Lords Sitting of 2 March 1954

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

DOVER HARBOUR CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORTHERN ASSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DIESEL ENGINE EXHAUST GASES
2.37 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prosecutions have been instituted under the regulations concerning the emission of exhaust gases from diesel engines fitted to road vehicles during the last twelve months or any more convenient measuring period.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, I regret that the
2
figures are not kept in such a form as to enable me to give the noble Lord the information he requires.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will represent to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary, that, in view of the importance of this matter, figures should be kept in such a manner that the efficacy of the law as a deterrent to wrong-doing can be checked?
EARL HOWE: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers the question, may I. ask him whether he is aware that this is not the only matter in which the law is broken consistently, day in and day out, throughout the year? I do not know whether that is what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would like—that all laws relating to diesel engines and. that sort of thing should be enforced with equal strictness.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I intervene to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will give serious attention to this matter, because, in the opinion of many, too much emphasis may have been laid on what some noble Lords may regard as the pleasurable occupation of supporting the Treasury by sending up their in come in smoke, and not enough emphasis on one other fact which has emerged from the statistical inquiry, which was the great disparity between the incidence of cancer of the lung in thickly populated urbanised areas compared with rural areas? Moreover, I would ask—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: This is a question. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, whether he will give serious consideration to the fact that four times as many people die of bronchitis in thickly urbanised areas as in the rural areas.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down seemed to me to cover a rather wider field than that raised in the Question. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me whether I would draw my right honourable friend's attention to the desirability of keeping the statistics in such a way as to show the number of offences under this head. I gladly tell him that I will draw my right honourable friend's attention to that point. If it will help the noble Lord, I can give him the figures for this particular offence in the Metropolitan Police District (national statistics do not exist) and they are as follows: 1950, summonses, 16; cautions, 18; 1951, summonses, 9; cautions, 12; 1952, summonses 3; cautions, 19; 1953, summonses, nil; cautions, 18.

GOLD COAST BRIBERY INQUIRY
2.40 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Questions was as follows:
[To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the few and short reports which have appeared in this country of the official inquiry into bribery in the Gold Coast, they will make the verbatim record of the proceedings available in the Library.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies said in another place on February 10, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry will be published in the Gold Coast and will be available here. When it is received, I will place a copy in the Library. The Gold Coast Government have not yet decided whether to publish, in addition, a verbatim record of the proceedings. In considering this, they must take into account the bulk and accuracy of the record made and the time that it would take to get it printed and published.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, and thanking him also for his promise to place a copy of the Report in the Library, may I ask him to bear in mind the desirability, if practicable, of placing a verbatim record in the Library, in view of the very short and, perhaps, misleading statements which have appeared in the Press and elsewhere in this country with reference to this matter?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I will certainly do that. But I should like to tell the noble Lord that reasonably full summaries have appeared from time to time in The Times newspaper. Secondly, I am informed that early in February the verbatim record of this case already covered over 800 transcript pages. The noble Lord will realise that there has been, roughly, another month's inquiry, since that date, and I am further informed that we do not yet know whether the standard of recording has been high enough to make publication possible. However, I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, if the transcript is as great as the noble Earl has suggested, obviously, even The Times newspaper report can be only a very short one, and therefore it is desirable, if practicable—if it is not, well and good—that we should have an opportunity of reading the full report and transcript.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Minor amendments of principal Act]:
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, to add to the clause:
"(3) The persons qualified to be appointed under subsection (3) of section ten of the principal Act as auditors of the accounts of the

5
Corporation shall include members of any body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and sixty-one of the Companies Act, 1948, by the Board of Trade."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been put down in response to representations by a minor body of accountants who are not at present amongst those listed in Section 10 (3) of the principal Act, that is the Development of Inventions Act, 1948, which recites a list of those persons qualified to be an auditor to the National Research Development Corporation. The Amendment is designed to permit the appointment as auditor of a member of any other body recognised by the Board of Trade for the purposes of the Companies Act, 1948. Section 161 of the Companies Act, 1948, simply lays down the qualifications necessary for persons to be appointed auditor of any company, one of such qualifications being that he shall be a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purpose of this provision by the Board of Trade. A parallel provision to the present one has already been included in the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, and may presumably be expected to appear in other similar Bills in the future. This short Amendment is quite uncontroversial, and I trust that it will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord is quite right: this Amendment is quite uncontroversial, and we have not the slighter objection to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
On Question, Whether the House shall now resume?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, on the Motion that the House do now resume, I should like (it is rather an unusual procedure, but this is the only opportunity that I have) to say one or two words in correction of a statement that I appear to have
6
made on the Second Reading, which, although not utterly incorrect, went, I think, further than the circumstances really warranted. I should explain that the National Research Development Corporation is one of those bodies, like the great research organisations, which have been created to supplement the normal work of a Government Department. Some of them are Ministerial, and come under the Government, and others come within the purview of the Department of the Lord President of the Council—that is to say, my Department. All, I think, work together in various ways, and it was in that sense that I made my brief intervention on the Second Reading. I did not mean to claim that the Lord President has a controlling interest over the Corporation; actually it comes directly under the President of the Board of Trade.
On Question,:Motion agreed to: House resumed accordingly.

ATOMIC PROJECT AT DOUNREAY
2.48 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have felt that your Lordships would wish me to make, in this House, a statement similar to that made on my behalf by the Minister of Works in another place yesterday with regard to the decision of the Government to set up a fast breeder reactor at Dounreay, in Caithness. The House will recall that in our debate on the Motion by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, on December 14 last, I referred to the countless possible avenues of advance in atomic energy which should be open to us. I then said that one of the most important of these advances would certainly be a fast breeder reactor.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that a decision Las now been reached to construct this plant at Dounreay. An enterprise of this kind requires a large site of some hundreds of acres, in open country but within reach of a labour supply and the amenities of community life. It must be on tile coast, both for the discharge of effluent and to provide sea water for cooling; and it also needs a very large fresh water supply. Dounreay meets all these requirements better than any other site that has been found; and it has the further merit that development on this site should make a big

7
contribution to the economic welfare of this part of the Highlands. When in full operation the project is expected to provide employment for some 600 people, of whom about half will be recruited locally. The plant will, for safety, be housed in a large spherical steel shell. Even so, there is a very remote possibility of a slight leakage of radio-activity, in the event of a failure of certain parts of the plant. The local authorities have been consulted and arrangements are being made with their co-operation as to what should be done in this most unlikely event.
In a pioneer enterprise of this kind, it is, of course, never quite certain what new problems will be encountered. Nevertheless the Government have every hope that this fast reactor will show us the way to remarkable economies in uranium consumption, and that it will become the prototype of a kind of plant which will provide electricity in the next generation.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches are obliged to the noble Marquess for giving this House that statement, which has been made in another place. I do not think there is any useful contribution that I can make now. We can only hope that at some time man may be nearer to the justice and integrity of God to enable atomic energy to be successfully administered for the benefit of mankind.

