Lords Sitting of 8 July 1957

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

MEMBERSHIP OF WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords. I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what States, not being members of U.N.O., are members of the World Health Organisation and in each case what attitude Her Majesty's Government assumed towards their admission to the same.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, the following States, not members of the United Nations, are members of the World Health Organisation: German Federal Republic, Republic of Korea, Monaco, Switzerland and Viet Nam. Her Majesty's Government supported the admission of these States to the World Health Organisation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not the case that though a State is not qualified, in the general view, for political reasons, it is still possible and desirable, for technical reasons, for that State to be admitted to the World Health Organisation?
THE EARL OF Gosford: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question. As I understand it, there is, of course, provision for associate membership.

CHINA AND THE INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which, stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the statement in the Press is well-founded that the present influenza epidemic was first identified at Pekin and what machinery exists for the official communication of this discovery to the World Health Organisation.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have no official information on the first part of the noble Viscount's Question. As regards his second point, to the best of my knowledge the Government of the People's Republic of China does not report epidemiological information to the World Health Organisation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, has the noble Earl observed that a very distinguished authority. Sir Macfarlane Burnet, stated that this epidemic broke out in Pekin, and that Mr. Calder, who is another expert, writes from Geneva to say that it has been raging in North China for some months and reached Shanghai only recently? And does the noble Earl say it is not desirable that this should be known to the rest of the world in order to protect the general health of the people of the world?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount has misunderstood me. I said that we have no official knowledge of this report and of the disease having been identified as first breaking out in Pekin. There is, of course, nothing to preclude the Government of the People's Republic of China from supplying this information to the World Health Organisation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does the noble Earl really think that that answer is adequate to the present situation? In Hong Kong alone, half a million people are affected. We do not know how many are affected in China. It is not only a question of ourselves: there are all the Chinese, too.
A NOBLE LORD: Order, order!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does the noble Earl not think it is our duty to help

763
the Chinese people if they have the disease, and also our duty to protect our own people by getting the information, if we can get it?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Viscount asked me whether the Press report was well founded. All I can answer is that, so far as I know, we have no official information on that point. I have also told him, that there is no possible reason why the Government of the People's Republic of China should not send their reports to the World Health Organisation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I will reserve my remark upon that to my Question which will come up later in the day. I think the Answer is inadequate.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would it not be a good idea if we ourselves took some initiative in this matter, seeing that our own subjects are vitally affected?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, so are the Chinese affected.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the answer to that may well come on a later Question.

CHINA AND THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the third Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the admission of China to the World Health Organisation was last proposed and what vote the British delegate was directed to cast.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, China has been a member of the World Health Organisation since its foundation and has been represented in the Organisation by the Chinese Nationalist Authorities except for a period between 1950 and 1953 when China ceased active participation. When the World Health Assembly met in 1953, Her Majesty's Government's representative at the Conference was instructed to abstain on a vote to seat the representatives appointed by the Chinese Nationalist Authorities.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does the noble Earl think that Answer is really worthy? When I used the term "China" I was speaking of the mainland of China, which has 630 million people. On the occasion to which he refers, why did the British representative not oppose the report of the Credentials Committee by saying, in company with India, Norway, and other States, that we thought it was desirable, quite apart from politics, that this large mass of the world population should be represented in the Organisation?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I can only say that China is a member of the Organisation. Who represents China in the Organisation is an entirely different matter and is not one for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible or which they can decide.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Earl, is it not the case that this country has recognised the Chinese People's Republic de facto and de jure? Therefore is it not the case that, so far as this country is concerned, there is no question at all of there being two Chinas?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for putting that question. I was about to rise to ask the same one. It seems to us to be an extraordinary situation in which this country recognises, de jure, the People's Republic of China and then instructs its representative to abstain from voting against an adverse report with regard to admission to the World Health Organisation. Surely there cannot be any doubt in the mind of Her Majesty's Government that medical opinions which have been expressed in public here about danger arising, not only to us but to the Chinese people, are serious, and all precautions should be taken. Is there any reason, therefore, which appeals to the noble Leader of the House as to why there should be any delay at all in seeking to get the Chinese People's Republic into the World Health Organisation and in the meantime in obtaining from that Government—which we recognise de jure—all the necessary information upon which to base proper precautionary steps?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the World Health Organisation runs its own affairs. Her Majesty's Government feel, however, that possible disruption of the World Health Organisation would result if Her Majesty's Government put forward such a suggestion in the Organisation, in view of the known feelings of members.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I really am amazed at that answer. As I understood from the answer previously given, Her Majesty's Government instructed their representative to abstain from voting with regard to the admission of representation of the Government to which we give de jure recognition
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: The Government did not authorise our representatives to abstain from voting against the admission of the representatives of Communist China as the representatives of China in the World Health Organisation. They abstained from voting in a vote on the seating of the representatives of the Nationalist Authorities.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not time that Her Majesty's Government took the initiative, which the noble Earl seems to be so nervous of doing, and said that this great mass of world population, whose Government they recognise de jure, ought to be admitted to the World Health Organisation? If it is worth doing, surely it is worth while standing up for the principle and defending it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, who has appealed to me, quite often finds that an answer given in this House or in another place probably does not satisfy the Opposition. I really think that we cannot debate this point in this way. If it is necessary to debate it, the Opposition must take the initiative and put down a Motion.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I give notice to the noble Earl that on the Question which I am to put later this afternoon I shall ask him this point specifically: will the Government supply to the Republic of China in Pekin the
766
same amount of prophylactic material as they are proposing to supply to 41 other areas in the world?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am afraid I shall decline to answer the noble Viscount's question. That is exactly the sort of question which he should put down on the Paper. He has not put it down. If he wants to debate the wider implications of this matter we must have a Motion put down or the Order Paper.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Earl is not doing me justice. I have put down a Question to ask what steps are being taken. I ask now whether, in view of this distribution in 41 areas of prophylactics against this disease, the Government will include the People's Republic of China among the bodies to receive it.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think the noble Viscount had better ask the Question on the Paper.

COAL-MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL
2.46 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

WINFRITH HEATH BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

PEERS' EXPENSES ALLOWANCE
2.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME rose to move to resolve. That this House approves the proposals contained in the statement made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on Thursday last, for enabling Members of the House to recover expenses incurred by them for the purpose of attendance at the House. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it: is probably unnecessary for me to repeat the statement which I made at some length to your Lordships on Thursday last. Briefly, the proposal before your Lordships to-day is that a Peer is to be reimbursed expenses which he incurs in connection with attendance at the House of Lords, up to a maximum of three guineas a day for each Sitting day. Each Peer will certify from time

767
to time that in connection with a specified number of attendances he has incurred such-and-such expenses, whatever they may be. The expenses contemplated in the claim exclude the cost of rail travel, which is already separately dealt with. They will therefore cover not only subsistence costs—that is hotel charges, meals and so forth—but also miscellaneous travelling costs, such as taxi-fares or charges for petrol and oil for journeys to and from the Palace of Westminster for the purpose of attending to the Business of the House or one of its Committees. The allowance will not be restricted to Peers who are regular attenders. If a Peer attends only one Sitting a year he will be entitled to claim allowance for that one day's Sitting.
I think it would be in accordance with your Lordships' wishes, as questions on the method of applying the new proposal will clearly arise in individual cases, that we should leave this scheme, if it is adopted, to be supervised in the same way as the travel scheme has been supervised in its administration, that is, by a Committee of the Chief Whips of the Parties. That Scheme has been run, I think, with satisfaction and success, and I have no reason to think that the Committee would not run this scheme equally successfully and be able to advise in the same way. If any of your Lordships is in difficulty over the scheme, I am sure he will be dealt with sympathetically and helpfully by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Committee of Whips. So I think it would probably be best if I said no more at the moment but just commended this proposal to your Lordships. What I have been anxious to establish is that there are expenses which can reasonably be met by allowances of this kind in performance of your Lordships' duties, and having established that principle I think that (although some may feel that the figure of three guineas is too low, and others may think it too high) a fair balance has been achieved. I think it is fair beginning to this scheme and I can recommend it to your Lordships as such. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the proposals contained in the statement made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on Thursday last, for enabling Members of the House to
768
recover expenses incurred by them for the purpose of attendance at the House.—(The Earl of Home.)
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before I make some general comments upon the statement of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, may I ask one question which has been put to me by certain people? Is the basis of reimbursement of expenses to be confined to attendance at the House on the actual days on which the House is sitting, or will it include days on which a Member may be asked to attend for the business of the House when the House is not sitting?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that any day which requires the attendance of a Peer would qualify. Perhaps I may be allowed to find out about this point, but I think that any day on which a Peer attends for any business would qualify.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I am sure that the whole House is indebted to the noble Earl for the statement he has made to-day, explaining one or two details of the much fuller statement which he made last week. I feel confident that the proposal which has been submitted to your Lordships on behalf of Her Majesty's Government is one which will be acceptable to your Lordships' House. I am confident also that we all know that in all Parties in your Lordships' House there are noble Lords who have not only willingly given a great deal of voluntary work, but who have at times been put to quite considerable financial strain in order to meet the expenses which arise from that work.
Obviously, the proposal now made is by no means one of payment for the services of Members of your Lordships' House. It is purely a reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses. Considering the extent to which the cost of such incidental expenses to Members has gone up—it has more than doubled in the last fourteen or fifteen years and has risen very steeply in the last few years—in my view, this is an action which is overdue, however much we may be thankful to the Government for it; and we are thankful to them for this proposal.

