Lords Sitting of 8 March 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Shepherd—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will be making a statement at about four o'clock this afternoon on the recent tour of the Foreign Minister to the Far East.

FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place the interests of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Your Lordships are already familiar with the objects of the Bill which I outlined a few weeks ago on Second Reading. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it not only provides an up-to-date code of law, which is designed to secure both clean and safe food for the public, but also effects the much-needed consolidation of Scottish law in this field. The Bill will make it possible to safeguard public health from the dangers which may arise at all stages of the manufacture and sale of food. It gives the Government power to check the use of harmful substances in food and to secure higher standards of cleanliness in premises of all kinds where food is handled. There are Amendments down for discussion this afternoon, and I do not think that your Lordships would wish
770
me to take up more time now. We have already had a full discussion on the principles of the Bill, which have won the general approval of your Lordships, and I hope that you will now be willing to give the Bill a Third Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, as the noble Earl has said, we have been over this Bill before and we are in general agreement with it. As I said on the previous occasion, while the Bill itself is important the regulations that can be framed as a result of the passing of the Bill are even more important, and I hope that the utmost use will be taken of the powers that are conferred.
As the noble Earl has said, this is not merely a Bill with certain new features about it, but it consolidates the law in Scotland in relation to food and drugs, which is a most useful thing to do. With regard to the provisions of this Bill, l would make the general observation that. I believe the present day is one when there is a greater awareness of matters relating to food. To some extent the Government are responsible for that greater awareness and greater concern on the part of the public with regard to food, because their policy of lifting restrictions and taking away measures which enable food to be kept down in price has added to that awareness of the importance of food. It would not be in order for me to dwell upon that aspect to any extent in connection with this Bill, which does not deal with the monetary value of food, but there is the fact that the public do want to have the utmost care taken of food, and want to get the utmost value that can be got from the purchases of food that they make. I hope that every opportunity will be taken, within the limits of this Bill, to make sure that the purity of food and the care of its handling will be given the utmost attention. The Bill is one which, in its general lines, can be heartily commended, and I look forward with interest to seeing what attitude the noble Earl will be taking when my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch moves his Amendments, in which I consider there is a great deal of substance.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1:
Offences in connection with preparation and sale of injurious foods and adulterated drugs
1.—(1) No person shall add any substance to food, use any substance as an ingredient in the preparation of food, abstract any constituent from food, or subject food to any other process or treatment, so as (in any such case) to render the food injurious to health, with intent that the food shall be sold for human consumption in that state.
(5) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether an article of food is injurious to health, regard shall be had not only to the probable effect of that article on the health of a person consuming it, but also to the probable cumulative effect of articles of substantially the same composition on the health of a person consuming such article in ordinary quantities.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1), after "health" to insert: "or diminish its nutritive value." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a late stage in the progress of this Bill at which to move the Amendments, but unfortunately I was unable to be present on an earlier occasion. The Amendments which I am going to move deal with a number of points which I think it will be agreed have some importance. I hope that the Minister in charge of the Bill will not meet them by saying that it is essential that the law in Scotland shall be identical with the law in England. That is not so in a great many cases, and it is certainly not essential that it should be so. I hope that in this matter, as in some others, Scotland may still be a pioneer.
The first two Amendments—if I may take them together, because they go hand in hand—are directed towards preventing the abstraction of valuable elements out of food. As the Bill now stands that does not appear to be an offence, but it is something which might be detrimental in many ways to the consumer. It may be that such practices would not, to quote the words used in the Bill, "render the food injurious to health" in a positive fashion, but to take out of foodstuffs items which are useful in nutrition may, in fact, diminish very considerably the value of an article of food. The classic example of this, of course, is bread, which is made from flour from which elements have been extracted, particularly the bran and the germ. We now see the paradoxical position that people are buying, in the form
772
of various proprietary articles, preparations of bran in order to remedy one of the most common complaints to which civilised man is liable. They are also buying preparations of vitamins which are made out of the germ of the wheat which has been extracted from the flour. In the result, of course, they are paying a most exorbitant price for what they might have got a great deal more cheaply if it had been left in the flour and had been in the bread.
Take the case of the wheat germ, for example. There is now ample proof that it contains vitamins and other substances which are conducive to fertility and reproduction, and which are of value to women, both before and after childbirth. If we are concerned about the decline in the birth rate and matters of that kind, this is something which deserves some serious thought. I know it will be said that it is now impossible to insist that everybody shall eat whole meal bread, and I am certainly not going to ask for that. I have put down this Amendment rather in an exploratory way in order to find out whether it is the intention of the Government to discourage practices of this kind, because others of a similar nature will no doubt occur in the future, and if they are allowed to go too far it will then once more be said that it is quite impossible to do anything about it.
If valuable articles are to be extracted out of the food supply, let me suggest, at any rate, that some arrangement should be made by which the public are notified of what has happened to their food, so that they are not deceived into thinking, when changes of this kind are gradually and surreptitiously made in it, that it is the same as it has always been. That is the object of this Amendment—to try to find some means by which this practice, which is robbing the people of valuable elements in their food, can at any rate be curtailed, even if it cannot be completely stopped. If the Minister can hold out some hope that this matter will be dealt with in the regulations which are to be made, I shall be perfectly satisfied, because, as I have said, I think the time has gone by when one could apply compulsion in regard to matters of this kind, and certainly that is something which I have never advocated. What I have advocated and will continue to advocate is that the public should be clearly informed of the nature

773
of their food and the treatments to which it has been subjected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("health") insert ("or diminish its nutritive value,").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
2.50 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I beg to support my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch. I know very well that the noble Earl the Minister of State has done and will do all that he can to maintain the individuality of Bills which specifically affect Scotland. The suggestions contained in the Amendments just moved by my noble friend are entirely in line with the recommendations often submitted by the Medical Research Council concerning the danger of chemical additives to our food, however they may come there. Therefore I warmly support the noble Lord's Amendments and hope the noble Earl will be able to meet them in some fashion.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Sempill, seem to be speaking to more than one Amendment at once, but I must confine myself, I think, to the Amendment which is on the Marshalled List, which is to the effect that nothing shall be done to a foodstuff which will diminish its nutritive value. That is the Amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is really at the moment giving his attention. Let me say at once that I shall not claim that we cannot put something into a Scottish Bill because it is not in the English Act. Certainly we should, if we thought it worth while. But it seems to me that this suggestion is impracticable in both countries; it would work neither in Scotland nor in England. The Amendment would make it an offence to manufacture or treat food in such a way as to diminish its nutritive value. I give one or two examples. For instance, grain cannot be milled at all without reducing its nutritive value. Therefore there could be no milling of grain, and so there would be no other bread but wholemeal bread. Again, no fruit or vegetables could be canned, because in the process of canning fruit or vegetables the nutritional value is reduced. I doubt whether one could make beer, because it might be argued that the nutritional value of beer was less than the nutritional value of barley. That result
774
might please the noble Lord, Lord Mothers. In fact, a good deal of special pleading is going on in the discussion of this particular Amendment.
But total prohibition is quite impracticable. It would produce some of these results and we could not advise it at present. I could not advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. It seems to me that there are adequate powers in Clause 4 to prohibit particular processes which are proved to reduce the value of food. I give the assurance that the Government will certainly make that prohibition by regulation if it is proved that through certain additives or in certain other ways the value of food is diminished. If it is proved to be in the public interest, the Government will act by regulation under Clause 4. But I could not accept the general Amendment as put forward by the noble Lord.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I accept to a considerable extent what the noble Earl has said, although I would not agree with the whole of his argument, because, when it comes to making beer for instance, a new food substance is being made. That is quite different proposition from abstracting out of a food a part of its nutritive value and not making a new substance at all. That is a clear and simple distinction. Therefore, my Amendment does not result in a reductio ad absurdum, as the noble Earl has suggested. Nevertheless, I accept the assurance which he has given that this matter will be watched, and that, where it is possible to do so, it will be made the subject of regulations. On that assurance, I have pleasure in withdrawing this Amendment. I shall not move the next one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (5), after "composition" to insert: "or containing similar additives." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is directed towards amplifying and strengthening, to a certain extent, a useful provision which is contained in subsection (5) of Clause 1. This subsection is directed particularly to the cumulative effect of imbibing small quantities of food additives. For example, it is very well known that certain substances, when taken in extremely small quantities over a term of years, may produce cancer. The provision in this clause

775
as it stands relates to the cumulative effect of articles of substantially the same composition, and that I presume to mean articles in which the major food constituent is substantially the same. Therefore the clause as it stands would permit of the addition to a number of different articles of food of such things, for example, as aniline dyes. There would in that case be a cumulative effect, owing not merely to taking those things day after day but also to taking them in a number of different foodstuffs. That possibility does not appear to be covered by the subsection as it stands.
This is a matter of considerable importance. Take, for example, the use of colouring matters in foodstuffs. A large number of synthetic colouring matters are being used at the present day in a great variety of foods. They are used for colouring dried or smoked fish, for example, in order to make it appear that the fish has been subjected to a process of smoking or kippering. They are used to colour cakes and icings, to colour sweets, to colour soft drinks, to colour margarine, to colour jams and to colour tinned and bottled fruits which lose their colours during the processes of preservation. Therefore it is quite a possibility that the same or similar dyestuffs may be partaken of from a great many different sources. It is on that account that I am suggesting that this subsection should be strengthened by adding the words "or containing similar additives." In other words, whether the major food substance is similar or not, so long as the additives are similar the cumulative effect may be there, and, therefore it is a matter to be very carefully guarded against. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, after ("composition") insert ("or containing similar additives").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
3.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the principle of the Amendment which has been moved by Lord Douglas of Barloch is accepted in the Bill, but it is really a matter of how far it can be carried and still effect something which is practical. We think that we have carried it as far as we can carry it in subsection (5) of the clause, where we say that
"regard shall be had not only to the probable effect of that article on the health of a person
776
consuming it, but also to the probable cumulative effect of articles of substantially the same composition …"
Lord Douglas of Barloch wants to go a good deal further: he would put upon the manufacturers, and upon the courts, the duty to range over the whole field in which foods of this kind are manufactured. We think that that would be an impossible burden of investigation to put on the manufacturer or upon the courts.
But there is another reason why I think it is safe not to insert this Amendment. If the prosecution were to have evidence such as is indicated by the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, then there would be an obvious case for regulations to be made, either to control the use of the additives or to prohibit the use of additives under Clause 4 or Clause 5. So if there is such clear evidence as the noble Lord thinks there may be, that certain additives are being used and that the cumulative effect, taken together with other additives, is bad for the public health, then I suggest that the case for control or prohibition would be made and that we should be able to act, and the Minister would act, by regulation, either prohibiting or controlling under Clause 4 or Clause 5. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, which puts upon the manufacturer and the court a duty which I think it would be quite impossible for them to carry out.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I agree largely with the argument which the noble Earl has adduced. Nothing can be more unfortunate than to pass legislation which is not capable of adequate enforcement. I agree, too, that it would be rather difficult in cases of this kind to provide adequate proof although that would not really be to the detriment of the manufacturer but to the detriment of the consumer after all, it is the prosecution, and not the defence, who have to afford proof in the first place. Nevertheless, I accept the assurance which the noble Earl has given, that this matter will be looked at and that it may be dealt with by means of regulations. I feel that there is here a considerable danger which has not received adequate attention in the past, arising from the use (to quote the example I have given) of aniline dyes in so many different foodstuffs that there may easily be a substantial cumulative effect from the total which would not