TELEVISION LICENCE FEES
2.50 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make an announcement on the subject of television licence fees. As your Lordships may know, the present broadcast licence fees were fixed in 1946, but since then the B.B.C.'s costs have risen continuously, and they are still rising. The Corporation drew attention to their financial position in their last annual report, and they pointed out that they were working at a heavy loss, which they were financing out of reserves. Since that report was issued, the Government have approved extension of the Corporation's television system by fourteen additional
8
stations and will also shortly authorise the Corporation to make a start on providing V.H.F. stations to improve their sound services. With these additional responsibilities, the Corporation's reserves will be exhausted in a year or so, and the Government have decided that, if proper provision is to be made for the maintenance and development of the B.B.C.'s services, it is no longer possible to avoid an increase in the television licence fee. They therefore propose to increase this fee, which, of course, includes that for sound, from £2 to £3 a year from June 1 next. The licence fee for sound only will remain unchanged at £1 a year.
The Government have carefully reviewed the question of distribution of broadcasting licence revenue. They have decided, having regard to budgetary needs and the freedom of broadcasting from entertainments duty, that the licence revenue must not only cover Post Office costs for collecting fees and dealing with interference, but also continue to make a contribution to the Exchequer. The Government have, however, agreed that this contribution to the Exchequer should be stabilised for the next three years at the present level of £2 million a year, instead of rising in proportion to the licence revenue. I estimate that if the present arrangement had continued the contribution to the Exchequer by 1956–57 would have amounted to just over £3 million a year. By stabilising it at £2 million, it would be possible, without reducing the amount that would otherwise accrue to the B.B.C., to provide £750,000 a year for the new competitive television authority from the date it starts broadcasting.
This arrangement is designed to meet a suggestion strongly urged in the debates at the end of last year, that the new authority should have at its disposal certain funds independent of revenue from advertisements. A proposal on these lines is being included in the Television Bill which will shortly be submitted to Parliament. Under these arrangements, I estimate that the B.B.C. share of the licence revenue will be increased from £12·6 million in the present year to £17 million in 1954–55 and to up to £20 million in 1956–57. This increase is due, of course, to the steady increase that is taking place in the number of licences issued.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful for the fact that we have been given an opportunity of looking at the statement which the noble Earl has made. We desire to reserve our comments on the details for any subsequent discussion which may arise, but it must not be presumed that, because we make no comment to-day, we shall not later have something of strength to say, and some criticisms to make, on some of the proposals. The noble Earl's statement certainly could not detract in any possible way from the attitude we adopted with regard to the whole question of competitive television. When we come to deal with the proposals in more detail, I am sure that there will be in the minds of many of my noble colleagues, at least on this side of the House, a good deal of questioning about the action which the Government propose to take.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords. whilst it would no doubt be perfectly natural that noble Lords who, like myself. opposed the proposals of Her Majesty's Government in regard to commercial television when the matter was debated in this House a few weeks ago should wish to suspend judgment until they have been able to consider the Government's amended proposals as a whole, I think it only right, speaking entirely for myself, to say that, in so far as the Government have decided, apparently, that the proposed new public corporation should have an independent revenue, of a substantial amount, I would cordially welcome that as at any rate a step in the right direction.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl two questions arising out of his statement. The first is this. In view of the fact that he is transferring this sum of £750,000 a year from the viewer to the competitive authority, can he say whether there will be any direct public control over the policy of this company to ensure that the money is spent to the best advantage of the present and future viewers? My second question is this. The noble Earl does not refer in his statement to the financing—at least, he does not refer fully to it—of the public corporation which will own and operate the stations which will he required for commercial television. Can the noble Earl say whether
10
the whole of these moneys will come out of this extra charge, or whether there will be a further charge on public funds for this purpose?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Postmaster General this question? Arising out of his statement that the B.B.C. television revenue will rise steeply over the next two years, is this increase coupled with any assurance from the B.B.C. authorities that the quality, if not the quantity, of the programmes will improve?—because there is a general feeling that the quality of the programmes is deteriorating at the present time.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has asked me. a question about the control of these funds to be put in the hands not of the, company but of the public corporation., because this will be a public corporation. Members will be appointed by Her Majesty's Government, and naturally, since the funds are coming from public sources, proper provision will be made for the control of their use. The noble Earl's second point was whether the capital required for the erection of the new transmitting stations will be provided out of this money. The answer is, No. These arrangements are made, in order to meet the specific point that was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and other Members of this House. An appeal was made to the Government that this scheme should not be 100 per cent. dependent for its revenue on advertisements. What I refer to is a purely revenue provision. With regard to the quality of the B.B.C. programmes, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will realise that the Government have no control whatsoever—rightly I think he would agree, and I think the House would agree—over the programmes or the day-to-day working of the B.B.C. I am confident, however, that the B.B.C., having this extra money, will wish to use it for producing the best possible programmes they can.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to ask a further supplementary. The noble Earl has said that the proceeds of this increased fee will not be used for the capital cost of erecting these transmitting stations. Can he tell us how the capital cost will be met.

11
Will it mean a loan from the Treasury or a further expenditure on the part of the B.B.C., who have, as a rule, to finance their capital expenditures out of fees, for which no provision has yet been made?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the Television Bill will be published in the measurable future, and I think that perhaps it would be best to wait and see what are the provisions in the Bill.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (BENEFIT) BILL
3.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, this Bill is an extension of the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act, 1951, an Act which was among the very first to which Assent was given in this Parliament; indeed it received the Assent a month and a day after Parliament met. At that time, whilst welcoming the Bill, the noble Lords, Lord Kershaw and Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, pressed for its extension to those who were partially disabled by these diseases. I should perhaps explain that these are lung diseases, which are serious, and in some cases are of a fatal character. Pneumoconiosis, which includes silicosis and asbestosis, is most commonly found among coal miners, while byssinosis is confined to the cotton industry. I was able at that time to say that the Government were carefully considering the possibility of such extension to partial disablement, and that if it was at all possible they would introduce a measure as soon as possible to cover that point. I now bring forward this Bill in implementation of that hope. That is to say, by a scheme which will be made under this Bill, benefits will be extended to those who are partially disabled.
Since July, 1948, all new cases have been covered under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. This Bill, like its predecessor, applies to old cases which, for one reason or another, were not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Two classes of case were not covered: first, where a man had left an occupation before it was covered by a scheme, and could not therefore recover compensation; and secondly where certification
12
of disablement was not made within the time limit which had been laid down. This time limit was eventually set at five years, in most cases, for pneumoconiosis, and one year for byssinosis. These difficulties were met in the Act of 1951 by the provision of benefit paid out of the Industrial Injuries Fund in cases of total disablement or death. I might add that the scheme under the 1951 Act has actually been in operation since March, 1952, and there have been some 3,500 awards for total disablement and nearly 1,000 awards of death benefit.
Now the reasons why the 1951 Act was limited to total disablement and death were three-fold. First, at that date there was no firm basis on which to make even approximate estimates of the number of men partially disabled by pneumoconiosis and byssinosis who were without compensation because of the time limit I have mentioned. Secondly, and more important, there was difficulty in finding a practical basis for assessing the benefit for partial disablement. Payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts were related to loss of earning capacity, but the "time-barred" men had left the occupation which gave rise to the disease so many years ago that there was no prospect of applying this particular criterion. Thirdly, the pneumoconiosis medical panels, which consist of doctors with the special experience needed for this difficult disease, would be strained in dealing with the examination of men claiming benefit for total disablement and would be overwhelmed if called upon to deal at the same time with partially disabled cases.
I think these difficulties have been substantially overcome. The difficulty of assessing the amount of the benefit to partially disabled men has been resolved by providing that the benefit shall be at the flat rate of 20s. a week—that is, half the allowance for total disablement. In all the circumstances, I hope this will commend itself to your Lordships on the whole as being a fair solution. As I have said, it was not practicable to vary the amount according to the loss of earning capacity, since this is no longer ascertainable. Nor is it possible to make the benefit dependent on the severity of disablement, because that would put a burden on the medical panels which they would not be able to sustain. And even

13
on the basis of the present scheme the panel may well be called upon to examine clinically almost as many men as they are examining under the whole Industrial Injuries Scheme in one year.
This is a formidable undertaking, and much remains to be done before the scheme can be made under the Bill. Extra medical help must be obtained and arrangements made for medical examination which are, at one and the same time, fair to the claimants, and will make the best possible use of the time of doctors likely to be available for the work. The Minister will, however, see that the scheme is brought into operation as soon as the medical machinery is ready.
So far I have been talking only about pneumoconiosis and byssinosis, but your Lordships will observe that the Bill is not confined to these two diseases. It also covers other diseases which have been scheduled under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and have similar characteristics of delayed onset. The number of cases of these other diseases where delayed onset has resulted in a man's being left without compensation is almost certainly small. None the less the Government consider that such cases should be brought within the general scope of the 1951 Act and this Bill. One disease in this category is known as mule-spinners' cancer, of which there are known to be some cases, and there may be cases of other diseases. Mule-spinners' cancer has been brought on by certain types of mineral oil, which are now being banished from our mills and there is therefore good ground for hoping that young workers entering them will never again be exposed to this risk.
Turning to the Bill itself, your Lordships will notice that it is really an enabling Bill. Clause 1 enables the Minister to establish a scheme of benefit for any disease to which the Workmen's Compensation Acts apply and which, on account of its delayed onset, may give rise to cases in which no compensation can be recovered. Clause 2 enables the Minister to extend the operation of the 1951 Act to cases of partial disablement and provides that benefit should be at the flat rate of 20s. a week. It. also contains a provision which would enable the benefit to be paid as from the date of the claim. This is to cover cases in
14
which some time has elapsed before medical examination could be arranged. I have already mentioned the difficulty which has to be faced in arranging. medical boarding. These examinations are bound to take some time, and the clause should ensure that those who are kept waiting do not lose benefit on that account.
Clause 3 deals with administrative expenses. The cost of benefit will be borne by the Industrial Injuries Fund, as provided in the principal Act. It is thought that the benefits resulting from this Bill may cost about £800,000 in the first full year of operation. My Lords, this is a short Bill arid restricted in its operation, but it is a Bill which sets right a long-standing wrong and can, I think, be assured of a welcome in your Lordships' House. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.10 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I am most pleased to extend a warm welcome to this Bill. With my noble friends who sit behind me, I asked for such a Bill two years ago. I am sorry we have had to wait two years for it, though I understand that there were good reasons for the delay. I welcome the Bill, in the main, because I happen to have a number of friends who are afflicted by this terrible disease. They were friends of mine when I worked at the coal face myself. They are still living but they are suffering. They were excluded from previous legislation, and I am very pleased that they have been brought in now. The operation of this measure will not make their lives very enjoyable, but I am sure it will make them more endurable, and to that extent I warmly welcome the Bill. I also welcome it because of the extension of benefit. There are others outside the coal and cotton industries who suffer from the diseases mentioned, and I am pleased that they have been brought in. My welcome for this Bill would have been warmer if the flat rate had been higher, and if it had been related to the variations which may take place in the case of those on full compensation. There is no provision here for any such variation.

