Lords Sitting of 1 July 1959

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool

NEW OVERHEAD RAILWAY SYSTEM
2.35 p.m.
LORD HAWKE:My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the claim by engineers of the Southern Rhodesian Department of Engineering and Construction that they have invented a revolutionary new overhead railway; and whether Her Majesty's Government are making arrangements for testing the system in this country.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Gosford, I beg to reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. Her Majesty's Government are interested in any developments which might help in transport matters, and my right honourable friend is considering the information at present available to him upon these proposals.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government will publish as soon as possible details of this system, which claims to be very revolutionary and seems likely to be extremely valuable in opening up the open spaces in Africa with all-weather transport?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, at present details of this system are as yet very sketchy, but I will certainly bring what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, arising out of the reply of the noble Earl, may I ask whether he is aware that a
526
Scottish consulting engineer not so long ago designed an efficient type of overhead railway? And is he further aware that this type of railway has been taken up by a French firm, in conjunction with the French Government, and that a test line is being built in France at Chateauneuf-sur-Loire which will be available for testing at the end of this year? Will the noble Earl ask his right honourable friend whether a representative of the British Government could be sent at the appropriate time to inspect it and to see whether it has possibilities from the point of view of providing a solution to the problem of rapid transit into towns?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I understand that the scheme has been put forward in France by the International Monorail Company, but so far as I know it is still a scheme and has yet to be tested.

FILM CENSORSHIP
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the procedure adopted by the Board of Film Censors in viewing screen plays; and if their attention has been called to the picture advertised The Mating Game.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the British Board of Film Censors is an independent body appointed by the film trade. It determines its own methods and standards, in consultation with the trade and with the local authorities who are responsible for licensing the public exhibition of films. I understand that the film referred to in the Question has been passed for universal exhibition.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, may I ask whether it is possible to get an answer to a question? I asked about the method and what is done. Do the members of the Board view the pictures as a Board, or individually? Is that known? Do they take each picture separately? Can we have any details about that?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think I should make it clear that the procedure and the methods adopted by the

527
Board of Film Censors are purely its own affair. The Board has nothing to do, in any shape or form, with the Government. I will, however, do my best; I do not want to be disobliging to the noble Lord. As I understand the position, the Board has examiners whose job it is to view the pictures individually, after which those which are passed are put in one or other of three categories: Category "U", denoting that the film is suitable for exhibition to people of any age; Category "A", which denotes that children under the age of 16 should not be admitted unless they are accompanied by, or within the charge of, a parent or some other person who has attained the age of 16; and Category "X" denoting that persons under the age of 16 years should not be admitted.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, is there then no way in which the nation can deal with the constant glamorisation of lust, and is it a fact that this great and rich industry has descended to the level of pimps and panders? Can we do nothing about it?
LORD CHESHAM: It is the view of Her Majesty's Government, and has been the view of successive Governments, that the existing arrangement whereby it falls to local, authorities to license any particular film—which usually they do not do unless it has first a certificate from the Board of Film Censors—is quite adequate.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, disclosing my interest in the industry, whether he is aware—as, indeed, he has already pointed out—that this arrangement has lasted for a long time and has given general satisfaction; and that the film industry indignantly repudiates the charge which the noble Lord opposite has just brought against it?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I was aware of that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may it be made clear that as this Board is an independent body Her Majesty's Government should not meddle with its procedure?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should perhaps have made clear that
528
Her Majesty's Government have no intention of interfering with the procedure of the Board.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, does that mean that the poster advertising the particular film I mentioned in my Question is not to be criticised by anybody and not to be dealt with at all? It is frankly pornographic—there is no doubt at all about that. To say that everybody is satisfied is not true. I never had so big a correspondence on this subject, or one so favourable to what I did, as when I raised this question the other day in this House. Surely something should be done about it.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to refer to posters advertising films he should put down a Question about it. That matter does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper, because posters advertising things—films or anything else—are nothing whatever to do with the British Board of Film Censors.
LORD AMWELL: So I get no answer?