777
arise from the use in one single article of food. On the assurance which the noble Earl has given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF HOME: Perhaps I had better say that the assurance I have given is that if the evidence were sufficient, the matter could be dealt with by regulation. I do not want to be misunderstood.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Yes, I accept that. All I would say is that I hope that the Government will keep their eyes open for, and not shut their eyes to, the evidence.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl said that in such circumstances the Government will introduce legislation. I do not know whether than was intentional or whether it was a slip of the tongue. The noble Earl said that if the evidence was sufficient they could, and they would.
THE EARL OF HOME: Perhaps I had better limit myself to "could," because no one can pledge another Government in regard to particular circumstances that one cannot foresee. But if the evidence is sufficient in any particular case, it would be open to the Minister to make a regulation either prohibiting or controlling the use of the additive. I hope that the Minister would do so where the evidence was sufficient.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Fraudulent sales of food and drugs
2.—(1) If a person sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any food or drug which is not of the nature, or not of the substance, or not of the quality, of the food or drug demanded by the purchaser, he shall, subject to the provisions of the next following section, be guilty of an offence against this Act.
3.7 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1), to omit "to the prejudice of the purchaser." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment which I am moving is for the purpose of deleting from Clause 2 (1) the words "to the prejudice of the purchaser." It seems superfluous to impose upon the purchaser of an article the duty of proving, not only that the article which has been sold to him is different either in its nature or in its substance or quality from that for which he asked, but also that he has been prejudiced in some other
778
fashion. That appears to be the meaning of the subsection as it now stands. It ought surely to be an offence to sell to anybody something which is different from that for which he has asked and which he has expected to get. May I point out that by means of Clause 3 the vendor who does this is, in fact, given a wide avenue of escape: he has only to label the article which he has sold in such a way as to make perfectly clear to the purchaser what its nature is, to enable himself to escape from the consequences of Clause 2. Of course, I except the case where he has sold something which is positively injurious to the purchaser.
I see no good reason why facilities should be offered to vendors of foodstuffs to sell to people things which are different from what they have required, and to impose upon the aggrieved purchaser, so to speak, a double onus of proof. It seems to me that to include that is simply to invite deceit, and in this question, in which it is so important to prevent the debasement of the food supplied, no encouragement whatsoever should be given. This deterioration and devitalisation of food has already gone an enormous distance; it has taken place by slow and stealthy stages, so that it is now most difficult to do anything to correct what has already happened. But let me take a simple illustration. About 100 years ago, when Mrs. Beeton wrote her celebrated cookery book, a cake was, I suppose, made out of flour which had not been debilitated to the extent of most types of flour sold to-day; of fresh eggs, not those which had been dried or tinned; and of cane sugar, dried fruits and other natural food substances.
Of what do they consist at present? Of flour from which much of its nutritional value has been extracted and which has been treated with agene; instead of eggs, there is merely colouring matter—probably a coal-tar dye—no doubt to give the article the appearance of having been made with eggs; instead of butter, various oils which have probably been heat-treated to make them less odorous, a process in which they have been subjected to highly detrimental chemical changes. Then there will be a number of substances described as "fat extenders," largely of the nature of detergents, intended to make the cake rise higher and to look lighter and more attractive. Finally, there will he some synthetic

779
sweetening and flavouring agents. That is an illustration of the kind of thing that has happened, and will happen, to many foodstuffs just because the law is so lax and allows manufacturers gradually to substitute one substance for another and to sell the consumer something different from that which he has expected to get. I hope that the noble Earl will be persuaded of the value of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("to the prejudice of the purchaser").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I was glad the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, mentioned Mrs. Becton's Cookery Book, for, with his catalogue of horrors, he was putting me off my food. I do not think this Amendment would achieve the noble Lord's design. He is really asking us to accept the principle that the customer should get precisely what he wants. All noble Lords would very much like that, but in an imperfect world no-one ever gets exactly what he wants. The effect of accepting this Amendment would be to make it an offence for someone to sell to a customer an article which was an improvement on what the customer wanted, and I do not believe the noble Lord would wish to achieve that result.
The real and substantial reason for resisting this Amendment, however, is that this form has been in Acts of Parliament for some eighty years and I gather that the phrase "to the prejudice of the purchaser" has been very valuable in protecting consumers' rights; and that, after all, is the objective of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. I am told that a great deal of valuable case law has been built up round this subsection. It has fulfilled its purpose, and no serious fault has been found with it. We should, therefore, want very good reasons—better reasons than have been given by the noble Lord—before we sought to disturb the present position. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, first for the reason that a large body of case law has been built up round this subsection, and secondly, because this Amendment would not achieve the noble Lord's objective, and would, in fact, make it an offence to sell an article which was
780
better than the purchaser expected he would get.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I venture to put a further consideration to the noble Earl. He declares that, while my noble friend seeks to provide that the customer shall get exactly what he wants, that is impossible. There is a middle course: that the purchaser be told precisely what he is getting. He can then make his choice and decide whether or not to take the article which he then knows contains the deleterious substance against which my noble friend is contending. The purchaser can make his choice and decide whether he will die by that means or by a natural death in the ordinary way. He is given an opportunity of avoiding taking an article that he does not want.
THE EARL OF HOME: We come on to that point in the next Amendment, dealing with the labelling of substances.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am not convinced by the argument adduced by the noble Earl upon this Amendment. The suggestion that my Amendment will prevent producers of foodstuffs from improving the quality of whatever they have to sell is not convincing.
THE EARL OF HOME: The Amendment would make it an offence.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Oh, no. I explained quite clearly what is obvious upon the face of the Bill: that the vendor has an avenue of escape by means of Clause 3, which gives him the opportunity of putting upon the article which he is selling a label explaining in what way it has been treated. Where it is a genuine case of a foodstuffs' vendor having achieved an improvement in the quality or nutritive value of the product, there is a simple course open to him, quite apart from Clause 3—that is, to explain to the purchaser that he is being offered something better than he has been purchasing before. The purchaser can be invited to change the nature of his demand. Surely that is good economics, and good commercial sense. I cannot accept the argument which the noble Earl has adduced, that this Amendment will produce exactly the reverse of what I seek to achieve. That is a contention which will not, upon reflection, hold water.
THE EARL OF HOME: If we omit from the Bill the words proposed by the noble Lord, the effect will not be that which he has in mind. One way of achieving that will be discussed on the next Amendment—that is, for the label to show the consumer or the purchaser what he is in fact getting. This particular issue can better be discussed on the next Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, it may be that case law on this subject makes acceptance of the Amendment somewhat difficult. I do not want to embark upon a discussion of such a technical question, although I would venture the opinion that what case law has done has been to make the effect of this provision something approaching that which I wish to achieve by my Amendment. Nevertheless, it is dangerous to upset, without the fullest consideration, something which has been the subject of many judicial decisions. On that account, while I still believe that my Amendment is right in principle, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.20 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) A food shall be deemed to be not of the quality demanded if it contains any added synthetic chemical and if no notice is given to the purchaser of the addition of such chemical specifying what it is."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is directed against the practice, which has now become extremely widespread, of adding various synthetic chemicals to foodstuffs. The number and variety of these is enormous. There are large numbers of synthetic flavouring matters, synthetic colouring matters and various other treatments to which food is subjected, such as the addition of the so-called "fat extenders" and other chemicals, the nature and the effect of which are still largely unknown and unexplored. Quite recently, we have had a Report by the Food Standards Committee of the Ministry of Food dealing with the use of colouring matters in foodstuffs, and one very significant passage which I should like to quote from that Report illustrates that the practice of using colouring matters in foodstuffs has now gone so far that the Committee consider it extremely difficult, in a number of cases,
782
to stop it. They give this illustration—I quote from the Report:
"Although the dyeing of smoked fish, particularly kippers, has now become an established practice, we regard this as an instance where the use of colour could have been challenged originally."
In other words, it is alleged that the consumer has now become so accustomed to having a dyed herring instead of a kipper that he is no longer deceived. I am not so sure that that is true, and I feel fairly certain that if every article of food which had been subjected to treatment of that kind were clearly labelled, the demand would fall very considerably. At any rate, let the consumer have the opportunity of knowing what has happened to his foodstuffs, particularly when they have had added to them such substances as are dealt with in this Amendment, which, quite clearly, are by no means natural articles of food and which are, by their nature, open to the gravest suspicion.
Let me refer again for a moment to the Report of the Food Standards Committee on Colouring Matters. They had proposed to them by manufacturers of foodstuffs or manufacturers of chemicals no fewer than seventy-nine coal-tar dyes, which it was alleged it was safe to use as ingredients of food. They made an inquiry into this subject upon the basis of what was already known—and that knowledge is not by any means complete—and they classified these colouring matters into three grades. Grade A contained twelve out of the seventy-nine, and the Committee approved of the use of eleven of these. Although the Committee admit that they have not complete knowledge about the effect of these things, what they say about them is that the colours in Class A
"would seem unlikely to be harmful when consumed in foods in the customary amounts."
But they also say:
"We were struck at the outset by the fact that there is a serious lack of adequate experimental evidence on many dyes, including some used quite extensively. In the absence of conclusive evidence we are unable to recommend any colour unreservedly as safe."
So that the eleven which they classified as the most safe are still not recommended unreservedly.
Then the Committee classified thirty-two of these substances in Grade B, of which they recommended only twenty as permissible for use. But observe what