15
I was exceedingly pleased that reference was made to efforts that are being made to see that when the Bill becomes law there will be no delay in bringing it into operation. There are difficulties—that I can see—but I am sure they need not cause any extensive delay. I hope the Government will keep their eye on work for the prevention of these diseases. When you are providing for benefits to be given in respect of diseases the danger may sometimes arise that you lose sight of the necessity to be as active as possible in trying to prevent those diseases. In the coal industry, we realise how vitally important it is not only to help those who suffer from these diseases, but also to take action to prevent the occurrence of the diseases. I was much interested to see some figures which were used recently by the General Secretary of the Yorkshire Miners, who is also a past President of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. He stated that in the mines 219 miles of coal face needed treatment for dust suppression, but only 87·1 per cent. of that mileage had been treated. That is a reasonable percentage, of course, but I know that if the remaining 13 per cent., as it is approximately, could be dealt with, it would help a great deal. I hope the fact that we are seeking by this Bill to do justice to those who are suffering will not cause us in any way to delay our efforts to prevent these diseases. This is a case where prevention is certainly better than cure. I repeat that I welcome the Bill.
3.14 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, may I also join in welcoming the Bill, the Second Reading of which has just been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. This is a happy day for many suffering men, and the day the Bill becomes an Act will be a day of rejoicing for them. They are men who have hitherto come up against a blank wall, who thought that their claims in connection with pneumoconiosis had finally been defeated. The word "pneumoconiosis" sounds like something which scientists have recently discovered, but those of us who are familiar with the illness know that for long years it has brought to many of our fellow workers in the mining industry the most painful condition imaginable. Dust can cause much trouble in the mine. It can either, of itself, cause a vast explosion,
16
or it can give rise to this fearful disease of the lungs. I remember that when I was at school I was told—and it is one of the few things I was told at school that I have always remembered—that every man swallows his peck of dust during his lifetime. My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor can bear me out in saying that the miner often swallows his share of it in a day.
Like most miners, I have had accidents—and sometimes they were bad accidents—but the episode that remains most vividly in my mind is an experience which befell me when I was about twenty-four years of age. With a number of my fellow-miners I had to go into a new district of the mine, a district which was being reopened. I was working with a pony, in a very low place, and I had to travel at considerable speed. The dust in those old and previously abandoned workings was of such a depth that it came over the hocks of the pony. We had not been working very long before we found that our breathing was being seriously affected. We compared notes, and we found that we were all suffering in this way. We could scarcely breathe, and by the time we had finished our work we were in a somewhat rebellious state of mind. But we had not much energy left to give any manifestation of that rebellious spirit. I remember that when I went home, after ten hours work, I could not eat a bite. After having a cup of tea, I lay on the floor panting and suffering from a most painful feeling in the lungs. That memory is much more vivid than the memory of practically any accident that I ever had. We miners knew this disease as a serious one, but it was a disease that was not put on the compensation list for long years. Men used to say, "There is something the matter with my breath—I am getting short-breathed." We who had responsible positions in the mining industry, knew what it was, but the position was hopeless. For long we could do nothing to ameliorate it. So it was a very happy day for us when we finally got this disease of pneumoconiosis placed upon the Schedule of Diseases.
It is true, as the Minister has said, that this disease is not limited to mines. The workers at the lime kilns, I should imagine, must have a very difficult row to hoe in this regard. The workers in the iron ore mines sometimes must suffer ready and, no doubt, those in the steel

17
industry are, at times, affected with it. Of course, in South Wales both pneumoconiosis and silicosis occur. Workers there have it, perhaps, on a wider scale than in most areas. But in every area where there are deep mines there is—or, at any rate, there used to be—dust on a vast scale. Now something is known of the dangers. I once read (I think the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, with his Home Office experience, will be interested in this) that most of the mine disasters since the beginning of the industrial era had their origin in an explosion, and—this was almost laughable to me—that the investigators spent most of their time looking for the light that caused the explosion. It was only in the early part of the twentieth century that it was agreed that explosions could be caused by spontaneous combustion. But in spite of the wholesale destruction and death due to explosions, I think that not the least of the dangers to the miner is the slow corrosion of a man's lungs by the dread agent which causes these diseases. What has already been done has given great happiness to all those who for a long time thought that this was a hopeless problem and who had to watch men gradually die, often in great pain.
There is one thing about the Bill that I want to say. It seems that one class of men are to he left out altogether—namely, those men who worked at collieries which became bankrupt. It was often the case when collieries became bankrupt, particularly during the depression years, that the companies had not taken the necessary steps to insure their workers on this account. Some of their men received a mere token payment; some of them got nothing. These men are not dealt with under the Bill. Fortunately, those who have been found to be subject to these diseases after they have left the mining industry are to come under the Bill. It seems hard that those men who lost their work through the bankruptcy of their employers should get nothing at all because this happened before insurance was made compulsory, but I am sure that the Minister who is handling this matter, whom I know to be in the advance guard of social legislation of this kind, will give sympathetic consideration to this class of case. I hope the Government have not abandoned the idea of giving these men some
18
hope of being included in the scheme. I should like to press the claim made by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. As he said, the cost would not be on a vast scale, and I should hope that the sum might be increased for the men suffering from these diseases, who, if they continue to live, suffer very painfully in the later days of their lives. I welcome the It touches only a small part of industry, almost an insignificant part, but it touches men who suffer severely.
3.24 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to add my welcome to this Bill, and also to ask the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, a question. From what he said. I was not quite clear whether there were enough doctors to do this work in a reasonable length of time. If not, what steps can be taken to get the matter speeded up, because in diseases of this kind prolonged delays are painful to those concerned and cause doubt and despair? Perhaps I am wrong, but I gathered from what the noble Earl said that there was a shortage of doctors in this respect. I should like to know whether that is the case and, if it is, what is being done to remedy it.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, in order that noble Lords opposite may not have matters entirely their own way, I should like to say that we on the Back Benches on this side of the House equally with them welcome this Bill. It gives me singular pleasure to find myself for once—possibly for the only time in my life—in complete: agreement with the noble Lords opposite.
3.26 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on having implemented the undertaking he gave to us when this matter was considered before, Two thoughts occur to me in passing. One is that one of the compensations of advancing years is to find that reforms we have advocated for many years come to fruition before we pass off this stage; and this Bill is one of these reforms. Secondly, I wonder whether, in the reexamination of spinners' cancer, some consideration could be given to the long time that the person must have worked in the industry before he can claim that

19
his disability is due to this disease. Those of us who were interested in this subject years ago could never understand why a man must have been in the industry more than twenty years before he could claim that his disability was due to spinners' cancer.
The whole tenor of this debate shows that the people in industry have always been in advance of medical knowledge in these questions. Whenever legislation has been produced it has always followed many years after the industry concerned could have proved that the disability was due to working in the industry. That has happened repeatedly, and particularly in the three diseases we are considering today—pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and spinners' cancer, the technical name of which I cannot remember. It took many years of agitation by the trade unions and similar organisations before these three diseases were scheduled as industrial diseases. There is one other point which I feel is worth mentioning, because it follows something that my noble friend Lord Macdonald urged a moment ago. It is gratifying to know that the oil which is used in the spinning industry is now of such a nature that it is unlikely to produce this particularly pernicious disease from which so many people suffer. Prevention is the most valuable thing at which we can aim, and I am glad to know that this has been and is our aim.
3.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords who have spoken for the warm welcome which they have given to this Bill—and I may say that I felt sure the House would give such a welcome to a Bill of this character. We are always glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, tell us of his personal experiences, because he speaks simply, directly and vividly of what he knows. The point he made with regard to the position of men who have received, or are due to receive, compensation from firms which have gone bankrupt, is not an easy one. I am afraid we have adopted the precedent which has been followed in such Acts as the Industrial Injuries Act and the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act, 1951, and have not covered that point. I do not feel that it should be covered in a relatively small technical Bill of this character. As the
20
noble Lords knows, anyone who ranks as a creditor with a bankrupt firm for workmen's compensation purposes has a high priority in the composition, and it would require to be viewed strictly from that point of view before any change were made. These people, of course, are not the only ones who suffer: there may be men who receive workmen's compensation in a lump sum which, owing to the fall in the value of money, or for other reasons, becomes worth much less. I do not think this is the sort of Bill in which to deal with that particular point.
The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, asked about doctors. The answer to his query is that there are not enough doctors who are fully experienced in this rather specialised and, as I understand, difficult category of work. However, steps are being taken to do all that is possible to use to the full the doctors available, so that their time is used in the best way possible, and in order not to keep people waiting more than is necessary. But the people who may apply will be considerable in number, and the clinical examinations may be equal to, or possibly exceed, the total number of examinations now carried out in a year under the Industrial Injuries Act, which is a large number. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, referred to prevention, which is, in a way, far the most important thing. I am glad to say that a good deal is being done in that direction, as the noble Lord probably knows. Research work on pneumoconiosis is being carried out in the Welsh National School of Medicine, and in the Universities of Durham, Edinburgh, London and Sheffield; also there is what is known as the "Twenty-pits scheme," where employees are kept under frequent X-ray observation, so that clinical developments, if any, can be closely watched. Considerable importance is attached to that experiment. Further, the National Coal Board attach great importance to the question of dust suppression. It is not for me to judge: how satisfactory their performance is, but certainly the great majority of coal faces, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said, are already covered against the rising of dust. In any case, the National Coal Board are taking every step to see that dust suppression is spread as far as it can be. I would thank your Lordships once