ESTATE DUTY ON LITERARY WORKS
2.43 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to recent correspondence in the Press complaining of the harsh and unreasonable attitude of the Estate Duty Office in valuing the copyright of literary works of deceased persons for probate purposes.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, copyright in literary works, in common with other property, is valued for estate duty purposes, under Section 7 (5) of the Finance Act, 1894, on the basis of the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and subject to right of appeal, the property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased. Your Lordships will appreciate that the Estate Duty Office have a duty to satisfy themselves as to the

529
values placed on property by representatives of the taxpayer. Your Lordships will also appreciate that the rule of confidentiality in tax matters prevents me from discussing the facts of the particular case which gave rise to the correspondence in the Press to which the noble Lord refers. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, however, satisfied that the aspersions against the Estate Duty Office are unwarranted.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer, but I would ask him whether he does not think that it is necessary for the Government to see not only that justice is done in these matters but also that it appears to be done. The general public have no knowledge of the matters known to the noble Earl, and to them this seems a very unjust state of affairs.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are all subject to very heavy, and some of us may think oppressive, taxation, and in order to prevent evasion the Finance Act imposes on the Inland Revenue officers statutory duties which they have to carry out. Because of the rule about confidentiality I cannot discuss the correspondence in this matter. I think that if the noble Lord were to read it again he would agree that the Inland Revenue have carried out their duties in a reasonable and considerate way according to law.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, will the noble Earl ask Her Majesty's Government to consider this suggestion: that when there is a difference of opinion between the Estate Duty Office and the heir or beneficiary in the estate as to the value of any asset, the beneficiary or the executor should be allowed to say to to the Estate Duty Office, "Well, if you value this article at this price, find me a market and I will sell it"? I ask that question because I know of occasions where that has been said and the suggestion has been entirely inoperative. As a matter of fact, I myself inherited a house which I——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SALTOUN: I beg your Lordships' pardon.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, surely that is not a matter of criticism
530
against Inland Revenue officials but a criticism against the Finance Act. If the noble Lord wants personal reminiscences, I may say that I spent most of my last year at Oxford disputing with the Inland Revenue about the death duties on my father's estate, with the result that I did not obtain a very good degree.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, my actual question, which I was in perfect order in putting, is the one thing the noble Earl has not answered. I asked whether an arrangement could not be made whereby, if the Inland Revenue put upon an article a value which the executor or beneficiary disputes, the beneficiary or the executor can challenge them to sell it at that price.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is exactly what I was referring to when I said that this was a matter for criticising the Finance Act and not the officials of the Inland Revenue. They cannot make these decisions; it is a matter for Parliament in passing the Finance Act.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the particular case to which he refers as being confidential was disclosed in the Press? And was it not a case where a literary work written ten years before the death was valued on the assumption that it had film rights and the value of those film rights was to be taken into account? Does that not appear, on the face of it, a very disturbing state of affairs, and ought not the House to be given rather more reassurance on the matter than the noble Earl has given?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am aware of the correspondence in the Press, which I read with great interest—including the prospect of seeing Mr. Compton Mackenzie's ghost. But I am afraid that the rule about confidentiality prevents me, despite the fact there has been this correspondence in the Press, from saying anything about the details of this case.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation has changed so much, because of the question of film rights and other things of this kind, that the whole of this matter ought to be looked at again? It is not

531
a question of civil servants not doing their job to the best of their ability and very conscientiously, but that the method adopted, which no doubt in the nineteenth century was a perfectly good one, has now ceased to be appropriate. It is a difficult problem, but I would ask the Minister whether he does not think the Government might give some thought to this matter and possibly set up a Committee to go into this whole problem.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, very likely; but I think that is a matter to be considered by Parliament in passing the Finance Act, and it cannot arise as a matter of criticism against the conduct of the Inland Revenue officials in carrying out their duties under the law.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: During his studies at Oxford, did the noble Earl find any reputable dictionary containing this word "confidentiality"?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I must confess that the first time I saw it was this morning.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, if the noble Earl assures me from his confidential information that there is a very good explanation in this particular case, I am prepared to accept that; but I still feel it necessary that, in some way or other, the public should be assured that the Estate Duty Office is not playing some sort of "hanky-panky" with these estates.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am most anxious not to discourage noble Lords opposite from mitigating the incidence of estate duty.