783
they say about the colourings in Class B: they are:
"Colours for which the available evidence is deficient or conflicting, although there is no apparent reason on structural"—
that refers to the chemical structure—
"or other grounds to expect them to be harmful in the amounts ordinarily consumed."
That is not very much of a recommendation for the use of these substances. The remaining thirty-five of the seventy-nine dyes which were proposed the Committee placed in a classification as being too dangerous to be used at all in foods. But observe that those thirty-five were proposed by either manufacturers of foodstuffs or manufactures of chemicals as being perfectly safe; and there are hundreds of other colouring matters which are being produced commercially at the present day for dyeing various kinds of substances, any of which might, at any moment, be proposed for use, or be used, by a manufacturer of food as a colouring matter in food.
This is really an extremely dangerous matter. Only last November, Dr. Otto Warburg, the world-famous authority on cancer, stated that the use of aniline dyes in foodstuffs ought to be prohibited completely. Their use has been condemned by Dr. Charles Cameron, Director of the Cancer Society of the United States. They have been condemned by Professor Maisin, the well-known Belgian authority upon this question. It is most important that there should be an absolute obligation upon manufacturers of foodstuffs who use synthetic chemicals of this kind to disclose the fact to the consumer. I am not going so far—though my own personal inclination is to do so, because I think it would be right and just—as to say that their use should be absolutely prohibited; but I do say that at any rate the use of synthetic chemicals ought to be clearly disclosed to the consumer, so that he knows what he is eating. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I cannot accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has put forward, but I hope that I can give him a certain amount of satisfaction in what I say as to why I am unable to
784
accept it. I cannot accept it for this reason. The noble Lord's Amendment reads:
"A food shall be deemed to be not of the quality demanded if it contains any added synthetic chemical …"
I think that that just is not practical.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Would the noble Earl read on?
THE EARL OF HOME: Would the noble Lord mind if I continued with what I was saying? I think it is admitted that if food is to be made eatable some colouring and some flavourings must be used. I can tell the noble Lord the method we propose to adopt if the Bill becomes law. It is this. We are drawing up permitted lists of substances which may safely be used. This matter is already under discussion. We shall listen carefully to any views which the noble Lord and anybody else may put forward, and to any representations they may care to make. Substances outside the lists of permitted substances can be either controlled or prohibited by regulation.
So far as labelling is concerned, we should all like to see what it is we are eating, and in the great majority of cases it is perfectly reasonable to ask manufacturers to label. But let me quote one or two examples under the Labelling Regulations made in 1953, dealing with such commodities as bread, including breadcrumbs, butter, milk, fresh fruit and vegetables, liquid cows' milk, meat puddings, sugar, whole cooked beetroots and single toffee apples, which, it is thought, it is unreasonable to ask manufacturers to label. To go round labelling single toffee apples seems to be a waste of time. But, so far as it is reasonable, we are certainly going to require manufacturers to label their products to let the public know what is in them. I hope that the noble Lord will think the spirit of his Amendment is met by these two assurances: that, first, we are going to draw up permitted lists of substances which may be used, with the intention of controlling or prohibiting by regulation the use of all those outside the permitted lists; and secondly, that it is our intention that there shall be labelling on a wide scale wherever it is reasonable to ask manufacturers to label their products. We shall be glad to take the noble Lord's views into account when considering the lists of permitted substances.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question, to take us a little further? A number of other countries go strictly and minutely into the contents of goods that are sold. Not long ago I heard of a box of biscuits which was sent to this country from overseas. It turned out that the biscuits had been manufactured in this country and had been specially labelled to meet overseas requirements. The recipient said that for the first time he knew what was in those biscuits, which he had often seen in this country, and he was amazed at the number of ingredients contained in them. Would the noble Earl take into account the practice that is followed in other countries of making clear to the buyers of goods the analysis of ingredients, so that they know precisely what they are buying?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I would not commit myself on the question of biscuits, because this is the first I have heard about this product, but where it is reasonable to ask a manufacturer to label, then I think it should be done, and we shall certainly try to see that it is done. We want to exercise reasonable care by going as far as we possibly can without being too hard on the manufacturers.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, let me put it in another way: why should we not go as far as is possible and reasonable in order to protect the consumer? That is surely the primary interest in these matters, and not the interests of the manufacturers. I hope the noble Earl agrees with that proposition. I welcome the statement he has made which, I understand, is that the Government intend to consider the use of all kinds of chemicals in foodstuffs and restrict the use of them to a list which is not to be extended. If that is the intention, certainly it is a considerable step forward; but it is not an answer to the Amendment which I moved. My Amendment still applies in those circumstances. When he referred to it, the noble Earl stopped short in the middle. My Amendment does not say at all that synthetic chemicals are not to be added; what it says is that they are not to be added unless notice is given to the purchaser, and I still submit that the purchaser ought to have notice even if there is a limited list of chemicals which
786
can be used for this purpose and no others can be used. I have no desire to consume foods which have had synthetic chemicals added to them if I can possibly avoid it, and I want to have notice of what chemicals there are in them. Surely that is not at all unfair.
The noble Earl has indicated that it is intended to extend labelling further than it extends at the present time. I do not think it is to the point to talk about cooked beetroots and toffee apples. So far as I know, these things have not had synthetic chemicals added to them. If they have, the case for this Amendment becomes stronger instead of weaker; and if they have not, the people who are selling things of this kind are not faced with the slightest difficulty, because my Amendment requires labelling only where synthetic chemicals have been added and not in cases where they have not been added. The noble Earl's arguments on that point fall to the ground. They have no relevance at all to the Amendment which is before the House and I sincerely hope that this does not disclose a reluctance to adopt the principle of compelling disclosure to the consumer when synthetic chemicals have been added to foodstuffs. This is extremely important.
I am not going to repeat the illustrations which I have already given to the House, or weary your Lordships by giving many others which I could adduce; but when it comes to a question of running the risk of consuming day after day dozens and dozens of synthetic chemicals about which nobody knows anything at all, I submit that the case for disclosure is overwhelming. I would ask the noble Earl to put his pledge in a different way and say that it is the intention of the Government to enforce labelling in every case in which there are additions of this kind made to foods. That easily cuts out the cases, which he has adduced, of selling cooked beetroots or toffee apples.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that the whole object of this Bill is to protect the consumer. The Government would not have brought it before Parliament if it were not their intention to protect the consumer, and I must ask the noble Lord to believe that when we take powers we mean to use them. The reason why I

787
cannot accept his Amendment is simply that it says:
"A food shall be deemed to be not of the quality demanded if it contains any added synthetic chemical …"
Those are perfectly plain words. We cannot accept the Amendment, because foods must already contain colouring or flavouring. But I have already told the noble Lord that there are ways of dealing with these substances if they should prove to be obnoxious. We can prohibit the substances—and if we are convinced that any particular substance is injurious, we may take that course before we make a permitted list; or we can control the substance, or we can make lists of permitted substances and ban the rest. I do ask the noble Lord to believe that it is our intention to work this in the interests of the consumer.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Earl is not really directing his mind to the terms of the Amendment, if he will forgive me for saying so. He may or may not have good reasons for not accepting it, but the reason he has given is quite inadequate. He reads the Amendment half-way, and then says: "I stop halfway, and because of what I read I cannot accept the Amendment." This Amendment does not say that a man must not sell any food that contains any added synthetic chemical—that is not the intention: it is recognised that certain foods may require added synthetic chemical. But the Amendment goes on to say that, in cases where there is an added synthetic chemical, notice should be given to the purchaser of the addition of such synthetic chemical and that, if no such notice is given, then it is assumed that the food is not of the substance or quality demanded. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would direct himself to both phrases in the Amendment, and not assume that this Amendment intends to cut out the addition of all synthetic chemicals.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think I do understand the Amendment. In fact, it would require notice to be given in some form of every synthetic chemical used in the manufacture of articles of food which are sold to the purchaser, however small the quantity might be. This is substantially the law in the case of pre-packed foods. It is a good deal more difficult to
788
apply in the case of foods which are not pre-packed. Nevertheless, as I say, I think it is possible to deal with this matter administratively. While there must be foods into which synthetic substances are introduced, nevertheless, wherever it is practicable we shall try to secure that the public are shown the amount of synthetic substance put into the food.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the discussion. I think the noble Earl has now put the matter in a slightly more encouraging way. He has now made it clear, as I understand him, that if the Government do make regulations which permit only of the use of certain scheduled chemicals that will not be a reason for not labelling foodstuffs so as to show which of those chemicals have been used in them. I am willing to admit that there may conceivably be some cases in which labelling is a little difficult, but the noble Earl has not produced one single illustration this afternoon of a case in which there is any real practical difficulty. My noble friend Lord Mathers has given an illustration of a pre-packed food in which labelling is extremely easy, and in which, apparently, no endeavour has been made to secure labelling. The manufacturers of biscuits are able to label them when they export them, to tell the purchaser in foreign countries what is contained in them. Why should not the consumer in this country have the same information? As I say, I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I hope the noble Earl will take note of what has been said and devote his mind more earnestly to this problem. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
Clause 4:
Regulations as to composition of food, etc.
4.—(1) The Ministers may, so far as appears to them to be necessary or expedient in the interests of the public health, or otherwise for the protection of the public, make regulations for any of the following purposes:—
(a) for requiring, prohibiting or regulating the addition of any specified substance, or any substance of any specified class, to food intended for sale for human consumption or