21
again for taking part in welcoming this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (WIDOWS' PENSIONS) BILL
3.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, before I come to deal with the Bill itself, I should like to say how glad I am to see my noble friend Lord Moyne here this afternoon, because he has been one of the leading champions of the Royal Irish Constabulary widows for a number of years. One might say that the noble Lord and others are really the architects of this Bill. Whether they think the edifice as finally before them is exactly in accordance with their drawings, I cannot say; but at any rate, this much I believe my noble friend will concede: that at least an edifice of some kind has appeared, and I hope that that is some source of gratification to him. I should like to acknowledge the efforts he has made on behalf of the R.I.C. widows.
As your Lordships know, the Royal Trish Constabulary was disbanded on August 31, 1922. From that date the legal provisions governing the payment of pensions to widows of members of the force have been administered by the Home Secretary. At present there are 1,727 widows receiving pensions. Broadly speaking, the Royal Irish Constabulary widows enjoyed parity of pensions provisions with similar categories of English police widows until 1948; but in that year certain improvements were made in the code of English police widows' pensions which were not also accorded to the comparable R.I.C. widows In the first place, provision was made for granting pensions to English "pre-1918" widows—that is to say, the widows of men who retired from the English police forces before 1918. The widows of such men, even though they did not become widows until long after 1918, were not until 1948 eligible to receive a pension under the English police pensions code; and this is still the position as regards the "pre-1918" R.I.C.
22
widows. The second advantage given to the English widows in 1948 was that if they were receiving pensions at less than the National Insurance rate they could have them supplemented up to that rate: at the discretion of the police authority.
The decision not to make similar adjustments in the R.I.C. pensions code was naturally received with keen disappointment by the widows themselves and by the ex-members of the force. I am bound to say that the letters which they wrote showed that many of the widows were living in conditions of hardship and privation. In the light of the many representations received, their position was reconsidered, and the conclusion was reached that something should be done to ease the burdens of these widows, who are nearly all elderly and whose number, already small, must in the course of the next decade or so, steadily diminish.
The Bill is, frankly, a measure for the relief of hardship. It will enable the Home Secretary to ensure that any widow who qualifies under the prescribed. conditions—the most important of which are set out in Clause 1, subsection (2)—shall receive a minimum income of the current National Insurance rate—at present 32s. 6d. a week. Grants made under the Bill will be discretionary, and in exercising his discretion the Home. Secretary will have regard to income received from other sources. But I think your Lordships should know that it is considered unlikely that there are many of these widows who are not in need of the extra money which can be granted under these provisions. However, it must be made clear that extra money granted under this Bill will be fully taken into account by the National Assistance Board, and widows who are already receiving national assistance will find that those payments are correspondingly reduced
I do not think I need detain your Lordships long in explaining the terms of the Bill, as they are relatively straightforward, but I think I ought to say a word about the conditions set out in Clause 1 (2). Clause 1 (2) (a) is a standard provision in R.I.C. and other United Kingdom police pensions legislation, and, indeed, it is common form in general superannuation schemes which

23
provide awards for widows in relation to their husbands' employment in the public service. The provisions in paragraph (b) in the same subsection are in line with those in the National Insurance Acts and those governing the grant of English police widows' pensions. The residence qualification dealt with in paragraph (c) will include the great majority of R.I.C. widows. The hardship with which the Bill deals is, I think your Lordships will realise, related to the economic conditions in these Islands, and we have not received any complaints of hardships from widows living abroad. Finally, the provision in paragraph (d) merely defines the "pre-1918" widows by reference to the dates laid down in the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Acts, 1918 and 1919.
For the rest, I would refer only to Clause 2 (2) which deals with gratuities. Small gratuities were in certain circumstances payable. under the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act. 1883, and under the R.I.C. Pensions Order, 1922, to widows of men who died while serving if they were not entitled to a pension. The purpose of Clause 2 (2) is quite simple. It is to make it clear that a widow will not be debarred from receiving help under this Bill merely because many years ago she received a small gratuity. I do not think there is anything I need add. I feel sure that this is the sort of Bill and the sort of proposal which will find a sympathetic response in your Lordships' House, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2.—(Lord Lloyd)
3.43 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, this Bill is a rather belated recognition of the claims of widows of men of that one-time famous force, the Royal Irish Constabulary, who did their duty in the circumstances in which they were placed in those battles of long ago. It provides for widows of members of that force who either retired or died prior to 1918, for whom, apparently, no provision has been made—nor, indeed, was it made so far as the English police were concerned. Secondly, it makes provision for those widows of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who, though in
24
receipt of a pension, are not in receipt of a pension which is the equal of that granted under the various National Insurance Acts. On grounds of common humanity, if on no other ground, we on this side of your Lordships' House, approve the Bill. Some of these widows have been without pension for, I think, thirty-six years or more, and others have only had a modified pension. Some credit should, I think, be paid to my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede, who, when Home Secretary, made the same provision for the English police—if I may so term them—and who, I think the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will agree, gave instructions for this present scheme, or something like it, to be drawn up during his period of office. It was not possible, however, to bring this Bill before Parliament during that time.
There are two matters upon which I should like to comment. One is the provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred, in Clause 1, subsection (2) (a). That provides, as one of the conditions on which a grant of pension may be made, that the widow concerned should have married her husband "before he ceased to be a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary." I think that condition is rather hard. A woman who married a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary after he retired could not have anticipated that she would, even at this distant date, receive a pension—at most she could have had only a pious hope. But presumably she would have been a great comfort and help to her husband during the time that she was married to him. I do not know whether it is possible to make any provision in that way, but it would seem not unreasonable to do so, particularly since, in the case of war pensions (I think I am right in saying), that provision is now made.
Formerly, and up to the outbreak of the recent war, no provision was made for widows of soldiers who were married after the war injury was sustained. During the war years provision was made that, notwithstanding that a woman married a man after he had suffered injuries in the war—and, indeed, after he had left the Service—she should be entitled to a pension after the year 1939. I should have thought that some similar

25
compromise might have been made on behalf of that class of widow in this case.
The only other comment I would make is that there is a rather remarkable provision in the Bill, which I think is in other Bills—namely, that regulations may provide for securing that where a widow of a former member of the Royal Irish Constabulary has remarried, and again becomes a widow, the same payments may be made to her under the regulations as if she had not remarried. That, I think, is a generous provision. The powers given to the Secretary of State under this Bill are purely discretionary. The members of the Royal Irish Constabulary served the United Kingdom Government of those days, and did their duty. It seems only right, therefore, that provision should be made for their widows. I can only express the hope that the discretionary power vested in the Secretary of State may be exercised as generously as possible.
3.48 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I should like to say a few sentences, mainly in praise of this excellent Bill, which I believe has the blessing of all Parties. I would, at the same time, acknowledge the sympathetic way in which my noble friend Lord Lloyd, and before him Mr. Chuter Ede, have so patiently listened to my representations, together with the representations of many others, on this subject in the past. As Mr. Chuter Ede said in another place, this Bill does a tardy act of justice. My chief complaint is of its tardiness. I cannot see that there ever was arty logical reason for treating these widows whose husbands retired before 1918 any less well than if their husbands had served under the Crown in this country, instead of in Ireland, since at that time the two countries were one. Therefore, I think that this measure of justice should be made retrospective to 1948 when, by the Police Pensions Regulations of that year, similar benefits were made available to all other pre-1918 police widows.
I am glad, after the sad letters I have received from some of these widows, to know that action has at last been taken. I feel a little uncomfortable, therefore, at asking for more. But if we do not make this measure retrospective to 1948, shall we not he spoiling the ship for a
26
ha'porth of tar? Is not absolute justice better than approximate justice? I have already made this suggestion unofficially, and I believe there was a feeling that such a thing could not be done because there existed no precedent for giving pensions retrospectively. I hope that I shall not shake Whitehall to its foundations if I say that the observance of precedents is, after all, only a means to the end of fair treatment, of seeing that people with like claims are treated alike. I suggest that what has happened is in itself without precedent. These poor widows were for some reason overlooked; they were excluded from the benefits rightly granted to all other police widows. The Government—all praise to them!—are now putting this position right; but ought they not to undo the differentiation against the Irish widows as though it had never been made? It may well need unprecedented measures to remedy an unprecedented situation.
There is another defect in this admirable Bill, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds. It makes no provision for the widows who married Royal Irish Constabulary husbands after these had been disbanded or had retired on pension. The health of their husbands, in many cases, had been undermined by the hard conditions under which they did their duty during the six years of fighting in Ireland and, in consequence, many died young. As was urged by Sir David Campbell in another place, I feel that provision should be made for these widows also. I know that marriage during service is made a condition of granting pensions to other police widows, but in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary the force was disbanded; and so the circumstances are different. I would ask Lord Lloyd to consider these two suggestions, with a view to embodying them in the Bill; and I would express my confident hope that the Home Secretary will exercise his power as generously as possible as regards the pre-1918 widows and those others whose existing pensions so badly need supplementing.
3.52 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, if I may deal with the points which have been made in reverse order, I would say, in response to the hope which both noble I Lords have expressed that my right