MEMBERSHIP OF KRUPP MIXED COMMITTEE
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the seventh member of the Krupp Mixed Committee has been elected; and, if so, what is his name and nationality, and what are his political, business, economic or other associations.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, Herr Eberhard Reinhardt has been elected as the seventh member of the Krupp Mixed Committee. He is a Swiss national, and since 1945 has been one of the general directors of the Crédit Suisse in Zürich.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. May we take it that the Committee is now in session?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No, my Lords, your Lordships may not take it that the Committee is now in session; but your Lordships may take it that the Committee will be in session very shortly.

NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
NEW TOWNS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

NATIONAL PARKS
2.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to call attention to the Ninth Report of the National Parks Commission; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said; My Lords, the Motion which I am about to move has had a rather chequered career in this House. It has been fixed on no fewer than five different days; and I have to apologise to the House, because it no doubt has caused considerable inconvenience to those noble Lords who were to speak. The result of all these changes is that we have one speaker who has dropped out and, so far, one who has taken his place. I thought it would be right to have a debate on National Parks because during the whole of their existence there has been only one debate in this House, because they are arousing a great and increasing interest throughout the country, and because we are shortly to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the creation of the National Parks Commission. We are about to discuss the Ninth Report of the Commission, and it is an occasion for reviewing the position of the National Parks; their achievements, their failings, and their future.
Now the National Parks arose out of the Report of a Committee known as the Hobhouse Committee. This Committee recommended that we should set up some eleven National Parks throughout the country; and up to the moment ten of these National Parks have been created. The ten National Parks occupy something like one-eleventh of the area of England and Wales, somewhere about 5,200-odd square miles—quite a substantial part of England and Wales. Of the ten, three are in Wales and the remainder in England. Curiously enough, of the three in Wales, two are in South Wales and one in North Wales. The Act does not apply to Scotland, and that is a matter for great regret, because there are vast areas of extensive beauty in Scotland which most of us know very well, which ought to be preserved, whose beauty ought to be enhanced, and which the public of Great Britain ought to be able to enjoy to an even greater extent than they do now. There is a movement to extend National Parks to Scotland, and I hope it will receive en-
534
couragement from the Government in due course.
The eleventh of the proposed National Parks is the Norfolk Broads. The Norfolk Broads have created certain difficulties which I do not need to dwell on to any extent; but there is an element of urgency about dealing with them, because they are sifting and gradually there is an encroachment on the waters—and, of course, the beauty of the Norfolk Broads does consist in their waters. I was never entirely certain whether the Norfolk Broads were quite appropriate as a National Park. It is undoubtedly an area of outstanding beauty: but, at any rate, it has been the subject of consideration by the Government, I know, and they are now looking at it in the light of the Report of the Commission on Inland Waterways. I hope that the noble Earl who is going to reply may be able to give us some information as to whether the Government have come to any conclusions about how to deal with the Norfolk Broads. Of this I am quite sure: that whether they are dealt with as a National Park, as an area of outstanding natural beauty, or in some other way, the problem ought not to be allowed to drift. If we allow the problem of the Norfolk Broads to drift, they will in due course disappear entirely.
I have referred to the National Parks. In addition, the Act itself provides for the creation of a number of areas of outstanding natural beauty. These are areas which, while they are not suitable as National Parks—not because they are any less lovely, but because they are not particularly areas in which large numbers of people can be suitably encouraged to congregate for the purpose of recreation—they are nevertheless areas which ought to be specially preserved, and whose beauty ought to be enhanced if at all possible. An increasing number of such areas have been designated during the ten years. In the South of England, we have had the Sussex Downs, the Kent Downs, the Surrey Hills, the Chilterns, and areas of that kind; and it is a source of great gratification to me personally that so many of these lovely areas, with which one is so intimately connected and which one visits almost weekly, are to be the subject of careful preservation. In the North, there is the Northumberland coast and a number of other similar areas.