769
From my own point of view, I am glad that an opportunity has been found to do this without attaching to the proposal any strings with regard to what might be the constitutional future of your Lordships' House. Many sympathetic views about the payment of the costs to Members attending your Lordships' House for business have been expressed over several years, but there has always been the question of whether this was to wait for a reform of your Lordships' House and whether any reimbursement, or even possible future payment for services, ought to have strings attached with regard to any measures of reform that might be brought in. I am glad that an opportunity has been found to meet the present situation as we find it.
So far as my Party are concerned, I say, without fear of any possible contradiction, that a good many of my noble friends—and we are not a large Party—are unable to attend because of the cost or because, there being nothing to meet the cost, it is necessary for them to give their time to earning a living. We ought not to arrive at a situation where the Second Chamber of Parliament as it exists to-day is solely to be carried on by those who can afford to come here and meet all expenses. Obviously, that does not lead to a proper basis for a pure, free democracy. So I am grateful that this has now been made clear.
The only other remark that I propose to make to-day is that if and when the question of the reform of the House should be raised, I hope that it will be recognised by all Parties that it is of such fundamental importance that the proposals ought to be submitted to the electorate in detail, for them to understand and vote upon them. In closing, I would say that I am grateful to a considerable number of noble Lords of my own small Party in your Lordships' House for the sacrifices they have made, year after year, in order to attend and make the business of the House as real as possible by trying to raise all reasonable criticism, revisions and arguments upon legislation. I hope that, as a result of the measures now proposed by Her Majesty's Government, the Opposition will be able to give the Government even more opposition than before.
2.57 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, although all noble Lords are indebted to the Government and to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for this attempt to meet a difficult position, I must say that I regard the recent announcements, of which the Motion before your Lordships' House is one, as the latest of a series of palliatives which are being applied in defiance of any good principle. There is a wasting disease from which all citizens of this country are suffering, so that they get less and less for their money. At the same time the Government are continuing to reduce the incomes of all citizens by excessive taxation. Every now and again the Government recognise this or have the plea of some group brought forcibly to their notice. What do they do? Make up their minds to find a radical cure? No; they come with a palliative. They discriminate; they select for relief. Discrimination starts in inequity and ends in corruption.
A man who builds wealth for himself serves the community in more ways than one, and I do not feel that those who offer their services in public work or in charitable organisations are in any sense superior to those who serve the State by working at their jobs particularly when they use their time to work a little harder. By so doing they contribute to the volume of saving; they contribute to taxes and to death duties. In general, therefore, I believe that it is more healthy for the individual, and more satisfactory for the State, for a man to earn sufficient to ensure that he and his family are first secure. After he has made a contribution in taxation, then is the time for him to offer his services or what time he can spare for service as distinct from employment. There can be few who are giving time to public service who do not pay some income tax. A reduction of this tax, rather than an increase in salary, is surely the right way for Government to help those who are not adequately rewarded, whether they serve the community in a public or a private capacity.
While this reduction is materialising, the Government could do something quite simple to encourage public service. I suggest that they could provide that expenses incurred in the exercise of public duties are allowable against taxable income. It is proper, I suggest, and appropriate that such expenses should be

771
allowable against income from savings—what is mistermed by the Treasury "unearned income". I am sure that most noble Lords would prefer such an arrangement to the proposals now before your Lordships' House, and I would suggest that such an alternative be considered. If something more is needed to meet a few cases where individuals are so self-sacrificing as to offer their services without being in receipt of a sufficient taxable income then I suggest that there should be at the disposal of the Government and of the Leader of the Opposition a small number of "research fellowships" which could be offered to these exceptional cases, so that, relieved of material anxiety, they could make a contribution, and I hope that it would be an artistic contribution, to public affairs.
3.2 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I wish to offer a welcome to the proposals which have been made by the noble Earl who leads the House, but I am sorry to say that my welcome is a half-hearted one. I welcome the proposed allowance as an indication that those in authority realise that there is here a problem which must be dealt with, but I must tell your Lordships that, in my opinion, the proposed allowance is totally inadequate to meet the circumstances which exist. We must all recognise that this is a problem of a particularly difficult kind. No one who is not familiar with the way your Lordships' House works can understand quite how difficult it is.
The great difficulty resides, I think, in the complete difference between the way your Lordships' House works and the way the work is done in another place. In your Lordships' House we have a great body of expert opinion. It is hardly too much to say that there is perhaps no field of human endeavour or human experience in which we in this House do not have the advantage of real expert knowledge. It is patently absurd to expect noble Lords who have this wealth of expert knowledge in special subjects to attend every day—indeed, if every Member of your Lordships' House were to attend every day, we should, I fear, be reduced to a sad state of chaos; and nothing could be less desirable. This is the point that I want to make: that
772
continuous attendance, even of those Members of your Lordships' House who are experts, is not desirable. Every noble Lord will attend as often as he can, in order to help make a House, in addition to the occasions on which he has counsel to impart to your Lordships. But anything in the nature of what is known as an assiduity qualification (I apologise to your Lordships for the phrase, because it is a horrible one; but it is the only way I know of putting it in two words) is out of place. For that reason, I am thankful that the noble Earl the Leader of the House has made it clear that a single attendance in a Session will qualify for the three guineas.
However, there is an existing assiduity qualification in the matter of railway fares. I believe that railway fares are obtainable only by Peers who attend one-third of the Sittings of the House. That qualification is wrong, and I hope that it will be done away with. What we need to try to meet this extremely difficult problem is something with much greater flexibility than any day-to-day allowance. What we ought to have, in my submission, is a lump sum of money, which would be administered by a committee—such a committee as the noble Earl the Leader of the House has suggested would do admirably well; we should soon find by experience how it should be administered, and noble Lords would be able to obtain their proper expenses. The sort of position that we must seek to establish is that a noble Lord who lives in the country, possibly in Scotland, can come up to your Lordships' House for one debate or one Committee on a Bill and get his proper reasonable expenses. Under these proposals, he would not get his railway fare, but would get three guineas a day for one, two, or three days. That is quite insufficient.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding, so perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Of course, he will get his railway fare. The railway fare is not affected. He will get the three guineas, or whatever his expenses may be, in addition to his railway fare.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In that case, I am under a misapprehension. I am under the impression that no

773
Peer can get the railway fare unless he attends 33⅓ per cent. of the sittings.
THR EARL OF HOME: That is right.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In that case, if the noble Lord came from Scotland for one sitting, he would get three guineas and no railway fare.
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes. I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is really all I want to say. I am delighted that the assiduity qualification is departed from so far, but I hope it will be departed from entirely.
I should like to ask the noble Earl who leads the House one question on a matter which bothers me—I do not want an answer now, if he prefers to give it consideration. It has been emphasised that this is a reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. What then is the situation of a noble Lord—and there must be many among your Lordships—who already has a London house, possibly for other purposes, such as to earn his living or to attend to his business? In many cases, no particular out-of-pocket expenses are incurred by such noble Lords in attending the House. Is it to be understood that they are automatically to draw this so-called "expenses allowance"? Finally, I should like to ask one further question on which I feel that we should be given some guidance. If three guineas is to be given for art attendance at your Lordships' House, what will be considered to constitute an attendance?
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, perhaps I could put the point about which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has just spoken more specifically in the form of a question to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. Are Peers resident in London eligible for the allowance?
3.9 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition were very clear in their explanations of these proposals, yet I do not think their clarity has been conveyed to the general public of the country. Indeed, the tone of the popular Press that I have seen has been rather the opposite, and
774
I think the impression left on nineteen men or women in the street out of twenty would be that your Lordships in future are going to receive three guineas a day free of tax every time you attend the House. Perhaps I might read an extract to your Lordships to explain my meaning. It reads as follows:
" A sunny week for most of us, but sunniest of all for our Peers of the Realm, who are to have £3 3s. 0d. every day the House of Lords sits. As the three guineas will be untaxed the windfall equals about a fiver a day.
" That's certainly going to make our young lordlings much sought after escorts during the ' deb ' seasons. Taking the girls out on expenses will make life so much easier.
" And of course, best of all from their point of view, they are not expected to work for their pay. All they have to do is to sign on just like the less exalted National Assistance queues. With the little difference that we will also give free rail travel to the peers when they go to sign on.
" While there is something to be said for paying M. Ps to do a job we elect them to do, I fail to see why we should pay a nice, hefty, untaxed salary to a peer just because he was horn in a purple bed.
" If we are to pay peers, then it is time we began to elect them on a basis of worth and value, and disposed of the hereditary seat system."
I think it would be fair to describe that piece of journalism as a scurrilous lie. Had it appeared in the Daily Worker one could readily understand it. But it is a pity to find it appearing in a Sunday newspaper which claims to be read by between 7 million and 8 million people every Sunday, and which is controlled by a Member of your Lordships' House.
I wish to make no further comment under that head, but it is just as well to once more lay down with clarity, and I hope with accuracy, what this proposal really means. It means that no Member of your Lordships' House is going to receive a payment of salary of any kind. Your Lordships have for some years past been in receipt of a railway allowance to come up from the country, so there is there no new proposal. And no noble Lord will receive a payment of any kind unless he claims that payment and can show that he has justifiably incurred expenses to the limit of three guineas a day in enabling himself to attend your Lordships' House. That claim will be subject to a scrutiny of a Committee consisting of the; Chief Whips of the three Parties. We all know that those are

