must come first; but when the Government see that the national interest is going to damage the value of the property and wreck the lives of a great many people, I would ask them, before they embark on anything of the sort, to take into sympathetic consideration the situation these people will be in by the carrying out of these things in the national interest. That is all I have to say. I thank noble Lords very much indeed for having joined in the debate. I am very glad the noble Marquess the Leader of the House takes the view that it was worth while. I am not going to divide the House, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE (SITE AND RAILWAY) BILL
6.5 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order), on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

MARRIAGE ACT, 1949 (AMEND MENT) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
BEIT TRUST BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.