Another feature of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was the creation of a number of long-distance routes for pedestrians. The progress there has been rather slower. I realise that it is somewhat difficult to negotiate some of these paths which are in private ownership, because it is necessary to get agreements with the owners for access, but progress has been steady. None of them is complete, but the Pennine Way is well on the way; and there is a fine coastal path on the Pembroke coast and another on the Sussex Downs.
To-day we are considering the Ninth Report of the National Parks Commission, which is presided over with such distinction by my noble friend Lord Strang, who is here this afternoon. A great deal of their work has consisted of efforts to defend the National Parks from attack, a matter with which I will deal in a moment. But on the positive side they have done an immense amount of valuable work: in publicity; in building up a country code of behaviour; in putting up notices; in issuing literature; in encouraging the provision of facilities for recreation, including hostels and opportunities for campers; in dealing with litter, and, above all, in educating the public in the proper use of the National Parks. Obviously, unless the National Parks are properly used, they will defeat their purpose. They can become—indeed, very often after a Bank Holiday they do become—eyesores, places to keep away from rather than to go to. The Commission have done valuable work in educating the general public in the proper use of our national parks. I do not think that they would claim they have entirely succeeded but I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Strang, were free to speak—and I am sorry that he is not—he would be able to say that to-day the condition of the National Parks after a holiday is much better than it was nine or ten years ago.
One interesting feature about the National Parks movement is the large amount of voluntary work that is being done in connection with it and the large number of people who have been attracted to it. It is gratifying to find the great amount of enthusiasm that exists among so many people, particularly young people, about the National Parks. I should particularly like to say
536
a word about the work of the voluntary wardens. There are wardens in all ten of the National Parks, doing a variety of valuable work. In the Peak National Park alone, for instance, there are 400 voluntary workers. In the Lake District the wardens particularly carry out work in litter-scavenging at Bank Holiday periods—though, as I have said, I hope that this will become gradually less. On the York Moors, they have made it their particular job to watch over the wild daffodils which are a feature of the Farmdale Nature Reserve.
A particularly interesting feature of this work is that for the last two years during the summer vacation a number of Cambridge undergraduates have carried out work in various Parks, clearing disfigurements—disfigurements which ought to have been cleared away by the Government, so that they are doing the work which Her Majesty's Government ought to be doing. They have cleared a disused gun-site in the Peak National Park and derelict buildings in Northumberland, and have cleared similar types of disfigurements in the Lake District and the Peak. Many others still remain, but we are gradually getting rid of them. If I may be permitted a personal note, it is interesting to note that the inspirer and leader of this group of Cambridge undergraduates is Mr. Michael Dower. Many of your Lordships will remember his father, the late Mr. John Dower, who was, in a way, the inspirer of the National Parks movement and who played a great part in bringing National Parks into existence. He was a member of the Hobhouse Committee and gave many years of his life to ensuring that National Parks would be set up. His mother, Mrs. Dower, is Vice-Chairman of the National Parks Commission, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strang, could testify to the great value she has been to them. I think that this is an interesting illustration of an hereditary interest in this voluntary work.
So far I have dealt with the credit side of the work of the National Parks Commission and with what has been achieved, but I regret to have to say that, on the other hand, there are a number of features which are less satisfactory—indeed, disquieting. The National Parks were not created as museum pieces, and it was never the intention that they should be sterilised,