789
any class of such food, or the use of any such substance as an ingredient in the preparation of such food, and generally for regulating the composition of such food;
3.47 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "requiring." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 7 are directed to the same point, and with your Lordships' permission, I will deal with them simultaneously. The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent "the gentlemen in Whitehall" from dictating to us what we are to eat and drink, and, in view of what has been said by a number of noble Lords on the Government Benches, I assume that they will approach it with a considerable degree of sympathy. It is one thing to enact legislation directed towards preventing people from selling as food things which are not natural articles of food at all, which have never formed any part of human dietaries, and which in many cases are the product of the ingenuity of chemists within the last century or so. That is an absolutely proper use of the regulative power of the State, in order to protect the consumer from having substances which are dangerous, or potentially dangerous, or even of quite unknown quality, put into the food supply. But when it comes to giving the Government power to require things to be added to the food supply we are upon a totally different ground. This is opening the door to compulsory mass medication, which I submit to your Lordships is an invasion of the liberty of the subject and fundamentally wrong and immoral.
We have already begun to go some distance along this extremely dangerous path. It is already made compulsory by regulation to add chalk to bread, although it is fairly certain that it is quite useless, and although there is at least a suspicion that it is positively detrimental. In any case, it is absolutely certain that not every member of the population of this country is suffering from a calcium deficiency. In that case, happily, there is one loophole, and it is that 100 per cent. wholemeal bread has been exempted from this regulation. But it is well-known that it is difficult to obtain bread of that quality, and that in many cases its price is higher than that of the ordinary white bread of commerce. Therefore, this compulsion is already being exercised upon the majority
790
of the people of this country. It is, as I have said, an invasion of the liberty of the subject, and it is morally indefensible. It is advocated upon medical grounds, but on those grounds, too, it is entirely indefensible. People ought not to be treated in the mass. The essence of rational medical practice is examination of the condition and needs of the individual patient, and those may vary enormously as between one and another. It is ludicrous to suggest that it is possible to make a prescription for the benefit of 45 million people and say that in every individual case the right thing will be prescribed.
That is one illustration, but the Government are already going a step further in this direction, because, in a number of cases, they have agreed to the addition of poison to public water supplies. This is described as an experiment, but what kind of a medical experiment is it in which the public water supply of a whole district is to have fluoride of some kind put into it, without the consent of the inhabitants, without any regard to their individual condition or needs, and without any medical examination or any of the requisites of rational medical treatment? That kind of thing is indeed an invasion of the liberty of the subject, and something for which we ought not to give further facilities. If these words remain in the Bill, it will be open to Ministers to make regulations which can carry this as far as they like. There is no limit to the number of things which somebody will say he considers ought to be added to the food supplies and for which regulations will be made compelling that to be done.
I submit that this is the thin end of the wedge which might quite easily bring us into practices such as we and the whole civilised world only a few years ago condemned as absolutely wrong and immoral, and for which certain people were put upon trial at Nuremberg and convicted and sentenced. Compulsory mass medication or compulsory mass experimentation, without the consent of those involved in those experiments, must, by any standard, be completely immoral and completely contrary to all rational medical practice and ethics. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("requiring,").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I know and respect the noble Lord's strong feelings on this subject, but the Government must be advised here by the best scientific advice that we can take. The best scientific advice is that there may be certain circumstances in which it is in the interests of the nation's health that certain substances should be added to foodstuffs. The obvious example is that during, and for some time after, the war there was a nation-wide calcium deficiency, and therefore calcium, in the form of highly purified chalk, was added to flour. The noble Lord thinks that that may be injurious to health, but the scientific advice available to the Government thought that it was necessary during the war and continued to be necessary for a good time after. Let me take another case, the addition of vitamins A and D to bring margarine up to the nutritive value of butter. I do not think that action of that kind can properly be designated as interfering with the national liberties or as a threat to freedom. The noble Lord does, and I think we had better agree to differ here. I am sorry that, on the best medical and scientific advice available to us, I cannot accept the proposition which he puts forward in his Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am not altogether surprised, but at the same time I am somewhat grieved and disappointed. It is all very well to come to this House and talk about scientific advice which is available to the Government. I do not decry the value of science in its proper place, but it is not the function of science to deprive us of our liberties. Once we arrive at the position in which the advice of experts is used in this way, there is no limit to the extent to which it may be extended. This is precisely the path upon which a nation gradually descends into the abyss of totalitarianism. It is done in many cases with the best intentions; with an honest and conscientious desire to be benefactors. But I feel that liberty demands something more than that—it demands the right even to be wrong in the eyes of scientists and experts. If we are to be deprived of that liberty, then something which has been cherished and fought for over many centuries in our national life will gradually disappear. I hope that that is not really the mind of the Government in this matter. I hope the noble Earl
792
and those associated with him will think again about this matter, because there is something here which is far more important than the general subject matter of this Bill. If this kind of thing is to be enacted here, it may be enacted in many other cases, and we shall then reach the stage, as I said, in which it will be a case of "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best"—the liberty of the subject will not matter at all. Surely, we are not going to descend to that position.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I confess that I was a little shocked at what the noble Earl, Lord Home, has just told us. Is it seriously the policy of this Government, or of any Government for that matter, to make us eat chalk whether we want to or not, because, on the best scientific advice, the Government are informed that there is generally a shortage of calcium in the diet? It may be that many of us do not need chalk at all. Are we to be forced to have it? In such cases is it the Government's policy to require that chalk shall be added to all bread and to all flour, so that everyone may have to consume a certain amount of chalk or vitamins A or D? This indeed is grandmotherly government. It is all right when you are a child of five, when "granny knows what is good for you" and makes you eat chalk; but I am rather shocked to find that that is the policy of the Government: that under this Bill they can require everybody to get a certain amount of chalk or vitamins in his food. I ask the noble Earl and the Government to think again about this, if not in this Chamber at least in another place. I am sure he is going far beyond what most of us would be prepared to support.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have not verified this, but I think the noble Lord must have "swallowed" this in the case of the English Act.
LORD SILKIN: I may have done: it was not pointed out to me.
THE EARL OF HOME: This is a power which can be made to look alarming, I agree. I can, however, conceive of circumstances where it could be beneficial. For instance, if supplies of certain imported foodstuffs were denied entry into this country it might be a good thing that Ministers should have power, in the interests of national health, to require us

793
to have calcium, as was the case in the last war when there was a severe calcium deficiency. Any regulations made under the Bill would have to be laid, and will be subject to annulment by Resolution of either House. I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the views expressed by the noble Lords, but I am afraid that I must resist this Amendment now.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I understand that the noble Earl is not in a position at this moment to accept this Amendment. If that is so, I sympathise with him; but I hope he will speak seriously to his honourable friend about this question. I want to say one more word about it. It is perfectly true that this kind of thing was introduced during the war, during a national emergency. It may conceivably have been justified under these conditions. There are a good many of us who remember the emergency legislation which was introduced, and the jealousy with which it was watched by both Houses of Parliament, upon the basis that it would be merely temporary and would not become a permanent part of our legislative system. If another emergency of that kind arises, in which it is necessary to take action of that kind, justified for the time being upon the principle of salus populi suprema lex, then I have no doubt that Parliament will grant the necessary powers; but to make this kind of thing a permanent part of the legislation of this country is a very different matter. In view of the fact that the noble Earl is going to consult his right honourable friend, I shall withdraw this Amendment, but I sincerely hope that it will be pursued in another place and that satisfaction upon this point will be obtained.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MIDDLE AND FAR EAST
4.5 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I make bold to interrupt the business of the House to repeat to your Lordships what I am sure you all feel is an important personal account by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary of his recent tour in the Middle and Far East. My right honourable friend has just given that account in another place, and I felt that the House would certainly wish to have it here. My right honourable friend said:
"A journey of 16,000 miles in sixteen days, including a conference of three days' duration and important discussions in several capitals, can clearly not be surveyed in a brief statement to this House. It may therefore be convenient it I compress the account of my voyaging and deal with it under three main headings: the Middle East, South East Asia and the Formosa Straits.
"The Middle East: I found in the Middle East a general acceptance of the need to organise a safe shield of defence to protect the area from aggression from without. There is also a recognition that the security and prosperity of the area cannot be fully realised so long as the present disruptive relations Persist between the Arab States and Israel, now unhappily aggravated by further recent incidents. Thirdly, all the States I visited, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq and the Lebanon, were anxious to be able to pursue the plans for economic development on which they have embarked. Her Majesty's Government are in sympathy with all these aims and are ready to help in so far as they can to realise them.
"While in Bagdad, I discussed with the Prime Minister of Iraq the questions which would arise if Her Majesty's Government were to accede to the Turco-Iraqi Pact. I hope before long to give the House further information on this subject. Our aim is to forge a new association with Iraq which will bring our relations into line with those already existing with Turkey and our other partners in N.A.T.O. New weapons and changed political conditions should be reflected in a fresh approach to our joint arrangements for

795
resisting external aggression in this area. Our common needs can now best be provided for in different and more up-to-date ways than those which were embodied in the Anglo-lraqi Treaty more than twenty years ago.
"South East Asia: The first meeting of the Council of the Manila Treaty was held in Bangkok from the 23rd to the 25th of February. I told the House, when we discussed the Treaty on November 8, that this first meeting would be chiefly concerned with setting in hand the arrangements for military and other planning for the defence of the Treaty area. So it was. But it was none the less important for being concerned mainly with questions of organisation.
"Our decisions have been set out in the full communiqué published by the Council, which I have arranged to make available to the House. Permanent representatives are being appointed to maintain consultation when the Council is not in session, and they will be assisted by a small permanent secretariat in Bangkok. Military advisers will be attached to the Council. These have already held their first meeting and have made the necessary arrangements for their further work. Their duty will be to plan how the resources available for the common defence of the area can be used to the best advantage should the need arise. There are also to be early meetings of experts to discuss economic questions and measures for meeting the danger of subversion.
"Full use will be made of existing agencies such as the Colombo Plan, the importance of which is increasing steadily. For this reason we decided that it was not necessary to set up any permanent economic organisation within the Manila Treaty. Another example of the work now going on is the excellent co-operation which has been established between the police authorities in Malaya and in Siam to deal with problems created by Communist terrorists on either side of the common frontier.
"To sum up, the Bangkok Conference worked out an acceptable programme for defence policies and economic problems between the
796
countries who are member States; it also did nothing to hinder the subsequent association of other countries in this area. However this may develop I have confidence that we shall see steadily improving relations between all the free countries in this part of the world whether they be members of S.E.A.T.O. or not. But we recognise that this work of regional co-operation represents only one means of strengthening peace and stability in South East Asia.
"Another essential contribution to the same end was the agreement concluded at Geneva last summer which ended the fighting in Indo-China and established the independence of the three Associated States. The Governments represented at the Bangkok Conference reaffirmed their determination to support these States in maintaining their freedom and independence. When I went on to Singapore after the Bangkok meeting I discussed the situation in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with Her Majesty's Representatives in those States. This formed part of a wider meeting with the Commissioner General in South East Asia and our civil and military representatives throughout that region. This discussion was most valuable to me.
"My visit to South East Asia has brought home to me how closely the countries of the area cherish their independence. Each country wants to develop in its own way and their ways may differ widely. They want to shape their own destinies with the minimum of outside interference or pressure. Democracy in these countries will grow stronger as they gain confidence from its practice and example.
"From Singapore I flew to Malaya and spent a memorable day, with the help of helicopters, in seeing the work of our Commonwealth forces. The spirit in which these men are facing their daily ordeal of foul discomfort and danger is beyond praise. The success they have won is a splendid tribute to their leadership and to them. Now, finally I will say a word about the Formosa Straits. While I was at Bangkok I had separate and helpful discussions with Mr. Dulles about the situation in Formosa and the coastal islands. I also maintained, during my