27
honourable friend will exercise with sympathy and understanding the powers which he is being awarded under this Bill, that I think I can repeat the assurance that that is his intention; certainly it is the intention of the Bill. Then I come to two other points. One, which both the noble Lord, Lord Milner, and my noble friend, Lord Moyne, raised is the question of the woman who married after her husband had left the force. Although I am naturally prepared to consider any suggestions put forward by noble Lords, I am bound to say with regard to this and, indeed, to the other point raised that I should be dishonest if I were to give either noble Lord very much hope.
Lord Moyne rather scoffed at precedent; I will be quite frank and say that both the courses suggested by the noble Lord are without precedent. He said that this is a special case; but I have never heard any case which has been put up for relieving some particular section of the community where there has not been special pleading of some kind, and that is really why these precedents are established. It would, indeed, be without precedent to award a pension to any widow who had married only after the husband had left the police force. I do not know of any case where that has been done, nor do I know of any case in which a pension has been awarded retrospectively. I do not wish to disappoint the noble Lord, but I must say I think the prospects of our being able to fulfil his requests are rather remote. However, I am perfectly prepared to consider what the noble Lords have said, and to draw the attention of my right honourable friend to it. I accept the tribute paid to the former Home Secretary, who very seriously considered this matter during his term of office. In conclusion, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the support they are giving to this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2; and corn-milted to a Committee of the Whole House.

CATHEDRALS (GRANTS) MEASURE, 1954
3.55 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISIIOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISIIOP OF CANTERBURY rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Cathedrals (Grants) Measure, 1954, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, this is the first of three Motions standing in my name. It deals with one quite simple point. Under an earlier Cathedrals Measure of 1931 many cathedrals obtained new statutes, and in those statutes was laid down, among other things, the maximum stipend which might be received by the dean and residentiary canons. Those stipends were fixed before the war; and in the case of residentiary canons many are fixed at £600 per annum as the maximum which might be received. Under the same Measure the Church Commissioners are authorised to make grants to cathedrals for the benefit of living agents; and any grants they make go to the cathedral revenues, which are dealt with under these statutes.
Recently there has been expressed a feeling that some of the living agents of our cathedrals were not receiving a sufficient stipend, and at the request of the Church Assembly and by their authorisation the amount which the Church Commissioners could provide for this purpose was increased. Any grant made by the Church Commissioners is paid into the cathedral revenues and becomes subject to its statutes. The dean and chapter can use the increased grant to benefit organists, vergers or cleaners; every living agent except those whose maximum stipend is fixed by statute. Residentiary canons were thus deprived of any chance of getting an increased stipend. This Measure provides that the Church Commissioners can make a direct grant for an increased stipend outside the cathedral revenue, so that it never becomes subject to the maximum laid down in the cathedral statutes. That is the substance of this Bill. The Ecclesiastical Committee entirely approve of it, and I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, that in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Cathedrals (Grants) Measure,

29
1954, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NEW HOUSING AREAS (CHURCH BUILDINGS) MEASURE, 1954
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the New Housing Areas (Church Buildings) Measure, 1954, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, this Measure, again, deals with one quite clear and simple point. The primary purpose and trust of the Church Commissioners is defined as to make additional provision for the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance is most required. Assistance is nowhere more urgently required than in the great new towns that are springing up and in countless new housing areas where there is no provision for any spiritual services. The Church must be there as soon as the people begin to arrive there, so that from the start they may build up a true community spirit round the Church and round the Christian faith. And the Church, being there, must have a priest there, and a plant. By "plant" I mean some place where he can gather his people together both for worship and for social life. The Church meets this need generally by erecting what is called a dual purpose building, one which can be used for worship and also for all the social activities which gather round the church.
I need not argue the importance of this ministration to these vast new towns and communities. Some dioceses, especially those receiving the overspill from London itself—St.Albans, Chelmsford and others—are faced with an almost overwhelming problem. The Church Commissioners could well claim that grants for building in such areas were just as much "provision for the cure of souls" as grants for living agents. In the main, however, throughout their history, the Church Commissioners have confined their grants to living agents instead of spending on bricks and mortar, and when they have wanted to depart from that principle have sought special authorisation for the providing of plant. It was for that reason
30
that it was the express desire of the Church Assembly that action should be taken in this matter. The Measure enables the Church Commissioners to make a loan or grant for church buildings of any sort and for acquiring sites where, since the war, or in the three years before the war began, a new population of considerable size has come into existence, with no provision for any Church ministrations. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. It settles that, in using their money for this purpose, the Church Commissioners are not going beyond their trust to use it for the cure of souls. The Ecclesiastical Committee approves. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the new Housing Areas (Church Buildings) Measure, 1954, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
4.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for the clear exposition he has given not only of the previous Measure but also of the one now before us. I have one or two things to say about it which art not in any sense Party comment. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Opposition, but are merely comments which I myself would make as an individual Member of your Lordships' House. There can be no doubt that the action which the Church is taking in this matter is necessary, but one is bound to take the only opportunity offered on such an occasion as this of drawing attention to one or two dangers.
As your Lordships know, I have been interested in one particular reorganisation area, in which I found myself in disagreement with the measures proposed, and followed it through up to the point of giving evidence before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am only asking the most reverend Primate that the Church Commissioners, in dealing with the administration of this Measure, should keep in mind what is going on in other places, and should spend money economically. In the particular issue at Bristol, after the reorganisation area had been formed, and steps proposed for the disposal of the premises—largely, of coarse, it: the interest of

31
ensuring that the proper cure of souls was provided for in new and growing areas—one has found that all the plans upon which work has been done have been largely amended or changed under the local authority's planning arrangements: the population is to be kept much more apart from the reorganisation area than was originally proposed.
You may be in danger of having gone to the point of destroying churches—I will not say the parish organisation, because that is usually provided for in some other way, but the actual premises and facilities—only to find that the area is now to be treated differently, possibly by the erection of nine-, ten- or fifteen-storey flats, or that the transfer of population from the reorganisation area to the new church area is very much delayed by the measures proposed (the merits of which I do not discuss) of keeping houses in repair by means of Government grants. Therefore, whilst I want the most reverend Primate to know that I am not in any way against the principle of this Measure, from actual experience in watching cases through the reorganisation areas which have been set up I think it may be creating a new problem, unless these points are carefully observed.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for speaking, but I am not quite sure whether he is speaking on this Measure or the one I am coming to in a minute, the Reorganisation Areas Measure.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: If the most reverend Primate pleases, it is both.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I rather thought so, because, in the Measure with which I am now dealing, the kind of complication mentioned by the noble Viscount does not arise. We are dealing here with a straight case, where a population of 50,000 is being provided for and built for. Stevenage is one example—there are many others. We want to put up these buildings. The noble Viscount is anxious about whether the money will be spent wisely. I need only add that, in administering this money, the Church Commissioners ask that 50 per cent. of the cost
32
shall come from the diocese. They first have to find a diocese ready to spend 50 per cent. before a grant is made, and that ensures their watching carefully what they are doing.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

REORGANISATION AREAS MEASURE, 1944(AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1954
4.5 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944 (Amendment) Measure, 1954, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, I come to the third of these Measures, in which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is particularly interested. This Measure amends the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944, which would have expired in March, 1954, but which, by this Measure, is extended for another three years, to 1957. I must say a word, therefore, about the original Measure, the Reorganisation Areas Measure. It was a war emergency Measure. It empowered the Church to deal with areas, particularly urban areas, where there had been great destruction of houses and churches and where, owing to that war damage and under subsequent civil re-planning, the population might change completely—the number of residents might be reduced: the population might be differently placed, and so forth.
Your Lordships can remember areas in the East End of London where there was immense damage. Here, the old setup of parishes and churches would have been out of keeping with the new set-up. In one or two areas there would have been far too many churches for a reduced population. In another area, the churches might be wrongly situated. Therefore, drastic powers were taken to reorganise and replan, in those particular areas affected by war damage, or by violent fluctuations in population, the spiritual provision for that area. Most of the powers in that Measure were in fact taken over into another and permanent Measure, the Pastoral Reorganisation