775
the circumstances, and I hope that the Press may be good enough to see that the general public is apprised of the real case.
I make no comment on the proposals themselves. It remains to be seen what their effect will be. Personally, I deplore the fact that Members of this House should be paid in any shape or form, even for the expenses which they incur. I know that it has been thus arranged because it is thought that certain Peers cannot afford to attend in any other way—and it is difficult to argue about that. If it is said to apply mainly to the Party of noble Lords opposite, all I can say is that, a great many of them, to my certain knowledge, are quite well-to-do and can come up on their own resources. I rather deplore the idea that we should go back to those days which were in force when I first had the honour of joining your Lordships' House about eleven years ago, when people appeared for about five minutes in order that the Clerks should jot down their name so that at the end of the month they could get about eight gallons of petrol. I hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that that kind of thing will not recur. My only object in rising was in order to clarify, as a Bank Bencher, the true circumstances of these proposals.
3.15 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, there is obviously a great deal to be said for this proposal, but it seems to me that one of the difficulties is that it comes in at a time when this country is going through a period of more violent inflation than any of us can remember in the past. One cannot help feeling that these extra payments, such as that proposed here to-day, and also the increase in the salaries of the Members of another place are a bad example to the country in these days of inflation. What I principally rose to say, however, was that if this payment is to be made, it strikes me that in these days the amount is ludicrously small. I have had some experience of expenses paid to people travelling on business, and I am sure your Lordships know quite well that in these days there is not an engineer who travels abroad for a company in England, or anybody who travels for any business, who does not get ten guineas a day. Here we are, the Second Chamber of the greatest democracy in the world,
776
proposing to pay expenses to our Members of three guineas a day. Does that mean that a bed-sitting room or a cheap lodging house is good enough for a Member of this House, whereas a business executive stays naturally at the best hotels? As I say, there is not a business to-day which would not allow those travelling for it at least ten guineas a day. That, I believe, is uncontrovertible.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, about whether Peers who have houses in London can claim this expense, I think he will find, if it is dealt with as it used to be in another place, that that kind of thing settles itself, and that some proportion of the rent of the house would be allowed. The point that I make, and I hope have made, is that if a Peer is coming here at all, it is rather absurd that he should be given a sum which, in some respects, in these days is almost derisory.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I must contradict one phrase used by the noble Lord who has just sat down. To say that no respectable firm gives less than ten guineas a day to their executives as travelling expenses in this country, is quite untrue. I should not like your Lordships to think that that is the general case.
3.19 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to reinforce what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Jessel. I believe that there is no former junior Minister who does not recollect that occasionally it was his duty to travel on public business, but no such amount as ten guineas was ever dreamt of as an allowance for expenses. May I, if it is not too irrelevant, also congratulate this House on its treatment of the article in the Sunday Express of yesterday? We all know that, had this been another place, the editor would have been brought to the Bar of this House, and several days would have been employed in considering how he should be punished. I think the way in which the article has been dealt with in this House is equally effective and far more dignified. I would also suggest that this House has this further satisfaction—that the gentleman concerned was, for once, attacking us instead of the Royal Family.
3.20 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I have listened with great interest and much appreciation to what our noble Leader said in

777
his statement with regard to this proposed allowance. I entirely agree that there should be consideration of the matter to which my old friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh referred—the requirement that a Peer must attend one-third of the Sittings of the House before he gets his railway fare. I noticed that my noble Leader nodded his head about that.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think that was just a physical jerk.
LORD TEVIOT: It may have been a physical jerk or a sigh or something like that, but it sometimes happens that in almost analogous cases of this sort certain retrospective payments are made After all, we have been doing this work for quite a long time. I was wondering whether the noble Earl would consider that aspect and, if he did think about it, work for it to be made retrospective to as far back as possible.
3.21 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words about this proposal. I speak with some diffidence and crave your Lordships' indulgence because I am a fairly young Member of your Lordships' House, but I must say, with great respect to the noble Earl who leads this House, that I am rather surprised that these proposals for paying expenses should have been brought in before proposals for reform. I always understood during the time that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was Leader of this House, that it was proposed to reform the House first and then pay expenses, or indeed even a salary, to the Members of that reformed House; but now it appears that the cart is being put before the horse.
So far as I remember, both in the Government's Election programme and in the last gracious Speech it was mentioned that they would take active and energetic measures to reform your Lordships' House. We have heard nothing of that. On the other hand, nothing was said to the effect that expenses would be paid, yet this proposal has now been put forward. I have been very interested for a number of years in the questions of the reform of your Lordships' House, have taken part in the discussions on it and have lectured on it in different parts of the country. I think I may say, with all
778
due modesty, that I know a little about what a few people throughout the country think about it. I have found that the people of this country have a great appreciation of the work done by your Lordships' House, and I think they respect this House because they realise that the work done here is on a voluntary and unpaid basis. I believe, too, that they would respect a reformed House on a paid basis, but I do not think that the electorate of this country will be prepared to tolerate for very long an un-reformed House whose Members are paid expenses of this kind. That is why I hope the Government will very soon bring in proposals for the reform of this House.
Speaking for myself, I think that the extra expenses will be very useful indeed, but one tries to look at these things objectively. I can see no justification for the fact that, just because one was born the son of one's father, one should be able to come here and collect a few pounds' expenses for doing so. Noble Lords have referred to the length of time that Peers will come and sit here. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, that Peers will come here, as he says they used to in the days of the war, merely in order to get their names ticked off. On the other hand, I think we all come here sometimes for a short while. It may be that a noble Lord has put down a Question on which one wants to ask a supplementary question and one comes here for a few moments and then goes away. On the other hand, although one may get a mention in the newspapers, one cannot say that that possibly justifies, an attendance. I think that there is probably a good deal of justification for paying expenses to Peers of the First Creation and Privy Counsellors—I think that as a first step one could approve that—but I cannot see that there is any justification for paying expenses to hereditary Peers. Indeed, we seem now to be the only Legislature in the world which proposes to pay Members because they happen to be the sons of their fathers.
3.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My, Lords, I do not rise to follow the noble Lord in the homily that he has just addressed to us but, as probably one of the very few Members of this House who

779
remember the start of payment of Members, now a great many years ago, perhaps I may make one or two very short remarks. In the first place, I am a little nervous whether to-day I am not abandoning my amateur status. I have had a good deal to do with the definition of "amateur status" for a great many years, and I am beginning to wonder what the effect of this Resolution will be upon me. Apart from that, let me suggest to the Leader of the House that he would be very wise to keep the directions for this payment of expenses as simple as possible. No doubt, my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is perfectly right that we ought all to be paid according to our individual merit—what I should be paid, I should not like to say! I would, however, venture to suggest that that will be a very difficult standard for the Committee of three Whips to apply. I should have thought that it would be much wiser to give a wide definition to this direction about expenses, for the Committee to think it out and then, possibly, accept a general rule that three guineas a day was a reasonable reimbursement for the Peers who were attending this House.
I am afraid that as soon as you go into details—for instance, questions have been raised in one or two speeches this afternoon of what is to happen to Peers who live in London and those who live in Scotland and so on—you will get into such inextricable confusion that, eventually, either nobody will get paid his expenses or, the other alternative, the Committee will be driven to let everybody have them. I venture, therefore, to suggest that the simpler these regulations can be kept, the better it will be for everybody concerned.
3.28 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken, but I feel that so much nonsense has been talked about this from all sides of the House that it is perhaps right to get back to the fundamental reason why these expenses are being paid. The simple fact is that this is an ordinary act of justice. There may be wealthy Peers on the side of the House where the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, sits; there may even be wealthy Peers on this side of the House. But in these days nobody has a right to demand service from anybody
780
without paying at least the expenses which are necessarily incurred as the result of the giving of those services.
It is a fact that the failure to pay expenses is damaging this House. There are Peers who just cannot afford to come here because of the expense incurred. I regard the giving of this allowance merely as an ordinary act of justice. I do not think that this is the time to argue whether it is adequate or inadequate. The principle has been established, and if it is found hereafter that the amount needs revision, one way or the other, there will be ample opportunity to come forward and ask for a revision. The same applies to the payment of Members. That is an entirely new and different principle. The allowance now proposed is not a payment. If it is desired to pay Members, that may be an argument for looking at the constitution of the House, but there can be no justification for asking anybody to come here and incur expense without being reimbursed.
Finally, I would say that this is a measure for which we all accept responsibility. The Government have introduced it; we on this side have been consulted, and we agree. I think it is right and just, therefore, to say that this is not something which has been imposed on the House but something which has been agreed by all sides. I need not say much about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Perhaps he will explain to me outside the meaning of his suggestion about our working harder in order to justify payment of our expenses. Does he mean longer hours, or does he mean more intensively? I just do not understand.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I did not refer to anybody working harder. I said that there were many people who worked harder in their businesses—I did not mean harder than noble Lords here. But if they work harder they earn more in their businesses; and, in so far as they were working harder, they would make greater contribution in taxation and in saving to the community, and to that extent they would be serving the community.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am afraid I paid the noble Lord too great a compliment in assuming that his remarks were relevant to this particular Resolution.
3.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I welcome the reception that has been given to this Resolution by noble Lords, who have been at their most ingenious and have been most persuasive, hoping for better benefits to come. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Templewood. I think that we all dislike the idea of any sort of payment or expense remuneration or anything of the kind; and we want, in his words, to retain our amateur status. That is what I think this proposal is really designed to allow us to do. This proposal stands on its merits, irrespective of anything to do with the Reform of the House of Lords or any proposals that may follow, because, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said, and as Lord Silkin repeated just now, there is clear evidence of hardship on certain people in doing a duty the responsibility for which is laid upon them by their membership of one of the Houses of Parliament. That situation is wrong, and it is an attempt to meet it that has given rise to this Resolution. The three guineas may or may not prove to be enough—I do not know; but the principle is established that the out-of-pocket expenses, which nobody can avoid—I care not on which side of the House he sits—can reasonably be met in this way.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, took the opportunity of the debate on this Resolution to make us a little speech about inflation. Well, he was perfectly entitled to do so if he could get: it in. In effect, I understood him to say that he would prefer a reduction in taxation, which would be of more benefit to your Lordships than this expense allowance. If he will have patience and sustain the Government in office he will get: both. Again, I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Templewood, who said that we should not try to-day to define too closely what expenses will qualify—in other words, to try to say what expenses should be put down by a noble Lord who lives in the country, and what expenses should be put down by a noble Lord living in London. All noble Lords, wherever they live, incur considerable out-of-pocket expenses by reason of their membership of this House, and I should not therefore propose this afternoon to try to go any more closely into the definition of what should or should
782
not qualify. I would suggest to your Lordships that this grant of expense allowances will not be abused any more than the travel allowance has been abused by your Lordships.
I should like to go into the point raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh as to whether we need go on with the assiduity qualification in respect of travel. I will have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point. But I am quite sure that this House will not abuse this provision, because if any noble Lord should be tempted to do so then the Committee of the Chief Whips will be a sufficiently formidable body to restrain him from ever doing so again. There is certainly no excuse, as my noble friend Lord Blackford has pointed out, for the article in the Sunday Press to which he referred. I think my noble friend Lord Conesford said that we have treated that in the proper way and kept it in perspective. But if the author of the article will introduce me to the girl whose entertainment would be covered by the expense allowance of your Lordships I should be glad to know her. So, my Lords, I would hope that, subject to the administration by the Committee of the Chief Whips of the Parties, we might agree to this Resolution to-day.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPERANNUATION BILL
3.36 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I need not detain your Lordships for long for this Bill has the merit unusual in legislation on this subject of being both brief and quite simple. Its origins are to be found in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, which is by now a well-known landmark on staff relations in the Civil Service. The proposals in that Report on Pay and Conditions in the Civil Service were disposed of in 1956 in an agreement between the official side and the staff side on the National Whitley Council. Superannuation was left for separate discussion.