797
journey, the contacts which had been established with Moscow and Peking and which are still continuing. In the light of these exchanges I again considered whether any further progress could be made through a conference or other discussions. I had valuable conversations about this on my way home with the Prime Minister of Burma and with Mr. Nehru, who received me with the utmost kindness as the first British Foreign Secretary to visit the Indian capital.
"After these talks and on the basis of the information about the attitude of the Chinese Government which reached me from Peking, I came reluctantly to the conclusion that the necessary conditions for progress do not yet exist. We are, however, going on working to try to bring them about and meanwhile to prevent incidents and further fighting. We cannot, of course, impose our views upon the parties most directly concerned, nor decide for them where their own true interests lie. Nor can the many different aspects of this tangled problem be settled all at once. But the House will wish to know what is the position of Her Majesty's Government in this situation and what, in their view, are the lines along which progress is to be sought.
"Its main elements seem to me to be these. First, the United States Government have already given positive proofs of their desire to relax tension and reduce the risks of war. I am convinced that they wish to see conditions created which would put an end to active military hostilities in the area and reduce the dangers of a wider conflict. In their Treaty with Chiang Kai-shek they have explicitly limited their own formal commitments to the defence of Formosa and the Pescadores. They have effectively restrained the Chinese Nationalists in recent weeks from initiating attacks against the Chinese mainland. They have persuaded the Nationalists to evacuate the Tachen and Nanchi islands.
"Second, the Chinese People's Government for their part have refrained from attacking Quemoy and the Matsus. Her Majesty's Government trust that they will continue to exercise this restraint and that they will make
798
it apparent that while maintaining intact in all respects their position in regard to Formosa and the Pescadores they will not prosecute their claims by forceful means. It is equally desirable (and this is the third point) that the Chinese Nationalists for their part should also do two things. We should like to see them withdraw their armed forces from the other coastal islands. We would also hope that they would let it be known that they too, while maintaining their claims, will not prosecute them by forceful means and will abstain from all offensive military action.
"If these objectives could be realised, consideration could then be given internationally at an appropriate stage to the problem of Chinese representation in the United Nations and to the future status of Formosa.
"Any attempt to make progress along these lines clearly raises grave problems of timing, of presentation and of policy. But there is no problem, however intractable, which with time and patience cannot be made less so. And if the attempt is not made in the case of Formosa and the coastal islands, the consequences may be grave indeed. That is my justification for giving the House this outline of the main elements of the problem as they appear to Her Majesty's Government."
4.16 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am sure I shall be expressing the view of the whole House when I say that we are grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for making that statement to us. The statement needs no justification, as Sir Anthony Eden seems to think. I think that it is a most useful precedent that from time to time the Foreign Secretary should escape from his office desk and go and see for himself, and discuss with other statesmen the great problems which confront him. It is not in the least convenient to ask questions about this matter now, if only because it is a personal statement by the Foreign Secretary. But it is a quarry of useful information which I am sure will be useful us when we come to consider, as we shall in due course, the desirability of holding another Foreign Affairs debate.

FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.17 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved to add to subsection (2):
"and the addition of synthetic substances which are not proved to the satisfaction of the Ministers to be not injurious to health."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause deals with the making of regulations for the protection of the food supply. Subsection (2), which embodies a suggestion which I made upon the English Bill, lays down that:
"In the exercise of their functions under this section the Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value. …"
By this Amendment I suggest that that provision should be strengthened a little by the inclusion of a provision that, in making regulations, the Ministers shall also have regard to the desirability of restricting the addition to food of synthetic substances which are not proved to the satisfaction of the Ministers to be not injurious to health. I feel that this is a simple and desirable provision, because it will automatically prevent the addition of substances the effects and nature of which are unknown; and, of course, substances which are known to be detrimental—that part of it is perfectly simple.
The real trouble in this matter is that there are such a large number of chemical additives to foodstuffs of which nobody knows anything at all. I am therefore inviting the Government to direct themselves, in considering this matter, towards having a bias against allowing such articles to be added to foods unless it has been proved to the satisfaction of the responsible Ministers that the substances in question are innocuous. The Amendment is so simple that I do not propose to elaborate it any further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 2, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE EARL OF HOME: I hope the noble Lord will not press me to accept this Amendment. An identical subsection was put into the English Act on the instigation of the noble Lord. We have taken it
800
from the English Act and included it in the Scottish Bill because it is felt to be a reasonable direction to Ministers. But the whole object of this Bill, and our reason for introducing it, is that we wish to protect the public against the use of substances which are injurious to health. We shall naturally do what the Amendment requires. The inclusion of these words would almost seem to suggest that Ministers have no intention of using the powers with which they are arming themselves, which is somewhat absurd. I hope the noble Lord will not insist upon this Amendment. If he wishes to strengthen the hand of Ministers I will undertake to ask my right honourable friend to watch this point when the Bill comes to another place.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: It the noble Earl is saying that it is the intention of Ministers to act in the spirit of my Amendment I shall be perfectly satisfied. I do not stand with great pertinacity on the wording of this Amendment. On one interpretation, the subsection as it stands already includes the purpose of this Amendment, because it would certainly be difficult to prove that synthetic colouring and flavouring substances and other things added to foodstuffs have any nutritional value. But there has been a suggestion in discussions which took place, I believe during the passage of the English Act, that, so long as a substance added to a foodstuff made it attractive to the consumer, that was, of itself, sufficient proof of the desirability of what was done. On that basis it would be easy to argue that, because a certain colouring put into a sweetstuff was very bright and attractive to children, and children were thereby induced to buy it, this colouring was a justifiable addition to such articles of food. I had considerations of that kind in mind in wishing to strengthen this subsection. If I correctly understand from the noble Earl that it is the intention of Ministers to act in the spirit of my Amendment, and to discourage the use of substances of this kind unless they are satisfied that such substances are innocuous, then I am quite content and shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF HOME: I can give the noble Lord an assurance that action will be in the spirit of his Amendment; but his Amendment would be an additive

801
which would be injurious to the whole Bill, and therefore we will leave it out.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 47, leave out ("the foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection (2) of this section").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments (privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

FISHERIES BILL
4.27 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Bill, the Second Reading of which I now move, makes no major changes in policy. It deals with finance and machinery and its two purposes are, first, to increase sums available for grants to the Herring Industry Board; and secondly, to transfer to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland the responsibility for giving financial assistance for fishery harbour works. Since 1946, as noble Lords will know, there has been a scheme whereby herrings not sold in other markets have been purchased by the Herring Industry Board for reduction into oil and meal. This procedure has had certain advantages. It has meant that a market was provided for the whole of the fisherman's catch so that he is encouraged to fish "all-out." Further, there has been oil available for manufacture, for instance in margarine. Meal has also
802
been made available for animal feeding-stuffs.
Hitherto it has been necessary to pay a subsidy to the Herring Industry Board in respect of these operations, largely because the Board have had to send their surplus of herrings to the commercial fish factories which very often are situated at ports other than those at which the herrings are landed. The Board are, therefore, involved in considerable transport charges, and until the Board are able to complete the building of their own factories it would seem reasonable to continue the payment of this subsidy. In the past the subsidy, at first limited to £1½ million, was raised, in 1953, to £3 million; but by the end of the current financial year over £2½ of that £3 million will have been spent and the balance will be absorbed by the completion of the Herring Industry Board factories and certain other outstanding commitments. In order to avoid hardship in the industry, leading to further unemployment at the herring ports, Clause 1 of the Bill provides an additional £500,000 at once and enables the Minister concerned, by Affirmative Resolution, to provide a further £250,000 if necessary. These provisions are considered to be necessary in order that the subsidy may continue to be paid and so that the Herring Industry Board may be able to complete the building of their factories as soon as possible.
At present, if the harbour authority wish to apply for a grant, either for the construction of or improvement of a harbour or for repairs, there is a rather cumbersome procedure to be gone through. First of all, the Treasury are involved. They refer the matter to the Fishery Departments for a Report to the Development Commission, who make a recommendation which goes back to the Treasury. Then the Treasury take a decision as to how much, if any, help can be given. In what I am going to say, no criticism of the Development Commission is involved. Indeed, far from it, for they have carried out their work most conscientiously. In Scotland we are grateful to them for their operations over a much wider field than this. Nevertheless, by this procedure, which we propose to bring to an end, there has been a good deal of waste of time.
In its place we propose, by Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, to enable the Fisheries