537
that they should become a sort of Williamsburgs—although I should like to see a Williamsburg or two, even in this country. I do not think it would be right to compare our National Parks with national parks in countries like the United States, Canada or South America, where they have unlimited territory. Nevertheless, we recognise that the National Parks have a living part in our social life, have to evolve dynamically and, therefore, that appropriate activities have to go on. The whole idea of a National Park is that it is something special. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to read one or two short extracts from the National Parks Act. Section 5 of the Act says that the intention is:
"…of preserving and enhancing the natural beauties of the areas specified…"
and these areas
"are those extensive tracts of country in England and Wales… which…by reason of—

(a) their natural beauty, and

(b) the opportunities they afford for open air recreation, having regard both to their character and to their position in relation to centres of population,

it is especially desirable…"
to preserve.
That is the function of the National Park. As I have said, while we all recognise that developments have to take place, that people in the areas have to earn their livings and so on, we ought definitely to set our faces against any kind of development which conflicts with the conception of a National Park. I am sorry to have to say that in a number of cases the Government have permitted that type of development. I want to mention three in particular, because they have all taken place during the year which is covered by the Ninth Report of the Commission. First, there is the Esso oil refinery; secondly, the Angle iron ore stocking ground—both in the Pembrokeshire National Park: and thirdly, there is the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in the Snowdonia National Park. I will not refer in any detail to the pylons and overhead wires which have done much to cause disfigurement in other National Parks, and which could at certain expense have been put underground, but I do want to refer to these three particular developments which, in
538
my view, completely change the character of the National Park and are in complete conflict with their whole conception.
It seems to me absurd to create National Parks, to create the machinery of the National Parks Commission and special planning boards to look after them, and then for the Government to come along and do what is the equivalent of destroying their whole character. In the case of the last of the three I have mentioned, the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, the decision was actually contrary to the opinion of the Ministry inspector who had been appointed to consider the case. I should like to read to your Lordships a few short extracts showing the views of the National Parks Commission on these matters. First, as to the Angle iron ore stocking ground, they say:
"We feel deep concern at the fact that a site in a National Park should have been chosen for this project. We consider it to be totally at variance with the right use of land in a National Park."
Then, as to the Esso petroleum refinery, they say:
"We must express our keen disappointment at the Minister's decision. We recognise that he must have regard to other considerations than those with which we are concerned, but we very much regret his conclusion that the interests of the company must be met in full even at the cost of serious injury to the National Park."
Your Lordships may have seen a small, beautifully produced book called Our National Heritage, which contains a number of photographs of National Parks and areas of exceptional beauty. This book, which has been sent to me, and I imagine to all your Lordships, has been published by the National Benzole Company, Limited. I do not know the relationship between the National Benzole Company and the Esso Petroleum Company, but I imagine that there is some relationship between the two. So you have, on the one hand, the National Benzole Company doing everything they can to encourage people to visit the National Parks—in their cars, of course—and, on the other, the Esso Petroleum Company doing everything they can to discourage people from going to the National Parks—because an oil refinery is not exactly an attraction in a National Park.
I know that the Government have imposed a great many conditions to make

539
this oil refinery and the iron ore stocking area as attractive as possible. The most experienced and eminent architects have been employed to camouflage the oil refinery (whether it is going to be made to look like a cathedral or a baronial castle, I do not know), but I do not know whether any architect can camouflage the smell of an oil refinery and make it smell like a perfumery, or otherwise change its character. It certainly is not in keeping with a National Park.
I recognise that the Government have done all they could to find an alternative site; but if we want National Parks we must make some sacrifice for them; and it may be necessary for industry to put up with the second best. I readily admit that probably the best site for an oil refinery or for an iron ore stocking place may well be the areas which have been selected. I suppose we ought to be thankful that they do not require Salisbury Cathedral or some such place. Nobody would dream of committing sacrilege by trying to use areas of that kind; and I would go so far as to say it is almost an act of sacrilege to take the National Parks for these purposes. If we believe in National Parks, we ought to do all we can to maintain and preserve their general character.
I want to say a word or two about caravans. The caravan to-day is rapidly becoming the poor man's hotel. Caravans have made enormous progress in recent years. I do not know whether your Lordships have seen some of the latest caravans, but they are very fine and attractive places in which to live, at any rate during the summer months. Many of them have private bathrooms, kitchen facilities, refrigerators and so on, and are most suitable for couples with not too much money to occupy on holiday. I think they are most appropriate in the National Parks, and I am glad to say that the National Parks Commission and the planning committees of the National Parks are giving a certain amount of encouragement, and a growing amount of encouragement, to these caravan owners. But they are still not doing enough. We want far more sites for these caravans than are at present available—and by that I mean suitable sites provided with water and all the necessary amenities. I believe that if we did that we should be rendering a great service and should be
540
helping to use the National Park for the purpose for which they were created.
As usual, there is a criticism that the National Parks are not being sufficiently financed. The principle on which they are at present financed is that it is a responsibility partly of the local planning authorities and partly of the Government. Where considerable expense is required, however, the local authorities have found themselves unable to make the necessary contribution, and in a number of cases representations have been made to the Government for a larger share of the contribution. The more national these National Parks become, and the more people who visit them from outside the area, as is the case to an increasing extent, the more justified it is that the burden of the finance should fall nationally rather than locally. It so happens that the areas in which the most beautiful of the National Parks are situated are areas where the resources of the local authority are least; and with a little more finance we could go a long way.
Money is needed for the removal of unsightly buildings; for putting overhead wires underground, and for building in accordance with local style and tradition. For instance, in the Cotswolds it is almost a crime to build houses other than in the local stone and in the local character. We are destroying something that is, I think, unique in the whole world unless we maintain that character. But that type of building is expensive, and we cannot expect private enterprise, who would probably not get any more for their dwellings when they have built them by building them in the more expensive way, to incur the additional expense. If we want to maintain the character of that kind of area there must be some contribution, and even if it means creating a precedent I feel that it is a precedent which will be well worth while. Then we want more hostels and hotels. I would deny that these National Parks are to be solely places for young people. We older people should be able to enjoy them as well, and there ought to be encouragement for the building of places which are suitable for the older people as well as for the younger. Some of these matters may require legislation, and I hope whichever Government introduces the next series of measures will not hesitate to come to Parliament to