783
The main object of the present Bill is to deal with the major topic in this field on which the Royal Commission made a firm recommendation—that is, the improvement of gratuities for unestablished staff. At present, a temporary civil servant qualifies for a gratuity after seven years' service at the rate of one week's pay for each year's service. Clause 1 of the Bill makes a substantial increase in these gratuities. In future, the qualifying period will be only five years, and gratuities will be paid on the following scale: one week's pay for each of the first five years; two weeks for each of the second five years; and four weeks for every year after the tenth year. This represents a further improvement in the conditions of service of the unestablished and part-time servants of the Crown, and, I am sure that it will be welcome to your Lordships.
I should point out that in one respect this part of the Bill does, however, depart from the Royal Commission's recommendation. Clause 1 (1) imposes an upper limit of one year's pay to the amount of the gratuity which can be earned. There are two reasons for this. The first is that in the case of temporary civil servants with very long service the gratuity might be based on as much as 120 or 130 weeks' pay. I am sure your Lordships will agree that a lump sum on that scale would be unduly large, especially as these gratuities are tax-free. More important, however, we have to consider the relationship between these gratuities and the benefits received by widows of established civil servants who died before reaching the retiring age. Without an upper limit, what would happen with many unestablished civil servants would be that they would receive more than would go to the widows of established civil servants for the same length of service. There would be an obvious disadvantage in creating so anomalous a position as that.
The Bill provides for the new scale to take effect from May 15, which was the date on which the intention to legislate in this way was announced in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The particular date was chosen in advance of the presentation of the Bill not because it had any significance in itself but in order to give the Departments, and civil
784
servants who might benefit from the improvements some notice of when the new arrangements would come into effect. In this respect the proposals follow the usual practice in superannuation matters, and while there must inevitably be cases of temporary civil servants leaving the Service on what is, from their point of view, the wrong side of the dividing line, your Lordships will, I am sure, appreciate that such hard cases would arise whatever date might be chosen.
I said earlier that the main object of the Bill was to deal with a major topic on which the Royal Commission made a firm recommendation. The opportunity is being taken, however, to dispose of two minor matters which were also mentioned in the Commission's Report. The first is the situation which arises when people are taken into the Civil Service, with their work, after being employed in an organisation which provided similar service and was financed wholly or partly out of public funds. The Royal Commission referred, in particular, to one such case—that of certain employees at Roehampton Hospital. Wardmasters, orderlies and clerks were not remunerated entirely from public funds in the period from 1925 to 1939, and accordingly their service in this period is not reckonable for pension under the Superannuation Acts. A technicality has, in fact, deprived them of benefits to which, on merits, they are certainly entitled.
A similar technicality has affected the pension position of certain employees of the National Physical Laboratory. It is the object of Clause 2 of the Bill to enable the service in question to be reckoned as service to the State for purposes of the Superannuation Acts. Her Majesty's Government considered with some care how this could be effected. It would have been possible to provide specifically in the Bill for the particular persons involved, but, just as the position of these people was overlooked in earlier legislation, it may be that there are other classes of people with claims of similar merit. Her Majesty's Government have therefore taken the view that it is more convenient to make some general provision to enable the Treasury to cover any other cases which may arise or be discovered in future.
The formula for dealing with these cases is set out in Clause 2 of the Bill

785
and I need not worry your Lordships by going into the details now. Any new cases which arise will be discussed through the Whitley machinery without the need to trouble Parliament on matters of relative detail. In all cases, however, it will, of course, be necessary for Rules to be laid before Parliament to enable the powers to be applied. These Rules will take the form of Orders subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
The Royal Commission also drew attention to an anomaly which arose over the years in the case of certain members of the staff of the Imperial War Graves Commission who have now entered the Civil Service. For many years, as the result of an administrative oversight in the early 1920s, these persons have been placed in an unfair position. In those days there existed a body known as the Joint Substitution Board, whose function was to find employment for ex-Service men in the Civil Service. This Board found employment for a considerable number of ex-Service men with the Imperial War Graves Commission under the impression—an impression shared by all concerned at the time—that it was a Government Department. In fact, it was not, never has been and cannot be regarded as a Government Department at all; and those who later became civil servants cannot count the time they spent with the Commission as Civil Service employment. So Clause 3 of the Bill will enable the service to which I have just referred to reckon as if it had been temporary Civil Service employment.
I should add that the date, September 30, 1934, was chosen as the critical date because departmental records show that all those affected by the Joint Substitution Board's error who later moved on to work in Government Departments had by then left the Commission's service. The number of men affected by that error was not large, but I am sure all noble Lords will share the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government at this proposal to remedy an injustice done in former years. I can perhaps best sum up the object of this Bill by saying that it carries into effect for the benefit of many unestablished civil servants this valuable and important recommendation of the Priestley Commission; and at the same time it gives a welcome opportunity of adjusting the pension position of a much smaller number of staff who, for one reason or
786
another, have been deprived of pensions to which their service has unquestionably entitled them. I commend this Bill to the House and ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
3.46 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord for the careful way in which he has explained this Bill. He has done so so carefully and clearly that there is little comment to make upon it. There are, however, two or three points which I should like to make. The first is that in the course of his remarks he referred to temporary or part-time civil servants. I wonder whether he really meant part-time as distinct from temporary, or both; because on what is, I admit, a superficial look at this Bill I can see no reference to part-time civil servants, and I should be grateful if he would explain whether he meant part-time civil servants as distinct from temporary, or "in addition to."
My other point is that it is a little odd to justify treating temporary civil servants less generously than they otherwise would be because permanent civil servants are not treated as well as they might be. The noble Earl rather explained that if the logic of these proposals was carried through to the temporary civil servants, they might in certain cases do better than permanent civil servants. That seems to me to involve a reconsideration of the position of permanent civil servants, to see whether they are being treated sufficiently fairly. I have no doubt that that point has been locked at.
I welcome the general provision to which the noble Earl referred which will enable cases which may have been overlooked to be picked up. Her Majesty's Government are aware of two kinds of cases not covered, which have been overlooked in the past. Obviously, since they have been overlooked, there might conceivably be other cases; and it is right that the matter should be dealt with by the general provision as set out in the Bill. We are grateful for this Bill and I can assure the noble Lord that he will have no trouble about it from this side of the House.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has welcomed this Bill this afternoon. In reply to his first point, I may say that part-time civil servants are included in this Bill—not only sub-postmasters but quite a variety of other kinds of part-time civil servants as well. The noble Lord referred to what might have appeared to be the favourable position of the unestablished civil servants in the light of the gratuities which they would recieve, and it is to meet that particular point that the upper limit of one year's service was included; otherwise the unestablished civil servant undoubtedly might be at an unfair advantage over the dependants of a deceased established civil servant. As to the question of whether the conditions of permanent civil servants need looking at, that is another matter, and I will not go into it at the moment. I am glad that the noble Lord welcomed the proposal in the Bill for the general provision. It seems to be the best way of dealing with a possible variety of items which could, and might, arise in the future.
On Question. Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