803
Minister—that is, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State for Scotland—to give assistance in the form of a grant or loan if he is satisfied that it is necessary in order to promote the maintenance or development of the fishing industry. The Bill makes no difference to the amount of money available. The Minister will still have to go to the Treasury to settle that, and the actual rates of grant or loan will continue to be decided on the merits of each individual case. Nevertheless, this simplification of procedure seems to us to be well worth while. Therefore, I would ask for your Lordships' support for the Second Reading of this Bill, on the ground that it is necessary, for the time being, until the Herring Board have completed the building of their factories, to continue the subsidy. And we think it is well worth while to make this simplification in administration. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)
4.32 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, this appears to be quite a useful little measure. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl for his clear exposition of its provisions and intentions. There is just one point that strikes me in regard to Clause 5. Under it, power is given to the Secretary of State for Scotland to operate dredgers and to hire them to harbour authorities on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland himself own these dredgers, or will he hire them and then pass them on to the harbour authorities? I know that there are very few firms in this country which own and operate dredgers, and it seems to me that there is little point in providing that the Secretary of State for Scotland shall hire them and then pass them on to the harbour authorities. That, however, is only a minor point, and, subject to any reservations that are necessary in regard to the Committee stage of the Bill, I think there is no reason why we should not agree unanimously to give the Bill a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that the Secretary of State would own the dredgers and would hire them out to the harbour boards, making such
804
arrangements as were necessary. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is going to speak now. I understand that he has a number of questions which he wishes to put.
4.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Earl and to the House for my absence. I had sat through the earlier part of the debate on the previous Bill, and I did not imagine that the discussion would end quite so rapidly. But I am entirely at fault and I apologise. There are one or two points which I wish to put to the noble Earl. I gave him notice of them yesterday, but perhaps he would allow me now to put these points rather more fully, and also to take this opportunity of endorsing what my noble friend Lord Burden has said: that we do welcome the Bill very cordially indeed. It offers a limited but useful measure of assistance to the fishing industry.
Since the war, the Government have stepped in to prevent the white fish and herring industries from collapsing, and to give them the temporary help they need to put them back on their own feet. The policy of Government support for these industries, which the present Bill carries a step further, is shared by all the main political Parties. The continuity of fisheries policy and legislation has not been interrupted by changes of Government in the past ten years. I hope that that fact, in itself, may be of some use to those engaged in the industry. It should help the recovery of the industry if those who are engaged in it realise that, whatever Party may be returned at a General Election, there will be no reversal of this common policy. A striking fact about the discussion of this measure in another place, as I am sure that the noble Earl will agree, was that there was a complete absence of Party acrimony. Any differences of opinion that may have arisen cut completely across Party lines.
I do not think I need say anything about the substance of the Bill, because I agree with it. The noble Earl has already explained to your Lordships what it contains. But, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I should like to ask the noble Earl about one or two matters which I think were not dealt with by the

805
Ministers when the Bill was discussed in another place, and which are important because, as I understand it, the main object of the Bill and of Government policy is to restore the economic efficiency of the herring industry, and to enable it to dispense with subsidies at the earliest possible moment. It seems to me that there are three problems which have to be faced and dealt with: the problem of manpower, the problem of marketing at home and overseas, and the problem of research. These three problems must be satisfactorily solved, if the herring industry is to stand on its own feet again in the near future; and their solution, I think, requires further action by the Government, as well as by the Herring Board with the support of the Government.
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he can say anything about what the Government have in mind in relation to manpower, marketing and research, and what they conceive the intentions of the Herring Board to be. There is one matter that arises in relation to manpower which I think I ought to mention, because it seems to me to be a matter of special importance. It is something to which I am sure the noble Earl has already given consideration—I refer to this very controversial classification of the herring industry as an industry of seasonal workers. Many people, I believe, regard this classification as both out of date and inequitable.
The Herring Board, in their last Report but one—that is their Report for 1952—pointed out that the herring industry is no longer a seasonal industry but operates all the year round. And their last Report, that for 1953, gives a full account of the herring fishing season during the winter months, as well as accounts of the spring, summer and autumn seasons. So, however apt this classification may have been in time past, it is surely out of date at the present time. Its result, of course, is that the crews of the herring drifters are not entitled to unemployment benefit when—it may be through shortage of fish or on account of bad weather—they are not able to go out to sea. The insecurity which this causes in the herring industry is a deterrent to recruiting young men to the industry and encourages fishermen to become landlubbers. From the point of view of the efficiency and sufficiency
806
of manpower in the herring industry, I think it is important that this out-of-date classification should be altered. The small extra cost of providing unemployment benefit for those occupied in the fishing industry is surely a very small price to pay for the immensely increased security which such a step would give the industry.
In conclusion, I hope that the Bill will have the support of your Lordships on all sides of the House, because it is clear that the herring industry cannot do without it. It is sometimes difficult to decide whether an industry is of sufficient national importance to be kept going out of public funds, but I do not think this difficulty arises in the case of the herring industry. It is important to the economy, to the social well-being and to the security of our country. It provides a valuable and nutritious food, and one which helps our balance of payments. It gives a livelihood to village communities on the coasts of England and Wales, many of which would otherwise disappear. It mans the minesweepers and small craft which help to protect our people in time of war. Above all, this industry develops the qualities of toughness, endurance and risk-taking without which no nation can hope to survive. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to give the men in the industry, and all those who serve it, on sea and upon land, our grateful thanks and our full support.
4.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am glad the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, arrived here in time. I am afraid he had a rather breathless beginning to his speech. I shall try to answer the questions he asked as shortly as I can. First, let me endorse what he said about all Parties having the same objective here. All want to see the fishing industry prosperous. So far as we know, there is no evidence of any shortage of recruits for the fishing industry generally. Perhaps there is a tendency for some of the young people to turn over to the white fishing side of the industry, and possibly the noble Earl's point that they are seasonal workers may have something to do with that, though I think there are other factors. The seine net fishermen can usually work nearer home, which is an attraction, and the members of the crew of a seine net boat get a half-share of the boat's

807
earnings instead of only the third which the herring fisher gets.
The noble Earl raised the question of the classification of herring fishermen as seasonal workers. It is possible that this may work to the disadvantage of the herring fishermen. The white fisherman usually manages to obtain forty-five weeks' employment in the year, which puts him outside the scope of the seasonal employment regulations. The herring fisher has on the average something like thirty-five weeks' employment. Perhaps it would be useful if I informed the noble Earl of the practice in regard to seasonal workers. I am told that a person is not deemed to be a seasonal worker unless during the period of three years before his claim he has had an average of less than forty-five weeks' employment. Provided he attains the forty-five weeks' average, he may receive unemployment benefit for a period up to 180 days, which, if he fulfils certain other conditions, may be extended to 492 days. As a result of the debate in another place, the Secretary of State and the Minister of National Insurance are now considering this matter together.
As the noble Earl said, marketing is very important. The Herring Board have been doing all they can to publicise the virtues of the herring. They have carried out propaganda in the Press and on the films and have organised herring weeks during which there are cookery demonstrations. They have done everything possible to improve the quality of the herring which is offered to the public. Nevertheless, between 1951 and 1953 there was a decline of 30 per cent. in the demand for herring. The Herring Board are inclined to think that that may be due a good deal to the rush to buy meat, bacon and eggs which followed derationing. The recovery of sales in 1954—they are now only some 5 per cent. under the 1953 level—perhaps goes to show that a balance is once more being reached and that sales may go up in future.
Exports to Germany have been declining, largely because of the greater catches brought in by the German fleets. In the last three years, large contracts have been made with Russia and now negotiations are going on with Eastern Germany
808
and Roumania which may lead to an increase in the markets for herring. Sometimes, of course, other countries are short of currency or will trade only on restrictive conditions which cannot always be accepted without harming other British interests. Nevertheless, so far as they can, the Herring Board are trying to explore new markets, and they will have every help from the Government in doing so.
The last question on which the noble Earl touched was that of research. Out of the moneys provided under the Bill it would be perfectly possible for the Herring Board, if they so wished, to apply some of it to research or experiments. As the noble Earl knows, out of moneys granted in previous years, factories for processing herring have already been established at Lerwick and Stornoway. The Board have been trying out experimental drifters and they have started a mechanised curing station at Yarmouth. Apart from the portion of the moneys granted by Parliament which the Herring Board may expend on experiments, research is going on at the Torry Research Station, which is under the auspices of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and which all the time is investigating the kind of problems which are of interest to the Herring Board.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question on the subject of research, in case he is able to reply? My question refers to quick freezing and cold storage, the development of which may have a revolutionary effect on the home market for the herring industry. Can the noble Earl say whether that is going on and whether any of this money will be spent by the Board on research of this type?
THE EARL OF HOME: Certainly at Lerwick research is going on in quick freezing. Money has been spent by the Board on research of this kind and I imagine that they will need to spend more. If I may, I will send the noble Earl information about what the Herring Board are doing in research into these matters. I hope that has answered some of the noble Earl's questions.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
4.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, as the House is aware, the Parliament of Northern Ireland at Stormont has not the same freedom to legislate as has the Parliament of the United Kingdom here at Westminster. The Parliament of Northern Ireland is bound by limitations of a written Constitution setting out a long list of subjects upon which that Parliament is not allowed to legislate: on these subjects legislative power is reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom—they are known colloquially as the "reserved subjects." The Parliament of Northern Ireland legislates broadly upon domestic matters—that is, law, order, health, local government, and, as the House learned a week or two ago, such matters as driving licences and driving tests. In practice, it has not been possible to draw neat dividing lines. The limitations imposed on the Parliament of Northern Ireland require from time to time interpretation or modification in order to meet changes in circumstances and new problems that have arisen.
Sir Thomas Browne uses the expression in one of his works
"The silken thread that runs my story through."
Unfortunately, I cannot pretend that any silken thread or central theme runs through the story of this Bill to which I am going to ask your Lordships to accord a Second Reading. There is no real central theme. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill deal with purely reserved matters; that is to say, questions on which the Parliament of Northern Ireland cannot legislate and which are deliberately excluded from their competence. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 relate to matters properly in the sphere of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, but they cannot legislate adequately because legislation which they desire would impinge to a small extent on reserved matters.
Clause 1 deals with the salary and expenses of the Governor of Northern Ireland. The Governor at the moment receives £8,000 a year, out of which he
810
has to pay the salaries and allowances of his personal staff. This salary was fixed as long ago as 1922 when, as your Lordships will be only too painfully aware, money was of a different value from what it is now. When that salary was fixed, it was also clear in the mind of Parliament that the man appointed to this task would necessarily have to be a man of private means—and these are no so common today as they were then. It has now been considered, as a result of this fact and of the fact that £8,000 is no longer sufficient to support the office adequately, that it would be more appropriate to provide separately for the Governor's salary and for his official expenses. This matter has been most carefully gone into and the actual figures scrutinised thoroughly. The decision has been taken that the private salary should now be £4,000 a year, subject to tax, and an expense allowance of not more than £10,000 a year: the exact amount is to be determined by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and by the Treasury. Here I think it only proper to apologise for referring in his absence to the personal affairs of the Governor, who is, of course, a Member of your Lordships' House, but I am afraid that in the circumstances it was inevitable; I hope that your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Wakehurst, will forgive me and understand. The long and short of it is that, if possible, we want this provision to pass into law in the current financial year, because the Governor is considerably out of pocket as a result of the present situation.
The Governor will continue to be provided with certain services, but the present arrangements, with which I need not bother your Lordships in any great detail, will be modified. One considerable modification will be the fact that the Governor's official residence at Hillsborough, and its grounds, is going to be reconveyed to my right honourable friend the Minister of Works from the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance. For this an enabling Bill will be necessary in the Northern Ireland Parliament; that is, to enable the grounds and house to be kept up by a Ministry which has experience in the maintenance of such residences. Northern Ireland will no longer contribute £2,000 a year towards the Governor's salary, and as a quid pro quo they will take over the payment of expenses arising from the Governor's