541
ask for an Amendment of the National Parks Act in order to facilitate the purposes for which these parks were created.
I want to conclude by expressing the thanks of the whole nation to all those who have been concerned with making these National Parks so successful. First of all, the Commission itself, the Chairman and the various other members. They have shown an immense amount of devotion to their cause. In fact, if they had not acted as dedicated men and women we should never have reached our present position. The Park Planning Authorities, whether they have been joint or advisory, have played a great part. When I introduced the Act I thought that where there were several authorities concerned a Joint Advisory Committee was better than perhaps several committees from each of the local planning authorities, with a joint advisory committee responsible for the whole area. Both have been tried, and it would be difficult to say which has been more successful. The latter is the more difficult type of management, but it has been successful, again because of the devotion of those who have been concerned with it.
A great debt of gratitude—and I think we ought to say so—is due to all the devoted voluntary workers: the wardens and others, who have not been afraid to do the menial work involved in picking up arid disposing of litter from the National Parks, giving of their time and efforts, and so on. All these have played their part in the success of the National Parks during these ten years. They have been pioneering years. It has been an entirely new venture, and I think we can all look back with a sense of pride and of achievement to the work of these first ten years. We must be vigilant to ensure that the next ten years will not see this work undone, but that they will bring to full fruition the ideas of those who pioneered this conception—the preservation of the beauty of the country and the fullest opportunity for the people of our country to enjoy it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I am sure that I express the view of noble Lords in every part of the House when I say that we are most grateful to the
542
noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for introducing in the House this afternoon this topic of National Parks. I know that it is the conventional thing to thank the introducer of a subject of this kind, but I say it with particular feeling for two reasons. First, it gives us an opportunity, which I feel we ought to take, of expressing our gratitude to the National Park Commissioners, under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Strang, for the noble work they have done in the most difficult circumstances—indeed, the most frustrating circumstances, as I shall show. And, secondly, it is an opportunity for giving publicity to the cause of National Parks. In my experience, National Parks have suffered in the past and suffer at the moment, because there is not a sufficiently educated, intelligent, knowledgeable public opinion behind them.
I speak, if I may say so., from somewhat sad experience. For many years I was the Chairman of the Standing Committee on National Parks which was set up by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and the constituent bodies like the National Trust and the Commons Preservation Society. The object of the Standing Committee was to agitate for the creation of National Parks. I was at the same time President of the Friends of the Lake District, a post which is now occupied, I am glad to think, by my noble friend Lord Winster. The purpose of the Friends of the Lake District, as its title indicates, was to try to safeguard that great sanctuary and that great place of beauty.
The first item on its programme was to make the Lake District a National Park. I am not going to go into the frustrating history of those years: they were long years; they were arduous years. We interviewed Government Departments and Ministers; we wrote books and articles; we held meetings and we did everything we could to create a public opinion which would make the Government of the day, of whatever complexion it might be, set up in this country of ours a system of National Parks. If your Lordships will bear with me I will give two illustrations to show why we felt the matter so urgent. Before National Parks were introduced in the Act of 1949, believe me! to save a footpath or a remote moor, or a place