LEGITIMATION (REGISTRATION OF BIRTH) BILL
3.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this, the first of two Private Members' Bills which I am moving to-day, is short and very technical. Its purpose is to amend the arrangements for the re-registration of illegitimate births on the subsequent marriage of the parents. It is designed to put right an anomaly in the law disclosed by a decision in the Courts in 1952 in the case of Angelini v. Dick. It is the wish of modern society to remove the stigma of bastardy as far as possible. In furtherance of this aim, we have provided that children born out of wedlock whose parents subsequently marry are in nearly all cases legitimised, and machinery for re-registration and the issue of a new birth certificate exists.
The law of legitimisation tends to be governed by the domicile of the father
788
at the date of the marriage. Where the father as domiciled here at that date the matter is fairly simple, and this Bill is not concerned; but where the father is not domiciled in England or Wales complications can arise. Many of the countries of the world follow us in legitimising births on the subsequent marriage of parents. I will call them "legitimising countries." Other countries do not. Where the father was domiciled in a "legitimising country" both at the time of the birth of the child and the time of the subsequent marriage, then the child is regarded as legitimate under English Common Law. The Common Law does not apply, however, if the father was domiciled in a "non-legitimising" country at the time of the birth, even though he moved to a "legitimising country" at the time of his marriage. In this case the child is legitimised by our Statute Law.
Now there is statutory provision for the re-registration of illegitimate births and the issue of new birth certificates. The Legitimacy Act, 1926, and the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953, allow the Registrar-General to do this. In 1952 there was the case in the courts of Angelini v. Dick, which, at the least, threw doubt on the legality of re-registration of those illegitimate births which fell into the category legitimised by the Common Law. The same doubt did not arise in respect of those births which were legitimised by the Statute Law. This Bill is to make it quite clear that the re-registration provisions of the Acts of 1926 and 1953 apply for the future and retrospectively not only to those people legitimised by the Statute Law but also to those legitimised by the Common Law.
The Bill is purely technical, and will cover all those legitimised by the Common Law on whose re-registration and new birth certificates the decision in the case of Angelini v. Dick may have thrown doubt. It will also cover any who may have been refused new birth certificates as a result of that case. It is believed that about 300 people a year are affected. They are people who are legitimate in every way, but owing to a legal anomaly there is doubt whether they can be reregistered and get a new birth certificate. If this Bill passes there will be no doubt as to the legality of a new certificate. The Bill was welcomed by all sides in another

789
place. It was sponsored toy the honourable Member for Hereford, and it was not amended in its passage. I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading: and relieve the position of a few unfortunate people who were born illegitimate and who have become fully legitimate under the Common Law but who may either not be able to get their new birth certificates owing to a legal anomaly or, if they have already got: them, may find their validity questioned at some future date. The clauses of the Bill are purely technical and I need not detail them to your Lordships. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and move its Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
3.56 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we certainly shall extend to this Bill every possible help from this side of the House in order to facilitate its passage. I think it is a useful reform, but I wish it had been possible for the Government to go somewhat further. I think we ought not to be satisfied until every child born in this country is able to produce a clear birth certificate without the fact of its illegitimacy appearing on the face of the certificate.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I have made careful inquiries on the point, and I have been informed that it takes someone with some technical knowledge to distinguish a birth certificate under this re-registration scheme from one which is an original certificate of a legitimate birth.
LORD SILKIN: I was not really referring to that type of case but to the type of case where a child is born illegitimate of parents one of whom was married at the time of the child's birth. In those cases it is not possible for a child to get a certificate of legitimacy. I know that that is going very much futher than this Bill seeks to do. This Bill seeks merely to remedy an anomaly, and it certainly does so. But I cannot resist making the point that while we are about it (it is not the child's fault that it is illegitimate) and while we are seeking to give children this chance of a clean birth certificate, it seems a pity that we should leave this one door open, this door where one of the parents was married at the time of
790
the child's birth and even though subsequently there are divorce proceedings and the parties get married that child can never get a legitimate birth certificate. I know that there is not much that can be done under this Bill, but I think that that is a matter which could well be given consideration in the near future, so that we may make a clean sweep of these unfair anomalies.
3.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I feel sure that your Lordships will be in agreement with me when I say that my noble friend, Lord Hawke, has fully and most efficiently explained the purpose of this Bill. It only remains for me to indicate the Government's attitude on it. It has been made absolutely clear by my noble friend that there is an omission in the law about re-registration of the birth of certain persons who have been legitimated, and that may well cause the greatest pain and embarrassment to persons affected if it is not put right. The Government agree that it is only right that all persons who are legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents should have the right to obtain a new birth certificate showing their legitimacy, and therefore they give their fullest support to this Bill, which I believe has already fully commended itself to your Lordships. In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, he recognises that this is a step in the right direction, and a step which he would desire. I have no doubt that his remarks during the course of his speech will be taken note of by my right honourable friend.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THERMAL INSULATION (INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS) BILL
4.1 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is another Private Member's Bill, of a rather different character and of a wider application. It is the fruits of the energy of the honourable Member for Kidderminster in another place, whose efforts

791
in this direction have been well known and sustained for a long time. It aims at causing fuel to be saved by seeing that any new factory buildings erected are properly insulated. Our fuel situation is well known and there is no need for me to recapitulate it. Coal is short of our requirements. Supplies are supplemented by imported coal and imported oil, and we are spending vast sums on atomic energy. All this means foreign exchange and/or an immense capital expenditure. Foreign exchange, capital and coal are in an equal degree of shortage to-day. So it is clear that any reasonable steps we can take towards fuel economy are necessary and desirable.
Insulation makes for economy because it stops the escape of heat from a building. Every year approximately 40 million square feet of new factories are erected. Some are insulated; some are not suitable for insulation, and a great many are suitable but not insulated. Corrugated sheeting is much used in factory construction, particularly for roofing, and it lends itself to the escape of heat at the joints, so that by insulation one can achieve a substantial saving. To give an example of a typical factory building going up to-day, a building 200 feet long by 100 feet wide, and 20 feet to the ridges, with a 9-inch brick wall and a cement floor, if properly insulated, would use about 80 tons of coal less every year than if it were not insulated at all; and the cost of this insulation would be something in the neighbourhood of £2,500, or, say, £30 of capital per ton of coal or coal equivalent saved. Of course, some buildings would cost more and some less.
Then there is what I might call the global calculation, which has been used in another place. If all the factory area built in a year—namely, 40 million square feet—were insulated, there would be a saving of 170,000 tons of coal a year over the same space if it were not insulated. That is, of course, a theoretical calculation, because in practice the basic assumptions do not obtain, but I must emphasise that every year a new crop of building comes along, and therefore there is a cumulative saving of an amount which, at the theoretical maximum, could be 170,000 tons a year but which, in practice, must be a great deal less.
792
The question must be asked: is it worth while?—because one can do anything if one is willing to spend enough money; one can grow an orange grove in Piccadilly if one is willing to spend enough millions. To save a ton of coal a year at an increased capital cost of a building of £30 seems to me to be good business, particularly as other savings accrue. For instance, the owner of a new building will be able to plan for a smaller heating installation than he would be able to do if his building were not insulated. All in all, it seems a reasonable proposition for the industrialist and definitely a good one for the nation. There are people not slow to take advantage of this. I can cite the Ministry of Power's fuel-saving loan scheme, which includes saving by insulation; and for that there have been many applications and a large number of loans granted, so that the owners of many existing buildings are clearly conscious of the saving to be made. I may add that my figures are based on data from the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, and I think therefore, they are probably about the best available.
So much for the saving of fuel. There is also the question of comfort. The heating level of factory buildings is prescribed under the Factories Acts, but we all know that in exceptional weather it is sometimes difficult to maintain the proper standards, in which case work people get cold hands and feet and the work falls below standard. With insulation, it is easier to maintain an even working temperature. Your Lordships may well ask, as I did: if this is such a good proposition, why is a Bill necessary to make it compulsory? I think that the answer is that the science of fuel efficiency is a comparatively new one. For generations we have had cheap coal and, in consequence, we have been very prodigal with it, and a great many people just have not bothered to save coal. Moreover, we are short of capital, and factory owners naturally want to put up a factory of the cheapest proper construction. To-day, the position is different. Through the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service and individuals like the energetic Member for Kidderminster, the Government have been able to do their best to urge the saving of fuel and point out the advantages to be gained thereby.