33
Measure, 1949. It is under this latter Measure that, generally speaking, we are now dealing with this problem. But the earlier Measure, the war Measure, contained one or two provisions, drastic in their nature, but necessary for the particular purpose in view.
If there are, say, five, six or seven parishes that were badly affected in the war, with some of the churches entirely destroyed, and it is desired to reorganise them, it is essential to have liberty to reorganise thoroughly. One exceptional and drastic power was that, in the process of a scheme under this Measure, it would be possible, under suitable terms of compensation, to dispossess the incumbent of his living. Your Lordships can see why. If we are going to replan a considerable area like that, where a totally unprecedented situation has arisen, if one incumbent, somewhere in that area, in a key position says, "I am not going to budge," and he has another twenty years to run, he may frustrate replanning of the church provision in that area for another twenty years. So this drastic provision was taken that, in such circumstances, an incumbent could be dispossessed and compensated with an annuity. Equally, powers were taken to prevent new vested interests from coming into operation while the scheme was under discussion, and patrons were thus hindered from exercising their patronage.
When that original Measure came up, the Ecclesiastical Committee quite rightly pointed out that it affected the rights of patrons, incumbents and parishioners, but it argued that, in view of the special need arising out of the particular war conditions, it was right that the Measure should pass. That Measure was passed in 1944. Under it, fifty-seven schemes have been presented, considered, and put into operation. Twenty-two more are now in process—a total of seventy-nine. The Measure lays down that objections against any scheme may be made to the Church Commissioners and re-discussed with the dioceses. In the last resort, objectors can appeal to a special committee set up under the Measure to hear objections. Twenty such cases have been referred to the special committee and in five cases they upheld the objectors.
My Lords, I would say that this has been a quite indispensable Measure in
34
certain areas to which it was applied. We had expected that in ten years, the original life of the Measure, all this general replanning of devastated areas would have taken place; that the civil authority would have known its general plans; that the Church would have therefore been able to form its general plans, and that the scheme would go forward. The Church Assembly have, however, been informed, by two or three people who knew what they were talking about, that in three or four places in the country, in large towns where there had been much war damage, with consequent long replanning, the civil replanning has gone forward so slowly that even now the Church cannot discover what is the general lay-out of the replanning scheme and is, therefore, unable to decide where it wants its churches, how it wants to arrange its parishes and so forth. In those two or three areas the Church has been hampered and prevented from using this Measure, not by its awn fault at all but because, for one reason or another, the civil authority has not been able to formulate its plans.
The Church Assembly took note of the evidence that there were a certain number of areas thus placed, and it seemed unfair that they should be deprived of the special powers given under this Measure for planning on their own behalf and should be unable to do what fifty-seven areas have already done satisfactorily. As first drawn, the Amendment Measure provided that the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944, should be extended for a further ten years from 1954. The Church Assembly did not like that. The 1944 Measure was an emergency Measure. It has now run for ten years, and we cannot think that any civil authority will still be uncertain in another three years as to haw it is to replan its important areas. So the Church Assembly cut down the extension to three years. They considered that there was a fair case for that amount of extension to meet those few but important areas in which no action has been taken by the Church under the 1944 Measure because of the failure of the civil authority to carry out their planning. The Ecclesiastical Committee have considered this Measure. They have again drawn attention to the fact that inevitably it interferes with certain constitutional rights of incumbents, parishioners, patrons and others, but are of opinion that it is

35
expedient that the Measure giving this extension of three years should be approved. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganisation Areas Measures, 1944 (Amendment) Measure, 1954, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.— (The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, again I am obliged to the most reverend Primate for the clear exposition he has given of this Measure: it shows that the Church is not the only profession in which he could have reached a really high standard. I am not sorry that I spoke on the previous Measure, because the exposition he has given to the House of this particular Measure seems to dot some of the "i's" and to cross some of the "t's" in what I said. Of course, the proposed extension for another three years of the operation of the Measure, in order to deal with future cases, in each case de novo, is not to be disputed. Obviously, if the need for reorganisation is there, then the necessary power must be given by the extension of the Statute.
On the other hand, I should not like to miss this opportunity of emphasising that such great authorities as the most reverend Primate, and the special bodies that he and his brethren may set up in the Church Assembly to deal with such questions, ought not to miss one fact. In some cases where reorganisation schemes have reached a far stage in development, but have not received final authority, the expected distribution of population has either not started in the direction anticipated or, at any rate, has been very much altered in regard to size and movement, with the result that much greater expense may be incurred. Moreover, the movement of population is something in which the Church and the State at large can be jointly interested. The problem of the balance to be maintained in population is not one especially for the Church. Unless we can solve this question of overspill into what are now regarded as rural areas, then difficult economic problems are created.
36
I am a resident, a ratepayer and, to not a little extent, a tithepayer in the county of Essex. At this moment there is taking place at Chelmsford a Commission of Inquiry into the proposal (and one cannot blame the Church for this) that a further 44,000 acres of Essex should be taken for an overspill of population which, from the point of view of economy and general interest to the country, ought as far as possible to be retained nearer to the site of their industry, so as to avoid the expense of travelling long distances to and fro every day. In the case at Bristol in which I was particularly interested, the matter has been reconsidered and the population that was going to be allowed to come in is now to be accommodated, not at the old rate of forty to seventy per acre (which had been in the minds of the local Church authorities at the time) but, in some of the areas that have already been discussed, at a rate of 120, 130 or 140 per acre. If this scheme is to spread out into other parts of a reorganisation area, what is the value of the original scheme? I am not opposing this Measure to-day, but I felt that your Lordships should recognise that it is only on such occasions when one can sit face to face with high ecclesiastical and spiritual authorities and put points to them, that your Lordships have any real opportunity of ventilating the case at all. The only other thing I would say is this. I hope that, not only now but at other times, when dealing with similar Measures, some better means of lodging appeals by the poorer parishioners will be provided. At present, they have either to instruct expensive and learned counsel or take their appeal on an insufficient basis before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
4.18 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, if I may say one word in reply, I appreciate the interest of the noble Viscount in this matter, both in general and in regard to the particular case to which he has given an immense amount of care and attention. He has raised two large questions which I cannot pursue today. The first concerns the right way of dealing with the replacement of the population. I do not suppose that anybody is overenthusiastic about undertaking overspill conurbations into the surrounding

37
countryside. If the Church were to make the attempt, I have no doubt that they would do it better than the civil authority. Fortunately, perhaps, we have no authority in that matter—the people go to a particular place, and the Church has to go with them.
The second point is a most interesting and important one. The noble Viscount says, quite rightly, that you may make a plan now, but by the time you put it into operation the local authority may have changed its plan and your plan becomes quite inapplicable. Under the original Measure, a scheme for an, important area had to be provided within ten years—or, as we now say, within thirteen years—and once the scheme is provided, it can be varied and can be amended at any time. So, as the years pass, if the plan is varied, the scheme can change as well. The first essential thing is that within the given time under the Measure—thirteen years is now the period—the first scheme has to be submitted to the Commissioners.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I was going to say that I quite realise that, but, of course, in a particular instance—say in the case of a group of five or seven parishes—if two or three of the churches have been demolished in the meantime it is not very helpful.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I think we do not go ahead so fast in the working of our machinery as to pull a church down before a plan is developed. But mistakes may arise, under any administration. With regard to the noble Viscount's last point about appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the expense involved, I would say that there is one way of avoiding that expense, and that is for no one ever to appeal to the Judicial Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

DIESEL ENGINE EXHAUST GASES
4.23 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take the necessary steps to enforce the law relating to the emission of exhaust gases from diesel engines fitted to road vehicles, and so prevent the injurious effects upon the health of the people, and, in addition, make a contribution to road safety. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name. The reason I ask it is that I hope to persuade Her Majesty's Government that a little corrective action now may prevent the necessity to take drastic action at some not too distant date. In any remarks which I have to make upon this subject I shall try to be as non-technical as I possibly can. The diesel engine has won universal acceptance in this country—and quite rightly so—and it is used in the propulsion of praotically 100 per cent. of the very heavy vehicles which your Lordships see upon the roads of this country at the present time. One of the outstanding events in the history of the British automobile engineering industry in the last four years has been the doubling of the number of diesel engines in this higher range. If the spread goes on—and it is bound to do so, because we shall soon see the diesel engine fitted to the private motor car—and at the same rate in the next four or five years as it has gone on in the last four or five, then I think that what can with reserve he called a great nuisance now will become a menace. Your Lordships when travelling about British roads must all have had the experience of meeting these heavy vehicles which are propelled by diesel engines and which spew out dense black, oily smoke; and really this is becoming a subject of public concern.
I shall be at great pains not to overstate the case or to exaggerate, but one cannot help but be impressed by the facts. I have a figure here for 1950—one of the latest years in respect of which statistics are available—which indicates that in a year over 16,500,000 man-hours were lost to industry through the incidence of bronchitis. In this connection, your Lordships will recall the fog on December 5 and 9, 1952, and I will, if I may, quote from a reprint of an article in the Medical World, written by the