811
office work. There is no getting away from the fact that this office is an expensive one, but it seems right to the Government that if the office exists (as it does) it should be kept up with proper dignity; that the holder of the office, who does work which is admired so much on both sides of the Irish Sea, should not be put in the invidious and embarrassing position in which he now finds himself, and that arrangements in future should enable this high dignity of office to be maintained.
Clause 2 refers to the Supreme Court and is consequently also a reserved matter. The purpose of this clause is to reduce the work of the Divisional Courts in Northern Ireland by eliminating an unnecessary intermediate stage in civil and rating cases. The Hanworth Committee, as long ago as 1933, in their Report (Command 4471), recommended the abolition of Divisional Courts in this country. That, as your Lordships know, has not been done, but it appears to be of more urgency in Northern Ireland, where the setting up of Divisional Courts is clearly causing hardship to many people, including jurors, litigants and the Bench itself, owing primarily to the small number—I think it is only five—of High Court Judges in Northern Ireland. It is for this reason that this technical step is required.
Paragraph 1 (a) of this clause disposes of another minor anomaly in the present law whereby a decision of one magistrate on a point of law may go to the Court of Appeal, and the decision of another magistrate on exactly the same point to the Divisional Court. In both cases the decision will be final. This Bill ensures that the Court of Appeal is the final court in all appeals by way of case stated from magistrates' decisions.
Clause 3 is the first of the Bill's provisions either extending the legislative powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or putting those powers beyond doubt. A committee under His Honour Judge Johnson reported in 1952 on certain proposed reforms in the law of intestate succession in Northern Ireland. The Parliament of Northern Ireland now wish to implement most of the recommendations. One of the proposed reforms, however, would abolish escheat to the Crown in cases of intestacy and substitute the bona vacantia procedure,
812
which would provide for inheritance over a wider field of relationship to the deceased. The Parliament of Northern Ireland cannot legislate on matters affecting the interests of the Crown, and that is the reason for this clause. I am given to understand that the present law results in much hardship, and that the intended reforms, which the people of Northern Ireland desire, are long overdue. What they propose will bring the Northern Ireland law into general accord with the law of this country since 1925, the year of the great property legislation
I might add, in case anybody is puzzled, as I was when I first saw this point, as to why it was not desired to bring it into accord with our Intestate Estates Act, 1952 (which I had the honour of introducing in your Lordships' House as a Back-Bench Member), that on examining the principle I find that the law on intestacy in Northern Ireland is completely different from ours on major points. This particularly arises from the fact that Northern Ireland is populated with such a large number of small farms. That is the reason for making the law parallel with the English law of 1925 rather than that of 1952. Clause 4 overcomes a slight technical defect in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. This inadvertently failed to provide for publication of certain subordinate instruments relating to Northern Ireland in annual volumes of statutory instruments. The fact that these are not readily available elsewhere, or are difficult to trace, causes considerable inconvenience. This clause merely tidies up the matter.
Clause 5 is about coroners, and again it is more for the removal of doubt than for any extension of the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament. As your Lordships know, coroners, technically and historically, have always been officers of the Crown. It is a very old and ancient office, going back into the dark ages of history: indeed, in the first Statute of Westminster it is laid down that "Coroners must be lawful and discreet knights." In that case, the present principal coroner is none other than the Lord Chief Justice himself. The Act of 1887 took away from coroners their rather glorious duties with regard to whales and sturgeon, but they still retain many extremely important functions, not only concerning inquests, but also with regard to such things as treasure trove. But

813
because of Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Northern Ireland Government is prevented from legislating in respect of the Crown or the succession to the Crown, or a Regency, or the property of the Crown, and it may well be argued that the Northern Ireland Government cannot, therefore, legislate about coroners. If they wish to do so, I think it is right that the Northern Ireland Parliament should have those powers.
So far as one can say that anything connected with Ireland is uncontroversial, this Bill, I think, is uncontroversial. It is strongly supported, of course, by the Government of Northern Ireland, and so far as it applies to him, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland also strongly supports the appropriate provisions. With that explanation, I hope that the Bill may meet also with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
5.2 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I do not know that this Bill is exactly uncontroversial. Indeed, looking at the debates in another place there seemed to be a good deal of talk about it, but not more than one would expect on a Bill dealing with this topic. The main part of the Bill, I suppose, is really Clause 1, though that is a financial matter with which, perhaps, your Lordships are not directly concerned. I feel that the Government have made out a case for this provision. I speak rather feelingly here. I think it is a great pity that anybody in an official position, who by reason of that position has a certain amount of entertaining to do, should have to dip down into his own pocket adequately to satisfy the duties of his office. I do not think that is correct, and, so far as I am concerned, I support the change which is proposed. No doubt it has been most carefully worked out by the Home Office in conjunction with the Treasury, and I think we can safely assume that those two great Departments have come to an arrangement which is proper and satisfactory.
With regard to the rest of the Bill it is certainly an odd little "mixed grill," with all sorts of provisions. I have no objection to any of them. With regard to Clause 3, I should have thought that, when altering the law of escheat and
814
bona vacantia and that sort of thing, the right course would be to pass an Act of Parliament altering the law of those matters applying to Northern Ireland in relation to breaking up the settlement and enlarging their powers. But I daresay that it comes to very much the same thing, and I certainly do not think that it is worth bothering about that matter. If, as we are told, the Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland—who is, if I may say so with respect, a level-headed and sensible person—is desirous of having the other arrangement about the Court of Appeal because it will make for the convenience of the courts, I cannot see any reason why we should hesitate to give him those powers. We on this side of the House shall not raise objection to the passage of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read. 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL [H.L.]
5.5 p.m.
Order of the Day far the Third Reading read.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, has consented to place the interests of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a third time, I think I can say that we have come to a fairly complete measure of agreement except in regard to one clause which I promised I would look at. The clause, though not unimportant in its way, is not part of the main structure of the Bill—in fact, as I have said, it was added because the dock and harbour authorities desired it. However, when we came to analyse the authorities' reasons we found that among the most important reasons was the prevention of fire. That, strictly speaking, is a side issue to this Bill and does not affect the main purpose, which is the prevention of pollution. By and large, those oils which burn have not the persistent quality that characterises the heavier oils, particularly the crude oils, which give us

815
such difficulty. It is clear, therefore, that one of the reasons which moved the dock and harbour authorities in this matter had nothing to do with the spilling of oil in open waters, where the danger from fire would be nil and where the lighter oils, because they would evaporate quickly, would not cause persistent pollution.
I have been into this question. We have been in touch with all the major harbours in this country to ascertain what they do in regard to this matter. I think it is fair to say that no systematic method has been devised for getting rid of oil which has spilt, leaked or escaped. What is necessary is to get to it before it starts to dissipate. I think I can say that practically nothing can be done in this respect where running water is concerned. The next step is to isolate the oil. This can be done against the side of the harbour if there is a harbour, or, of course, it can be done with booms. I understand that for this purpose Sunderland has an electrically operated boom to prevent oil from getting into the river. In Liverpool one of the docks has a spillway in each corner into which oil can be spilled off, in whichever direction the water happens to be flowing at the time.
Having isolated the oil, the third point is to dispose of it. This is done sometimes, I believe, by manual filling into drums or receptacles, as the case may be. Sometimes there is a cleaning vessel which uses suction hoses to draw it up. But when those are not enough, straw, or even sawdust, is thrown on to the surface of the oil and is then dragged ashore and burnt. These are all pretty makeshift arrangements, but it is fair to say that it is unlikely that any harbour which is not a statutory harbour would be able to take any action at all. I go further, and say that a large number of statutory harbours themselves would not be in a position to take action.
There are (and this is a point I should like the noble Lord to note) a large number of statutory harbours—I think the figure is about 350—which means to say that the provision will extend to pretty small harbours round the coast. Even in the bigger harbours it would be possible to take action only in a fairly confined part of the harbour. I say this with hesitation in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, but I believe
816
that, over a large part of the statutory area of the Port of London itself, because of the flow of the river and that kind of thing, probably little action could be taken to prevent the oil from being dissipated. We have insisted that notice be given to the harbour master in every case in which practical action can be taken, and I think the clause covers also many cases where that will not be practicable.
I have looked at this matter again, and I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by extending the requirements of notification over a wider area—merely imposing an obligation to meet a statutory requirement which, in fact, they would know would serve no purpose at all. If I may say so, I think that this is the wrong angle from which to approach this Bill. We know perfectly well that, if persistent oils get into the water, there is nothing that can be done about it. The whole point of this Bill is to prevent the oil from getting into the sea. That is the important point, and that is the point on which the value of this Bill will stand or fall. If it fails to do this, then it will serve no useful purpose, because cleaning up after pollution, with all the warning in the world, can do very little good indeed. I have been into all that, and I am afraid that I cannot take the matter any further.
In conclusion, I should like to thank noble Lords from all sides of the House who have made most helpful criticisms which have enabled us materially to strengthen this Bill. It is their wish, as indeed it is ours, that the Bill will be copied by all countries in the world who are in possession of merchant navies. I think we are laying a foundation stone which will not only free our own territorial waters of pollution but will eventually free all the waters of the seven seas. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
5.12 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I feel that my first words must be of thanks to the noble Earl for the way in which he has piloted this Bill through your Lordships' House. It has been a highly technical subject which, if he will allow me to say so with respect, he has