793
Another question your Lordships may ask is: if this cause is so good, why does the Bill prescribe it only for new buildings? When the Bill was first envisaged, it dealt with all buildings, existing as well as new; but when discussions about practicability began to take place it was soon seen that the appalling implications of trying to apply the Bill to existing buildings would be too much and that an expensive system for exemptions and inspections would have to be created. By confining the Bill to new buildings, we are doing the work very cheaply, and we are setting an example to the old buildings, many of which will certainly follow. The Bill was introduced under the Ten Minute Rule, and the Second Reading was not opposed by the Government, as a result of modifications which were agreed and were introduced on Committee and Report. The Bill passed with Government support and the support of the Labour Party.
Now a word or two about the machinery of administration. The onus is on the local authority in passing plans to see that the buildings are properly insulated according to regulations made by the Minister of Power. These regulations will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure and will need careful drafting, after consultation with a number of bodies in this country. That is why it seems impossible that the Bill can apply to buildings on which a start is made before January 1, 1959, though the Minister has power to speed up the date if he thinks proper. Clause 1 gives the Minister power to make regulations prescribing a standard in insulation. Clause 2 brings the procedure of passing plans into line with the Public Health Acts. I may emphasise that there is no separate submission of insulation plans; the plans will go in as one plan for the building.
Clause 3 is important, because it gives the Minister power, in his regulations, to exclude materials on the ground that they do not give sufficient fire protection—there has been at least one disastrous fire in recent times where insulation may have helped to spread the flames. Clause 4 is the sanctions clause, and it gives the local authorities power to demand the demolition or the modification of buildings which have been erected not conforming to the plans they passed. Clause 5 gives
794
the builder the right of appeal against the decision of the local authority, not only at the plans-passing stage, but also at the stage of dispute as to whether the building conforms with those plans. Clause 6 applies the provisions to extensions of buildings. Clause 7 is most important, because it gives the Minister powers to exempt whole classes of buildings, and the local authority, with the consent of the Minister, power to exempt buildings, from the provisions of the Bill. For instance, it would be ridiculous to require a foundry to be insulated—or, indeed, many other industrial buildings where there is already a surplus of waste heat in the building. The same consideration would apply in most cases to storage premises. The power of exemption is important also from the point of view of the definition of industrial buildings in the Factories Act which is used in this Bill, because that definition includes many buildings which this Bill is not intended to cover, such as, for example, those I have just suggested.
Clause 8 brings the inspection procedure into line with the Public Health Acts and the Factories Acts. That means that the existing inspectors of factories will be used and we do not have to create a new army to police this Bill. Clause 9 provides that the regulations are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. Clauses 10, 11 and 13 are routine, and Clause 12 applies the Bill to Scotland. I am told that the apparent complication is due merely to the fact that it is made to conform to the Scottish procedure for passing building plans. In conclusion, I should say that the proposed legislation is, I believe, unique in any country in the world. It is timely, and it is part of a campaign by the Member for Kidderminster for the better use of fuel in this country. I hope that my noble friend the Minister of Power will be able to assure the House of Government support, industrial support and local authority co-operation. I commend the Bill to your Lordships, and beg to move its Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
4.16 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, on behalf of myself and of my noble friends on this side of the House, I should like to welcome this Bill, and if I criticise it,

795
it will really be for sins of omission and not commission. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is to be thanked, certainly by those of us interested in the subject, for the extremely clear account, he has given of this Bill, as, indeed, he did of the previous Bill when moving the Second Reading a few minutes ago. It is a fairly complicated Bill, and I think he made both its provisions and the reasons for those criticisms which I was, and still am, inclined to make, perfectly clear. For that I feel we should be grateful.
Frankly, my criticism of the Bill could be summarised by saying that I do not think it goes far enough. I should have liked to see it extended not only to industrial buildings but to domestic buildings, and, in particular, to—I was going to say, Government buildings; that is to say, buildings put up for local authorities of one kind or another. It was only last year that I went over a magnificent new school, a superbly handsome building which is a credit to the architects. But, as in all modern building, there were, as there should be, enormous windows and vast expanses of glass. I inquired whether any attempt had been made to insulate those windows, and I was told that there had not, and that the expense was too high.
At that time I did a rough calculation (I am not a very good mathematician, and I may have got my facts wrong) on information that was given me about this particular building, and I came to the conclusion that probably the expense of insulating it properly would have been paid back in fuel economy in about six and a half years. That is a figure which I give to your Lordships with diffidence, and with the proviso that I should not like to take too much responsibility for my mathematics; but I am quite satisfied that in a comparatively short time the insulation would have paid for itself. That is quite apart from the social advantages which the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has so rightly stressed. Therefore, I regret that this Bill extends only to industrial buildings; the economy made would be appreciably greater if it extended, as I say, both to public buildings and to domestic buildings.
I confess, too, to dissatisfaction and disappointment, and a certain inability to accept the assurances of the noble Lord, at the application of these proposed
796
regulations to existing buildings. I should have thought that it would have been perfectly possible to have had, shall we say, an interim period, perhaps five years, after which a local authority inspector might be entitled to report on any industrial building in his area which, in his view, failed to satisfy the conditions of the Bill and the future Act; and that after a period of grace, shall we say another twelve months, the local authority should be entitled to insist upon the work being done or, as is suggested in the Bill, actually undertake the work itself. I also observed with some dismay when I read the Bill that it does not come into operation until January, 1959. On this matter, I consider the noble Lord's explanation is at least quite understandable. I think he is pessimistic, but, on the other hand, he has himself pointed out that the Minister has powers to advance that date if he considers it feasible.
There are one or two points on which I should like to ask for guidance from the noble Lord. For example, in Clause 2 the opening words are:
" Where there are deposited with a local authority plans…"
There does not seem to me to be any compulsory clause in the Bill under which prospective builders of industrial buildings must submit their plans for the insulation of the building to the local authority. I also do not like too much line 15 of Clause 2 (1) which reads:
"…unless they "—
that is, the local authority—
" show that the building will not conform…"
In other words, the weight of showing is upon the local authority and not upon the builder who submits the plans. I should have thought that it would have been a more satisfactory way of placing the responsibility to have said that the person submitting the plans and desiring to build should show that the building was properly insulated.
I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain this point to me. It may be stupidity on my part, and, if it is, I apologise in advance. In Clause 2 (3) the relevant period is stated to be one month, provided that in certain authorities,
" whose meetings are not normally held more frequently than once a month, plans are deposited less than three clear days…"

797
Supposing the plans are deposited three or four days in advance of the meeting, the relevant period would, I take it, be only one month. Would the rejection of the plans then depend entirely upon an employee, an officer, of the local authority? Because if it requires the consent and support of the local authority itself, it might be that the relevant officer would have only three days en which to inspect the plans and produce a report which he would have to submit to the local authority. As I say, this is probably a technicality which I may well have misunderstood; and if it is, I apologise.
The noble Lord drew attention—quite rightly, of course—to Clause 4, which is the penal clause. I am not too happy about the limitation of twelve months which is put upon any action by the local authority in respect of an unsatisfactory building which, has been put up, apparently without their approval of the insulation plans. Quite properly, in subsection (3) it says that where the plans have been passed, and where they were either not rejected or not rejected within the relevant period, they should not be entitled to insist on either the alteration or the removal of the building. It seems to me that if a building has been put up without their consent, it would be reasonable that they might criticise it at any time and demand its improvement or its destruction, if it is beyond improvement. These are points which I hope your Lordships will not think quite without relevance and which have occurred to me in studying this Bill. Apart from them, as I say, I welcome the Bill. I think it is a step in the right direction, and I hope it will be followed by other and longer steps.
4.26 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, paid tribute to the way in which my noble friend Lord Hawke introduced the Second Reading of this Bill. He was exceedingly clear, his explanations were easy to follow, and if I had not had the opportunity of studying the Bill before. I think it would have commended itself to me.
I should like to say, on behalf of the Government, that I welcome this Bill, the purpose of which is to secure fuel saving
798
in industry. Thermal insulation of buildings is a very good way to secure worth while fuel saving. My predecessors have always been concerned to encourage thermal insulation. The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, regretted that this Bill did not extend to domestic buildings and other buildings, such as offices, and so on. I am always open to receive suggestions for saving fuel, but so far as the noble Lord's suggestion is concerned, it is not comprised in the Long Title of the Bill, and therefore I think is out of place for discussion this afternoon. The noble Lord made a plea that the Government should also consider the application of the Bill to existing buildings. That was one point which the Government did consider, and when it was taken out of the Bill they decided that they would support it because it is wholly impracticable and uneconomical to try to compel owners of existing buildings to insulate them in this way. There are so many varieties of buildings, buildings in so many different styles, with so many different materials, that it would require a horde of officials to see that anything worth while was done in many of them. The whole idea would not be worth while.
The date of January 1, 1959, or any earlier date that may be appointed, was put in the Bill because it was realised that the Minister would have quite a task in drafting the regulations under Clauses 1, 3 and 7. They will be very complicated regulations to draft and I have no precedent to guide me in drafting them. I have to see that the standards are reasonable in relation to the factories concerned so as to avoid the need for a lot of exemptions later on. The noble Lord referred to Clause 2 and suggested that it should be for the applicant to show that he had provided the right insulation and not for the local authority to show that he had not. That is not very reasonable. Plans have to be deposited with the local authority and there are many by-laws to be met in those plans. Insulation is only one factor and it is one that the local authority will now have to look out for. It is quite reasonable that if they are going to object to the plans, it should be for the local authority to say why.
Clause 2 (3) is rather a technical matter. The point was that there should