39
medical director of the Central Middlesex Hospital. The writer says:
"Within ten days 4,500 people died who would not have done so had it not been for this episode. The majority of those who died had suffered from previous bronchitis: they were publicly suffocated as the result of manmade pollution of London air. Tens of thousands of others suffered severe disability and their lives will be shortened by several years."
Statistics relating to National Insurance show that in the urban areas of South East Lancashire there has been an increase in the incidence of bronchitis four times greater than in the rural areas of the country. But, of course, only experts are qualified to say that this is the direct result of air pollution.
Public attention has been directed recently to the alarming growth of lung cancer. I am not going to join in the discussion as to whether smoking is a good or a bad thing. I gave up smoking two years ago. I did not do so because I was frightened by any medical edict, but I did so in consequence of the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was far more effective so far as I was concerned. But I think the experts would say that the extent and the rapidity of the increase in lung cancer point to some new and potent factor in the environment in which a person lives. In all the researches which have taken place, special attention has been directed to three suspected environmental causes, one of which is atmospheric pollution, in particular from the exhaust fumes of the internal combustion petrol and diesel engines. I am not, for one moment, going to claim that this pollution of the atmosphere by the diesel engine is a direct contributory cause of lung cancer, but I do say that all the experts will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, who is an acknowledged authority on this subject, when, in putting his rather peculiarly phrased question to the noble Lord opposite earlier this afternoon, he mentioned the same thing. In so far as atmospheric pollution is a contributory factor in lung disease—whether cancer, bronchitis or anything else—and the emission of smoke from diesel engines is a contributory factor in atmospheric pollution, I rest my case on its injurious effects upon public health.
With regard to the other part of my Question, in which I suggest that the Government can make a contribution to road safety, I would say this. All your Lordships at some time or another have driven along the broad highways of this country and have seen the clouds of smoke which come from these vehicles. These clouds are sometimes so dense that they would not discredit a cruiser squadron steaming into battle. When one is driving up some of the long, tortuous hills which are to be found on the main roads of this country, one is sometimes compelled to follow at about 2 m.p.h. a 10-ton vehicle belching smoke—you can either be asphyxiated by keeping behind it or risk being a casualty by trying to pass it. I do not think it unreasonable to ask the Government whether they can take some corrective action, because the tragedy of the whole thing is that none of this smoke emission is necessary.
The diesel engine is one of the masterpieces of British automobile engineering. The manufacturers of these engines take meticulous care of their adjustment so that smoke emission shall be negligible. Admittedly, there has to be a very fine adjustment, but the injector valves are calibrated, to use the technical term, to such a fine degree that the maximum power is transmitted by the engine with the minimum use of fuel. The great commercial factor of the diesel engine is its economy, which is the result of this fine adjustment. Smoke emission is caused by one of three things or by a combination of the three—by bad upkeep, or by drivers tampering with the injector valves in the mistaken idea that the more oil they pump on to their cylinders, the greater the power which will be transmitted to the wheels. That idea is thoroughly wrong. All these engines have a choke for starting which can be operated by the driver, and that means that oil is injected into the engine far above the running limit. It is as if any of your Lordships who drive your own cars, in order to get more power on a hill or more speed on a level, were to pull out the choke and pump pure petrol on top of the cylinders. That is absolutely ridiculous. When the diesel engine valves leave the manufacturers they are carefully calibrated and sealed, but the seals are tampered with and employers do not see their way to take diciplinary action.
To prove that this smoke emission is totally unnecessary, we have only to look at the London buses. London Transport have 8,000 buses on the streets of London, every one with a diesel engine, and to see the slightest smoke coming out of one of these buses is the exception and not the rule. Why? Because the level of maintenance of London Transport—and not only of London Transport, but of the other large operators—is so high. They know that smoke emission is a public nuisance and they guard against it. Admittedly, diesel engines have to be adjusted regularly. It is not an expensive job, though the equipment is expensive; but there is no necessity for the operator of one diesel-engined vehicle to buy this equipment himself. I suppose that in the short space of street between Oxford Circus and Piccadilly Circus there could be anything between 100 and 130 London Transport buses at arty time. Imagine what would happen if every one of those buses was spewing out black smoke, as we see on the main roads on some occasions. All the people using the street at that time would be prostrated on the pavement.
In the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, made under the Road Transport Act. Regulation 21 says:
" Every motor vehicle shall be so constructed that no avoidable smoke or visible vapour is emitted therefrom."
Regulation 78 says:
"Every motor vehicle shall be maintained in such condition, and shall be so driven and used on a road, that there shall not be emitted therefrom any smoke, visible vapour, grit, sparks, ashes. cinders or oily substance, the emission of which could be prevented or avoided by the taking of any reasonable steps or the exercise of reasonable care, or the emission of which might cause damage to other persons or property or endanger the safety of any other users of the road in consequence of any harmful content therein."
Finally, Regulation 101 says:
"If any person uses or causes or permits to be used on any road a motor vehicle or trailer in contravention of or fails to comply with any of the preceding Regulations … he shall for each offence be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."
Answering my question earlier this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, showed that while the number of this type of engine has rapidly increased, the deterrent factor of prosecutions has decreased from sixteen summonses in 1950, to nine in 1951, three in 1952 and nil in 1953. During these years the
42
number of offending vehicles has multiplied by four. I think the noble Lord will agree that these figures include not only diesel engines but all vehicles on the road fitted with internal combustion engines. I hope the noble Lord will agree also that if the police would institute proceedings where there is flagrant abuse—which is all that some of the worst cases are—some good would be accomplished. The law is supposed to be a deterrent to wrong doing. Earlier on, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me whether I wanted all the other laws enforced. I have said on many occasions that where the law cannot be enforced or is not enforced it is brought into disrepute, and if it falls into disrepute it is not a good law and should be repealed.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who is usually so sympathetic in his replies, is not going to tell me that the police are overworked. Every time I raise a question of this kind, I am told that the police are overworked. One day we shall have to reverse the process and ask, not what the police are doing in cases where they do not take action, but what they are doing in cases where they do take action. Action on this matter rests not only with the noble Lord's Department I would appeal also to the industry to take action. Let us have more research into this matter. At a time such as this we cannot afford to allow British industry to get a bad name, either amongst the general public in this country or amongst buyers overseas. I speak as one who has been in the motor car industry all his life. I think that research should go on in the direction of making diesel engines foolproof and preventing their being tampered with by ignorant people, who are not serving the purposes they desire and are acting against the interest of the public.
Something has to be done about the pollution of the air people have to breathe. When research was made into smog. it was said that if the Battersea Power Station and all other causes of pollution by the emission of smoke into the atmosphere were stopped, we should still have a poisonous atmosphere through other channels of pollution. I think we should take notice of this problem. I hope f have said enough to convince the Government that they should take some action which 'would have a corrective

43
influence now, to prevent the necessity for more drastic action when public opinion is really roused on this matter at some later time.
4.40 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that under certain conditions the emission of exhaust gases from diesel road engines may have injurious effects to health. The Interim Report by the Committee on Air Pollution states that a total of, I believe, 4 million tons of carbon monoxide is discharged into the atmosphere from diesel road vehicles. They go on to say, however, that this is harmful only when we have conditions of smog; they do not think it is really harmful at ordinary times. I would remind the noble Lord that diesel road vehicles are not by any means the only things which are causing pollution of the atmosphere: we have Battersea Power Station, and the new one a little further down the river, although I understand that certain experiments are being carried out in order to reduce the pollution of the atmosphere in this way.
I would repeat what was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the main reason for smoky exhausts in diesel road engines is that the injection nozzles either become worn out or get out of adjustment—or, what is perhaps more likely, they are merely dirty. I doubt very much whether there is interference with the fuel pumps by the drivers, as was suggested by the noble Lord. I would suggest that the products of combustion in a diesel engine are really automatic, and are not under the direct control of the driver at all, although it is possible, perhaps, when he is starting up, and so on, for the driver to pull his choke lever, which may produce momentarily a certain amount of smoke. From the point of view of other road users, of course, the result is the same. In extreme cases it is possible for actual liquid drops of fuel to come out of the exhaust pipe and fall on the road, and possibly on other vehicles. A partial remedy for this nuisance might be to have vertical exhaust pipes fitted, so that the gases may be carried well away from the vehicles. On the continent one frequently sees lorries fitted with this vertical exhaust.
44
With all due respect to the noble Lord, I suggest that this nuisance has been somewhat exaggerated in certain quarters, though I agree that, with the increasing use of diesel engines on the roads, it is desirable that the problem should be examined by all concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has suggested that some of the lorry traffic looks like a squadron of cruisers going into battle. I would remind the noble Lord that we in the Navy pride ourselves on making smoke only when we want to. I can assure your Lordships that the motoring organisations are doing all they can to achieve improvement in the maintenance and use of diesel vehicles. When complaints are received—and so far they have been few in number—the matter is taken up with the owners of the vehicles, usually with good results. I suggest that the law relating to the emission of smoke from diesel vehicles is already adequate, and I have no reason to believe that it is not being employed reasonably.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He says he believes that the law is being employed reasonably. Surely he heard the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, say that there was not a prosecution under that law in 1953.
LORD LLOYD: If I may correct the noble Lord, I said in the Metropolitan Police District.
LORD TEYNHAM: I took careful note of that reply. What I would say is that warnings have been used instead of prosecutions, and I cannot help feeling that warnings are much better. Obviously it is to the advantage of the owners of diesel road vehicles that they should receive warnings, and put their vehicles into good condition, otherwise they are losing money on them. From the point of view of the motoring organisations, we have had few complaints, and I cannot help feeling that in many ways this question has been rather exaggerated.
4.45 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, when I saw this Question down on the Order Paper it struck me as being a singularly unhelpful one. I feel that it would have been much better had it been worded in such a way as to ask what steps the Government proposed to take