817
mastered remarkably well. His knowledge and the way in which he has dealt with the queries have also enabled us, who have the responsibility of providing Her Majesty's Government with as efficient an Opposition as we possibly can, to do better than we should otherwise have done. The noble Earl's thoroughness is well exemplified by what he has just said. Through circumstances outside his control, and also outside mine, but somehow manipulated by those wonderful but secret things called "usual channels," I could not take the action I at one time contemplated of asking your Lordships' opinion about an Amendment I had tabled but withdrew upon the Report stage. For some mysterious reason, we had to have the Third Reading to-day, the next sitting day after the Report stage. I suppose there was a reason for the hurry; perhaps it is because Her Majesty's Government want to get all their legislation through in as short a space of time as possible, because of a certain event which may come along, and this is a shadow which forecasts that.
I should not like an important Bill like this to fall into the category of what I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has called "the slaughter of the innocents." That is why I readily acquiesced in having the Third Reading so early after the Report stage, because I should not like to hinder the Government in testing the opinion of the country as soon as they possibly can. However, it is indicative of the thoroughness of the noble Earl that he has in that short space of time gone to so much trouble to find out the reasons why Her Majesty's Government could not have accepted my Amendment had it been on the Marshalled List.
I think I agree with the noble Earl, because he is quite right when he says that sooner or later the pumping of oil on to the waters will have to be totally prohibited. That is the only way in which we shall ever solve the question of oil pollution. There is one thing that disturbs me, and the noble Earl on Second Reading said some things about it that were bold and true. He characterised this problem in this way [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 190, No. 6, Col. 330]:
"The problem which we are here facing is one of the scourges which arise as a by-product of the mechanisation of life which we now find necessary."
818
He went on to say (Col. 331) that oil pollution
"has resulted in the spoiling of many of the amenities on parts of our coasts. I am given to understand that in some places it is often impossible to bathe, sunbathe, paddle, sit or even walk along the beaches without getting covered with a tarry substance. Nor does the nuisance end there, because this tarry substance is carried into houses and hotels, and causes great damage to carpets and furniture."
That is the angle from which I have approached this problem. I believe that this problem is now one of the modern scourges. I know of miles of beaches which should be open to the pleasure and amenity of the mass of the people in this country but which are absolutely ruined by oil pollution.
I am afraid, however, that I sensed (I hope the noble Earl will not mind my saying this) that his valour diminished as the Bill went on. The effectiveness of this Bill, as he says, will be to the extent to which it gives a lead to the rest of the world. We are the first country to take this job in hand. Unless we show considerable courage in putting this Bill into operation, we shall not set any great example or persuade many people to follow our example. And, as I have said, I sense that, through the passage of this Bill, the noble Earl's resolution, or the resolution of those advising him, has diminished rather than increased. I hope I am wrong, but I have that feeling. I want to see the Ministry of Transport, whose job I take it it will be to enforce the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, really enforce them and not find ways and means of not enforcing them, as they have so successfully, in many cases, found reasons for not putting as many "teeth" into this Bill as we on this side should have liked. If our past experience of some of the legislation that has emanated from that Department is any guide, it may well fall into the same kind of disuse as many of the provisions of the Acts which we have been discussing in your Lordships' House that controlled. or tried to control, road traffic in this country.
But while Ministers come and Ministers go, Departments go on for ever, and I can assure the noble Earl that we on this side will use all our endeavours to see that the provisions of this Bill are strictly enforced; and we will ever be questioning Her Majesty's Government upon the effectiveness of the action they are taking.

819
I do not think Her Majesty's Government can have the slightest objection to that, because, in the last analysis, this is not something that concerns ships and the mercantile marine. Oil is no trouble in this world until it gets to land, and get to land it will at some time or another. It is the ordinary common people of this country who, in the end, have to suffer all the hardships, the losses of personal property, of amenities and so on. They are the people who have to suffer. Therefore, I hope that the Government will see that, when this Bill gets on to the Statute Book, it will not simply go into a pigeon-hole to be forgotten, but that it will make some valuable contribution towards the relief of this scourge. May I end by again thanking the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for his courtesy and for the trouble he has taken, and also for making this stage of the Bill not only non-Party but a very pleasant stage, so that the Bill leaves us as a credit to your Lordships' House.
5.20 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to say a final word about this Bill, because it is a Bill in which the Merchant Navy Officers' Association have taken particular interest. Our general secretary was invited to serve at the Conference; and at its conclusion we organised an exhibition at which certain very gruesome and unpleasant exhibits were on view and to which we invited the Press and many representatives of shipping interests. I think that that exhibition served a useful purpose in bringing the facts of this matter home to a fairly wide circle of people connected with shipping. By coincidence, while the Bill was under discussion I noticed that there took place off the Danish coast a jettisoning of oil which covered the huge area of 772 square miles. I agree that that was due to an accident, but it happened to illustrate the purposes which we had in view, and I think it emphasised that the objective we must have in mind in this matter is a total prohibition of the discharging of persistent oil anywhere at sea.
The existing limitation is to specified zones. That is only making a start at the problem. As other nations become more progressive in their ideas on the subject we must go further. I understand that at the moment only twenty out of the forty-two nations represented at the Conference have signed, and that ours is the
820
only country which has initiated legislation on the subject. We must go further, because otherwise, as my noble friend has said, it will become completely impossible to walk along our beaches. It is important for us to remember that our region in the North Sea lies completely outside any prohibited area, and also that once these oils are discharged they are indestructible and must come ashore somewhere. Unless we arrive at total prohibition we may find that our beaches, particularly in the South West of the country, will become completely impossible places. The importance of the matter is also illustrated by the fact that in the past fifteen years imports of oil have gone up from 1 million to 28 million tons. These figures illustrate the possible consequences of the dumping of oil.
In the course of the discussion of various Amendments, some question arose as to what is the frontier of a harbour. I was anxious to help the noble Earl, if I could, in regard to that matter. I have always regarded the bar as the frontier between the harbour and the open sea. Perhaps I may mention to the noble Earl that all good navigators make a practice of "closing the bar" before crossing the bar. When I was an assistant navigator the navigating officer and myself always had a final drink before the ship sailed and we had no more until she came into harbour again. I hope that definition and the little fact that goes with it may be of some assistance to the noble Earl, for those whose professions keep them ashore sometimes get into little difficulties about nautical definitions. As an instance of that, I think many of your Lordships will know a poem by Lord Tennyson in which he says:
"I hope to meet my Pilot face to face
When I have crost the bar."
Of course, that is exactly the moment when you see the pilot's back as he gets into his little boat to go home. That is one instance of how people whose avocations lie ashore may trip up. One certainly does not see the pilot face to face when one has crossed the bar. My Lords, it only remains for me to express to the noble Earl my appreciation of the great courtesy and the great care which he was good enough to show to any suggestion or comment on the Bill which I happened to make.
5.25 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I have one point that I should like to discuss with your Lordships, if only that it may be understood when this Bill goes to another place that the point is open and it is not to be thought that because we do not move it here we do not feel strongly about it—I refer to the point in regard to Clause 10. Owing to what I think was a misunderstanding—I acquit the noble Earl entirely of anything else—I did not move an Amendment when earlier in the Report stage we were discussing the point about the definition of a harbour. I then pointed out that it had repercussions on the effect of Clause 10, and I had intended to divide the House. But the noble Earl said (I have the OFFICIAL REPORT before me) that we would discuss the matter further. I therefore anticipated that there would be further discussion of the matter. In the meantime I had made my inquiries, and I am not satisfied at the present moment that something may not be done.
Other great experts can deal with other matters, but, quite frankly, I speak solely from the point of view of the birds. From my point of view, it is not true to say that there is no problem until oil gets to land. The 700 square miles of oil in the North Sea will destroy, in most cruel circumstances, many birds, and therefore I am anxious from that point of view—and it is only from that point of view that I speak. I think it would be foolish to make the Amendment which we suggested apply to territorial waters. I do not believe that in the open sea we can do much, but I do believe that there are around this country certain enclosed waters which are not harbours within the technical meaning of the term I believe there are some sea lochs in Scotland, about which the noble Earl knows much more than I do, which are not harbours. I see that the noble Earl has sent for the OFFICIAL REPORT. The quotation I had in mind is from Column 735, about half way down the page. We were then discussing this matter, and the noble Earl said:
"I suggest to the noble Lord that we should discuss this matter further."
I am not making a complaint in the sense that I am suggesting that there has been any bad feeling or anything of that sort. I think this is a misunderstanding. In fact we have not had further discussions.
822
The point I want to make is this. I should have moved an Amendment then, and by the Rules of this House—it is the only Rule of Order we have to which we always adhere—we do not allow manuscript Amendments on Third Reading, so I could not put down a manuscript Amendment. Had I been able to do so I should have put down an Amendment to this effect: that with regard to an escape of oil—assuming it were an accident—in enclosed waters there should be notification to the police. If there is an escape of oil in enclosed waters which is not operated upon promptly by tide or wind, I am advised that it is possible to do something. I venture to think that in the near future much more will be able to be done than is done at the present time. I believe that this problem can be solved, or that the evil of it can be mitigated to a great extent if more attention is paid to it. I should have liked to move an Amendment requiring that notice must be given to the police of any escape of oil. I believe that if notice had to be given, then, as science and technique advances, prompt steps could be taken to try to eliminate this oil which otherwise will be a grave danger to birds nesting and breeding in that part of the world. I hope that when this Bill goes to another place, this matter will be further investigated. I hope it will not be said that we are all satisfied on this point, because I, at any rate, am not.
I should also like the question of requiring notice in the case of an escape of oil in enclosed waters to be further pursued. I have raised this matter now because it occurs to me that otherwise what might have been a mere slip-up might lead to the impression that I was completely satisfied with what had been done in the Bill in this regard. I hope that those in another place will consider whether or not there is any substance in this matter and whether it would not be right, in the case of an escape of oil in enclosed waters, to require that notice should be given to provide at least a chance of doing whatever may be possible.
5.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for what they have said. I have carefully noted the observations of the noble and learned Earl, and I am sorry if there was

823
any misunderstanding. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the subject after making the fullest investigations possible, and I am sorry if the noble Earl feels that we have not gone as far as we might have done. As I have already said, I am extremely doubtful whether anything useful can be done on this point. I would underline what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, because the importance of this Bill lies in whether or not it will be taken up overseas. We can do only our share; and only the total prohibition of oil pollution everywhere can make this Bill really effective. I do not agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that Her Majesty's Government can be accused of lack of courage. We have, after all, carried through, from nothing, a Report and an International
824
Convention; and this Bill has been strengthened, not weakened, since it has been in this House. Clause 1, dealing with the discharge of certain oils into prohibited sea areas is strong, and the penalties have been strengthened. I do not feel, therefore, that the noble Lord is accurate in contending that there is the slightest weakening in Her Majesty's Government's intention to enforce the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. I can assure the noble Lord that we have every intention of taking a lead, not only in legislation but in enforcement.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
An Amendment (privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before six o'clock.