799
be sufficient time to allow for a report to be made on this aspect of the matter to the local authority. It was designed to ensure that. Clause 4 was the other point to which the noble Lord referred. I would say to your Lordships that this clause is based on the procedure now in operation in respect of building by-laws contained in Section 65 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which provides the sanction against persons who refuse to comply. This clause just follows the course of the Act and seems to me to be an eminently reasonable provision. I should like again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for his excellent exposition of this Bill and to commend it to your Lordships.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, my noble friend has replied to practically every point raised by the noble Lord opposite, leaving me nothing to say. I should just like to say, however, that he asks that this provision should be extended to the domestic and public authority field. I can tell the noble Lord that ten minutes ago I had the best of reasons to believe that the honourable gentleman the Member for Kidderminster was still alive, and I purposely said that this Bill was not the culmination of his career.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADVERTISEMENTS (HIRE -PURCHASE) BILL
4.34 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The fact that I am sponsoring this Bill in no way signifies that I am opposed to the practice of hire-purchase or credit sales. On the contrary, I think that hire-purchase is an admirable institution and has done much to raise the standard of living in this country and to ensure a wider distribution of goods. But it has obvious weaknesses. Because payments by instalment are easy, the ultimate amount to be paid is often lost sight of. Advertisements setting out the easiest and most attractive parts of the terms are
800
liable to make people enter into hire-purchase agreements before making sure what the agreements actually involve. Sometimes people do not even bother to read the agreements, or they send them in blank and leave the details to be filled in later by a salesman, and then they mistakenly think that they have entered into a contract on the lines of the advertisement which they had read which gives only part of the terms—and, naturally, the most attractive part.
As the Bill talks about hire-purchase and credit sale agreements, I think I should explain the basic difference between the two. In the case of hire-purchase, the ownership of the goods remains with the seller and no title passes until the last instalment has been paid. In the case of the latter, ownership passes to the buyer immediately the first instalment has been paid. Both types of agreement are covered by the Hire-Purchase Acts of 1938 and 1954, but it is the 1938 Act which is the main Act and which governs the requirements to-day.
Briefly, these two Acts set out, first, that before any hire-purchase or credit sale agreement is entered into, the seller must state in writing to the buyer the cash price of the goods unless a label on the goods or a catalogue price list or an advertisement of the selected goods has indicated this information. Then a note or memorandum of the agreement must be delivered to the purchaser within seven days of the making of the agreement, and this memorandum must contain, first, a statement of the hire-purchase price of the goods, also the cash price, the amount of each instalment, and the date, or method of determining the date, on which each instalment is to be paid. Incidentally, failure to comply with these requirements is not a criminal offence. If they are not complied with, the seller cannot enforce his contract, nor can he recover the goods except after a decision of the court. It may be argued that the 1938 Act gives all protection to the purchaser which can reasonably be expected. Unfortunately, it has not worked out that way. I understand that many representations have in fact been made to the Board of Trade to this effect, and the purpose of this Bill is to try to make sure that advertisements of this type shall give a fair and complete picture of the terms offered.

801
To turn to the Bill itself, Clause 1 sets out the types of advertisement to which the Bill applies. They are advertisements of goods offered for sale by hire-purchase or credit sale if the advertisement includes certain elements, which are set out in subsection (2). May I give your Lordships an example of the proposed working of the Bill? Suppose an advertisement reads "Yours for £1 down." This is misleading and, in order to comply with the clause, it should read "Yours for £1 down and £2 a month for a year." To take another example, suppose an advertisement reads "Yours for 5s. a week." The true picture is "Yours for £10 down and 5s. a week for two years." Those are quite simple examples of misleading advertisements and how the Bill, if passed, will work to make them give the true picture. This clause does not apply to advertisements which merely state that hire-purchase terms in general are available or which advertise credit sales of an article under the value of £5.
Clause 2 sets out the information which is to be included in the advertisements to which the Bill applies, and prohibits the display of advertisements if they do not include that information. Subsection (1) specifies that each part: of the information shall be displayed with equal prominence, not the least attractive parts in small print. Subsection (2), at first sight, looks rather formidable, but in fact the information required can be given quite briefly. Here again, may I trouble your Lordships with an example?" Cash price, £40; hire purchase terms, £20 deposit and 24 monthly instalments of £1 "—that gives everything which the purchaser should want to know. Paragraph (e) is rather important, as there are sometimes hire-purchase agreements under which a certain number of instalments have to be paid before the goods are delivered, so that, in fact, this is a disguised form of deposit. Subsection (3) deals with advertisements which do not contain details of payments—that is, generalised advertisements such as those which offer "No deposit" terms. In such a case, the number of weekly instalments must be plainly given. Subsection (5) deals with advertisements which refer both to hire-purchase and credit sales. These often mislead the reader because they are I muddled together and the terms become obscure.
802
Clause 3 deals with penalties. These are quite moderate—£50 for a first offence and £100 for subsequent offences. Then the defences open to the defendant are set out. These are mostly for the benefit of newspapers, printers, and so on, and the result is that the people who issue the advertisements are not to be held responsible for the contents. Clause 4 gives a definition of "advertisement". This is widely drawn. Subsection (3) makes it clear that the terms in an advertisement need not necessarily correspond with the terms on which the goods are actually disposed of. The hire-purchase advertisement, like any other, is only an invitation to treat and is not an offer.
My Lords, I submit that this Bill does not require the giving of more detailed information than is already given by many reputable firms. It will serve a useful purpose by forcing traders to set out their terms fairly and will help the public to find out what the goods being offered will, in fact, cost them. It was ably sponsored in another place by the honourable Member for Rochdale. One or two Amendments were made on the Committee stage, but at the end the Bill had the approval of both sides of the House and the blessing of Her Majesty's Government. I hope that to-day your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Jessel.)
4.43 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. We feel that in many cases the general public are in need of the kind of protection which the Bill gives, and we are very glad that it has been introduced. I particularly welcome Clause 2 (1). It is so easy, when there is a requirement that certain information is to be published, for a person publishing that information to do it in an inconspicuous way so that it is liable to be missed by the person affected. I think that Clause 2 (1) ensures that where the information is published it must be published in a manner which affords no excuse for anyone reading it to miss it. I am very glad indeed that in Clause 2 the noble Lord has made this quite clear. As I say, we welcome this Bill.

803
We hope that it will receive a speedy passage, and that these malpractices, which are evidently fairly common in the case of hire-purchase agreements, will come to an end. I am not entirely optimistic. I dare say that other means will be discovered by people engaged in these practices of disguising from the purchaser the nature of the transaction, but we will go on doing our best to protect the general public, filling in the cracks as they become manifest. This is a very good step in that direction.
4.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I think your Lordships will probably wish to give a Second Reading to this Bill which my noble friend Lord Jessel has set before us in such a clear and attractive way. I say "probably" because there has been some little doubt in the past about this type of legislation—there have been two schools of thought about this over-protective legislation which comes forward in profusion nowadays. People remind us of the old-fashioned adage of caveat emptor—that the purchaser should look after himself, decide for himself and inquire before he enters into his bargain. It is not the duty of Parliament to clutter up the Statute Book with Bills to protect the fool from his folly, and it is not the job of Parliament to put burdens upon various traders who have no intention of swindling their customers at all. We had a little bother about this during the passage of the Merchandise Marks Act. I think we spent half an afternoon deciding whether or not the slogan "Guinness is good for you" fell within the scope of the Bill.
There are, I suppose, those who say that there are innocent "tricks of the trade". There is, of course, the payment of 19s. 11¾ d. for goods which we all know perfectly well really cost £1 and therefore we should not go so far as to be fussy about that; there, people should take care of themselves. That is one school of thought The noble Lord has put the other point of issue quite clearly. Whether we like it or not, hire-purchase is here to stay. It covers a large portion of the daily retail trade of this country. A large number of people use it to improve their standard of life,
804
and every purchaser should be in a position to understand the meaning of the more subtly phrased advertisements which are put before him. I use the word "subtly" advisedly, because the subtlety often escapes some people.
Although this Bill fills a noticeable gap, I do not believe that it will put any burden on the legitimate trader. I hope that it will stop knaves, and that the people who normally practise this kind of thing will not find some way round it in five minutes. If we are to draw a balance between those people who are foolish—those who do not take the trouble to read these advertisements and understand what they really mean—and the knaves, I think quite clearly that we must give the fools the benefit of the doubt and approve this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (NAVY, MARINES AND SERVICE CIVILIANS) (OVERSEAS) BILL
4.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I am particularly glad to have the opportunity of introducing this Bill to your Lordships' House as I believe that it will be of assistance to the officers and men of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines—my old Service—and their families and will remove the disadvantage under which they suffer in relation to the other two Services. The Bill seeks to amend the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Army) Act of 1879. At that date the structure of the Navy was, of course, very different from what it is to-day, and naval officers' and ratings serving overseas were almost invariably afloat in one of Her Majesty's ships, whereas now there are many naval shore establishments, naval airfields and so forth. Section 2 of the Act of 1879 made provision for records of births, deaths and marriages occurring in the Army outside the United Kingdom to be kept at Somerset House and, in appropriate cases, by the Registrar-General in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. These