45
to see that the law in relation to the emission of obnoxious fumes was enforced. I cannot see that it helps us to know how many prosecutions took place last year, or in any other year. I am afraid that I am going to disagree with both noble Lords who have just spoken. I do not believe that in London, or in other big cities, there is any appreciable amount of unavoidable obnoxious fumes from diesel engines. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Teynham when he says that drivers do not use, or rather abuse, their chokes. If you are driving in the country, as I do a great deal, you can follow a diesel engine vehicle for a long time, and it is apparently perfectly adjusted and everything running beautifully. Then you come to a bit of a hill, and suddenly you get a cloud of black smoke. I am not a diesel engineer, and I do not know the reason for it; but I am almost certain that it is not automatic. I very much doubt whether the actual content of carbon monoxide in that cloud of black smoke is much greater than that normally emitted by the engine. But it does mean that just at the moment when that vehicle—which has probably been going along at a fair pace on the level—is slowing down, and a following driver is about to get a chance to pass it in safety, he has a smoke screen put up in front of him and cannot pass. I believe that that is a much more dangerous thing than the carbon monoxide.
I am afraid there is a mistaken belief among lorry drivers that super-injection means extra power. I am sure that it would be a good thing if owners could bring it home to the drivers that this does not mean an increase in power, but merely an increase in running expenses. It is unnecessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, you can go through London and never see black smoke coming from a bus, although you occasionally come across one that smells a bit. If you take the trouble, as I have done once or twice, to report the number of that bus to the London Passenger Transport Board, you receive a grateful letter in reply assuring you that it will be put right. That, I believe, is the right thing. But, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, I feel that instructions should be given to the police that, when they see a lorry driver using his choke, or
46
whatever the instrument is, improperly, they should stop the vehicle and warn the driver. Prosecution does no good, but a warning can do a great deal of good. Most of the police are well trained, and many of them can explain technically to the driver of the vehicle that he is both wasting his fuel and damaging his engine. By giving these warnings the police can do much more good than by prosecuting. I believe in keeping friendly with the police. Not long ago I saw a police car following a diesel engine which was putting up the most perfect smoke screen, one of which the Navy would have been proud. The police car eventually passed it but did not stop it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I once tried the experiment which the noble Lord has just advocated. I stopped a diesel lorry driver one day and suggested how he could reduce his smoke. His language was even blacker than the smoke.
4.50 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I had hoped that this Question would clear away a certain amount of fog, but having listened to the three noble Lords I am not sure that the fog has not become thicker than ever. Frankly, they did not seem to agree very much on any particular aspect of the problem. The noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, based his case on the fact that diesel smoke was bad from two aspects—one, from the point of view of public health, and the other from the point of view of road safety. I do not think anybody could disagree with the noble Lord that if it were as bad as that—I do not think he suggested that it was terribly bad yet, but that it may become bad—it might became a serious public nuisance. But at the moment we are all. in a sense, talking in a vacuum about this matter, because I do not think anybody knows what the facts are.
Take the example of the amount of pollution in the atmosphere caused by diesel smoke. First of all, I think it would be agreed—at any rate, it seems to be the one thing upon which all three noble Lords were agreed, so I can take it that it is agreed—that, on the whole, in the towns, which is where most smoke pollution occurs, there is not a great deal of pollution from diesel smoke. The

47
noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that the London buses were almost entirely free of it, and I can use that point to good effect in rebutting the argument of my noble friend Lord Teynham. The noble Lord's argument was that it cannot be helped. If it cannot be helped, why do the London buses have no smoke from their diesel engines?
The only thing I can find concerning this particular issue is about the amount of pollution by sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere in general. I am no chemist, but I understand that sulphur dioxide is the main ingredient emitted by diesel engines. Out of the 2 million tons of oil which they consume every year, diesel engines produce about 20,000 to 40,000 tons of sulphur dioxide, and that is only 20,000 to 40,000 tons out of a total of 5·3 million tons emitted into the atmosphere altogether. Those figures come from the Report of the Committee on Air Pollution. I do not think that gets us much further, but it shows proportionately that, of the amount of sulphur dioxide which is emitted, very little is produced by diesel engines. Therefore, on the question of public health, my own feeling is that, at the moment at any rate, diesel smoke does not create a great deal of pollution in the towns. In fact, I think all three noble Lords would agree with me that the main places where one finds diesel engines emitting clouds of smoke is on the main roads outside the towns. I am not saying that that might not create a great deal of nuisance in the future, but at the moment it does not.
The other ground upon which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, attacked this abuse was on the grounds of road safety. In that he was supported by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I myself have often driven for some distance behind a lorry, where the choice before one was suicide by one of two means—either by asphyxiation by remaining behind the lorry, or in a fatal accident by passing because one could not see where one was going. I accept that in certain circumstances diesel smoke can be a definite menace to road safety. Therefore, it is a matter, so far, of degree. I will freely admit to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that there could be a great menace both to public health and road safety if this trouble were to become
48
much more pronounced than it is at the present time.
The noble Lord, as usual, has a touching confidence in the police, and in my present position I always like to see that. He thinks that this matter can be put right quite easily by the police. He says—and indeed he is perfectly right—that two regulations govern this subject and he quoted them in extenso to your Lordships. I do not think I need to repeat them again, beyond saying that, first of all, they are not easy regulations to enforce, for this reason. Certainly as regards pollution, it is true that they are specific—that you must not unavoidably emit smoke which might endanger the safety of any other person or any other user of the road in consequence of the harmful content therein. That is all right so far as pollution is concerned. At the moment, however, I do not think pollution is our greatest danger, although the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, does. The greatest danger at the moment is to road safety, because I think we agree that at the present time there is not a great deal of pollution from diesel engines. On road safety, it seems to me that this regulation is not so simple, and I will just read the pertinent part to the noble Lord again. It says:
"Every motor vehicle shall be maintained in such condition, and shall be so driven and used on a road, that there shall not be emitted therefrom any smoke … the emission of which could be prevented or avoided by the taking of any reasonable steps or the exercise of reasonable care, or the emission of which might cause damage to other persons or property or endanger the safety of any other users of the road in consequence of any harmful content therein."
The point is that that regulation is specific to the harmful content therein, and not to the fact that it obscures visibility. Therefore, I think that up to a point there is a weakness in the law, and I give the noble Lord the assurance that I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport to this regulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that the police should enforce the law. Here again, we come to an argument which we had a short time ago when I was also defending the police at this Box. Of course, I will agree with the noble Lord and with the other noble Lords that if we have a law it should be enforced. The question is.

49
how to enforce it best. I think there is something in what the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said: that sometimes a warning is better than a prosecution. I would not entirely judge the matter by the number of prosecutions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that there have not been a great many warnings. Whether that is because the problem is smaller than we thought or because there have not been as many prosecutions as there ought to be, I am not prepared to say. But it seems cleat that this is a matter where the law is being broken, and I am quite certain that the police are doing their best to enforce it.
Another reason why this particular law is not entirely easy to enforce is this. It is a matter of degree and circumstances. For example, the discharge of smoke due to tampering with the engine of a diesel lorry, which the noble Lord mentioned, is not unavoidable. I accept his view on that, but in some circumstances—for example, when a heavy lorry is being restarted on a hill—an abnormal discharge of smoke for a short time may be unavoidable. As I said before, emission of harmful smoke can be an offence, but the emission of smoke which obscures the vision of other road users is not an offence under the regulations as I understand them.
The other thing I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, is this. He says that the police ought to be ordered to do various things. I have said this before, and I say it again—the police cannot be ordered by the Home Secretary. They are, in any case, very busy; they have a great deal to do; and it is certainly not for the Home Secretary to give them orders. As the noble Lord knows, the police are controlled by the chief constables, and all the Home Secretary can do is to draw the attention of the chief constables to any particular matter which he thinks is deserving of their attention, and suggest, perhaps, that this particular matter is something which is becoming a menace and ought, therefore, to be dealt with. I can give the noble Lord this assurance: that my right honourable friend will draw the attention of the chief constables to this debate, which I think has been a very useful one, not because I believe there is at the moment a very great danger, but because I believe that there are very real potential dangers that
50
may arise from this matter. No doubt that step, and our reconsideration of these regulations to see whether they fulfil the purpose for which they were originally framed, will perhaps do something to meet the point which the noble Lord has in mind, and will do something, in so far as anything can be done, to mitigate this abuse.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Will the noble Lord please accept my very grateful thanks and convey those thanks to his right honourable friend?