805
records have the same standing as other records kept by registrars-general and are admissible in evidence, and it is, of course, a great convenience to have them readily available at Somerset House or at the appropriate registry.
Section 37 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act of 1874 made provision for naval forces but only in the case of births and deaths occurring in naval vessels. If this Bill is passed, officers and men of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, and their families, will be in exactly the same position as those of the other Services. I should mention here that the Act of 1879 was extended to cover the Royal Air Force by an order of 1918. In these days, there are often considerable numbers of civilians attached to the various Services overseas. Here I might add that members of the Women's Royal Naval Service are technically civilians, and this Bill extends similar facilities for registration to civilians attached to any one of the three Services. There is an exception to this in that it is intended to cover only civilians with connections in the United Kingdom. The Bill would not cover local civilians engaged abroad as they will be excepted from the Bill by regulation.
The foregoing is covered by Clause 1 of the Bill. To turn to Clause 2, in the past the deaths of certain Royal Naval and Royal Marines personnel which have occurred ashore (mainly during the war) have been registered sometimes by mistake and sometimes with the concurrence of the Registrar-General, who was asked to do so to assist them because of conditions during the war, particularly in regard to cases from Singapore and Malaya where a considerable number of deaths occurred. Clause 2 validates these registrations which were previously without statutory authority. Similarly non-statutory entries have sometimes been made in Army and R.A.F. registers, and these also are validated by this clause, provided that the persons concerned come within the categories I have already mentioned as covered by Clause 1.
I do not think it is necessary to say much about Clause 3 except that it revokes the order of 1918 relative to the R.A.F., which Service is now covered by Clause 1 (3). It also makes provision for the effect of the Bill to extend to Northern Ireland. I am sure your Lordships will
806
agree that this Bill is entirely non-controversial. I understand that it has the blessing of the three Registrars-General in the United Kingdom. It will remove a slight disadvantage under which officers and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines have suffered in the past, and I therefore commend it to your Lordships and beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Gifford.)
4.55 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this Bill has the support of all Parties, and the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has explained its purpose to your Lordships very clearly. This is the last of the measures before us to-day for the purpose of clearing up what might be called "minor anomalies". This minor anomaly has now existed for some eighty years without, so far as I know, anybody being much the worse for it. But I am all in favour of tidiness in legislation, and if this Bill clears up the position of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines as compared with the other Services I think it is right that it should be done. We therefore welcome the Bill.
4.56 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I rise to say that Her Majesty's Government support this Bill, and I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for the clear way in which he has explained its provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he did not think anyone had suffered much in the last eighty years because of the fact that a Bill like this, had not been passed, but it is fair to say that he will find in Clause 2 fairly extensive provisions for validation of registrations which have taken place but which have not had the statutory backing of registration in this country; and, for all I know, there may be many more cases of that character. In fact, I am amazed that a Bill like this has not been introduced before.
On the Committee stage I shall suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, fairly extensive Amendments to the Bill—extensive in form, that is, although, in fact, they will not make much difference to the substance of the Bill itself. May I very shortly refer to them? In the first clause, I am going to propose that action be

807
taken by Order in Council instead of by regulation, as at present laid down. That will necessitate fairly extensive re-drafting, but the advantage is that the procedure will then be the same for all three Services, which I believe is desirable. I am also going to suggest Amendments providing for the registration of deaths on board ship and in aircraft belonging to the Crown or used by Her Majesty's Forces which are not registered in the United Kingdom. This Bill is a convenient opportunity to make that provision. Up to the present time there has been no adequate provision for deaths occurring in those circumstances, and it is a convenient moment to provide for that under this Bill. Frankly, that will mean a slight extension of the Title of the Bill.
The only other small point on which I shall suggest an Amendment is in regard to children of persons affected by this Bill who are illegitimate. In certain cases these illegitimate children can be legitimised by subsequent marriage. At present, there is no provision for the registration of such births in this country, and the Amendment which I shall propose will be intended to cover that point. I should like to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ASIAN INFLUENZA
4.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they will be prepared to make a comprehensive statement on the epidemic of Asian influenza and measures taken against it. The noble Viscount said; My Lords, my Question is a simple one: to ask Her Majesty's Government to make a comprehensive statement on the epidemic of Asian influenza and measures taken against it. It will be observed that this is a matter which does not touch the controversies that divide the two sides of the House except for one interesting point that for the first time we have heard from the Government Front Bench that "China" meant Formosa, which will certainly be a surprise, considering that the Government of China at
808
Pekin has been recognised by Her Majesty's Government for many years. Apart from that, there is no point of political controversy at all.
What I am asking is, what are Her Majesty's Government going to do? I hope I am not going to get the simple answer that they are taking precautions at the docks. No doubt that is part of the scheme of defence. But this is something much wider. Mr. Ritchie Calder's article in the New Statesman was very informative. He said that any aircraft can now carry this infection and that it has turned up in the most surprising parts of the world. It has actually got to America, Australia and South Africa. Therefore I hope that we may have a comprehensive statement from the noble Earl.
The first question I ask is; what is the gravity of this outbreak? Having read the World Health Organisation bulletins which are issued on this matter, and The Times and other sources of information, I find that no one will say with certainty how fatal this disease is. That it is very widespread and very catching—there have been half-a-million cases in Hong Kong alone—is clear. Many noble Lords will remember the epidemic which followed the First World War, and which actually had a death roll of 15 million people in the world. This matter, therefore, certainly deserves very careful attention by the Government. The only thing in this connection that I have seen is a statement that we are preparing some form of prophylactic or antibiotic, or whatever it may be, and distributing it throughout the world.
We have, of course, an Influenza Research Branch of our own; it is at Mill Hill and Dr. Andrews is in charge. I believe there are others in other parts of the world but ours stands high. I am emphasising that this is not what we used to call a local government board job. That is why we have a world organisation to deal with it. I understand that forty-six public laboratories are to be supplied with this specially distilled—if that is the word—prophylactic remedy. Of course, the natural machine for all this work is the World Health Organisation. Of all the international organisations that have come into being since the Second World War, the World Health Organisation has perhaps been the most directly productive of happiness for mankind.
Now to come to the controversial point of my question. I asked, what we were doing about China. I must say that I was astounded at the reply—given, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford—to the effect that if they care to send any information about their influenza we shall be very glad to receive it. What an extraordinary statement to make! I asked him specifically in my question: "Is it a fact that this thing has been raging (raging is one of the words that has been used) in China?" He said: "I do not know, but if any information is sent to us it will be very carefully considered."
The Times on June 13 published a statement from Sir Macfarlane Burnet who is, I believe, a great expert. He has now gone to Geneva to the conference which is being held there. There have also been statements made in the New Statesman by two other eminent scientists. We know that the disease reached Hong Kong from somewhere, and we are told that in the defence of world health the best we can do is to receive gratefully anything that comes in the post with the China postmark upon it. That really is not treating the subject as seriously as it deserves. Obviously, China should be, either temporarily or permanently, a member of the World Health Organisation. There are political difficulties but I am not raising that matter now. I am not asking the House to take any side on the question as to whether America or ourselves are right about recognition of Pekin. What I am saying is: Here is a machine; can you use it?
One of my Parliamentary Questions was: "Can a country be a member of the World Health Organisation without being a member of U.N.O.?" The answer given was, "Yes." Four or five countries were named by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, who said that they are in the World Health Organisation but that, for political reasons, we could not have them in U.N.O. at the present time. If that is the case with regard to such countries as Viet Nam or Korea or somewhere else, why cannot it be the case with China? This is a serious question about the health of mankind. I hope that in the statement which is to be made on behalf of the Government there may be some encouraging word, some suggestion of improvisation of a way by which this scientific international machinery can be used
810
for the protection of the health of mankind.
I put this specific question to the noble Earl, Lord Home: "Will you put China" (by "China" I am afraid I mean the same thing as the British Foreign Office mean by China)—" will you put Pekin or China on the list as well as the forty-six stations who are to receive these preparations?" I ask that question. I suggest that it was implied in my previous Question. But I asked it at about a quarter to three and I sincerely trust that now I may have an answer to it. Really, if we are to enlarge and glorify this House, Ministers must learn that they are there to answer questions. That is what is called Parliamentary government.
I would add this. People speak as if we are offering a favour or recognizing China by taking this; information from her. Certainly it is vital to us if we are to protect our own people And what about China herself? I say it is just as much our duty to protect the health of millions of Chinese as it is to protect the health of the rest of the world. What is the good of standing together, talking about "a Christian world", if we are going to leave 630 million people without assistance; if we are going to pass by on the other side? I inquired this morning how many fully qualified doctors there are in China. I was told, 20,000. And there are 630 million people. They are struggling, with success, to reconstruct their society and to build up the happiness of their people. So I ask the Government to tell us whether they will make available for China whatever they are making available in the international sphere. They cannot do it singly; they must do it through their international organisation and they must, by some means, improvise a way in which the rupture or crack which has followed the dispute about recognition of Pekin is made good for the public weal.
5.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the strain of virus which is causing the present epidemic of influenza in Asia and elsewhere has been identified. Laboratory tests have now confirmed that four persons who arrived in this country suffering from influenza had Asiatic influenza, or the Asiatic type of influenza,

811
but there is no indication at present of any material spread of infection of this type of influenza in this country. A vaccine designed to protect against the particular strain of influenza is now being produced on a laboratory scale. It is being tested for efficacy and the results will be known shortly. I should like to point out that the disease is clinically mild and of short duration. It should not be assumed that vaccination would necessarily be an appropriate measure for general use. The noble Viscount added to his Question, if I may say so, by a rather long dissertation on China, which I think is slightly wide of the realm of the Ministry of Health.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The question was not addressed to the Ministry of Health. It was addressed to the Government.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Perhaps what I have to say will give the noble Viscount some comfort. The Pekin Government have not asked the World Health Organisation for any assistance. The World Health Organisation, by its structure, cannot voluntarily interfere in any country that has not asked it to do so, but I feel sure that it would consider any requests from Pekin, or any other country, should they be made.
5.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his courteous reply, which was international in the way I desired, but I would point out to him that only on May 10, at Geneva, the representative instructed by Her Majesty's Government—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is an Unstarred Question.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Why are four noble Lords saying, "Order, Order!" all together? It is an Unstarred Question.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Well, we will have the matter cleared up; we will have it cleared up privately. Surely an Unstarred Question gives the questioner the right to reply.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If that is so, I bow to authority. I only wished to ask why the Government opposed collaboration with China, but I bow to the noble Lords, Lord Mersey, Lord Onslow, and others, who inform me that I am out of order. I certainly shall not transgress, but all the same I am not out of order.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past five o'clock.