543
of beauty in our island was fraught with the most intense difficulty.
Take the case of Eskdale, in the Lake country, which I know so well. In 1934, the Forestry Commission (about whom I shall have something to say a little later), with the taxpayers' money, purchased land in upper Eskdale. In 1936 they issued a White Paper saying what they were going to do with it. In a word, the plantations that they were going to make in that remote and lovely place were to destroy the whole of the natural beauty which had been for centuries associated with it. The Friends of the Lake District organised the most powerful oppositon, and presented a Petition which can be seen as an appendix to a wonderful little book called Afforestation in the Lake District by a great lover of the Lake District, the late Reverend H. H. Symonds, and that Petition represented every single phase of public opinion in this country.
A deputation went to the Forestry Commission. I had the honour of being a member of it, and it was led by the Archbishop of York, who made a very notable speech to the Forestry Commission, saying in effect that there is only one Lake District; destroy its beauty now and you destroy it not merely for this generation, you destroy it for ever, and we have a duty to generations that are yet to come. My noble friend Lord Beveridge used the expression about it to the Forestry Commission that the Lake Country is the very place for young people and for people of moderate means, and we have a duty to preserve it as a national thing just as we would preserve Westminster Abbey. The other speech to which I would make reference, because it adds point to what I am going to say in a moment, was by the poet Lascelles Abercrombie. He drew attention to a factor which has very rarely been on the lips of other men, the spiritual value that lay in the sight of natural beauty. The master of Trinity, Dr. Trevelyan, also lay stress upon the fact and quoted, "Without vision the people perish" and, "The sight of natural beauty is a great human need."
All these things were done before the Forestry Commission. With what result? That in order to preserve in that lovely land of Eskdale a few
544
hundred square miles, we had to pay voluntarily to the Forestry Commission something like £1,480—a figure of that kind—to compensate them for not planting there and destroying the natural beauty of that area. An agreement was entered into in 1938 whereby the Forestry Commission agreed not to plant in Lower Eskdale and in certain parts of the Duddon Valley. The voluntary society of which I was the president had, by their subscriptions from their subscribers, to provide the money to the Forestry Commission. I thought then that that was entirely wrong, and it was one of the factors, and a very strong factor indeed, which made me a most earnest propagandist for the setting up in this country of National Parks.
The other incident, if it can be termed an incident, which has a slight bearing on what I am going to say in a moment is that in 1945 and 1946 the Whitehaven Corporation, in conjunction with a great industrial concern, Courtaulds, wanted to take water from that lovely lake in the western Lakeland, Ennerdale Water. As many of your Lordships will know, it is one of the most lovely, remote, solitary places yet to be found in this Island. They wanted the water for a commercial factory of Courtaulds which at that time was being erected at Sellafield. The Friends of the Lake District, the Society for the Preservation of Rural England and the National Trust all combined to oppose it, and we produced, if I may say so, a very powerful case against it.
There was an inquiry. We briefed counsel. The case which was put into the hands of counsel, in my judgment, was overwhelming. We showed that they could take the water from Ennerdale for their purposes without raising the level of the water at all. Your Lordships will appreciate that the trouble about making a lake into a reservoir, or building a dam, is that you get a difference between high water and low water, due to the accidental ratios between rainfall and matters of that kind. The moment you get low water round about the fringes of the lake you get a most unsightly band of bleached rock, mud, stones and things of that kind. So we said, "Here is a plan by which you can raise the level of the water and provide all the water you want without any injury to Ennerdale." We also provided

545
a scheme whereby the water could be drawn from other places. With what result? The Minister of Health, who had the deciding voice in that day, turned it all down and said, "Ennerdale shall be made into a reservoir." But there are other powers in this world besides Government powers. For some reason, the industrial concern in question decided not to have their factory at Sella-field and to go elsewhere, so Ennerdale remained and was not made into a reservoir. I fear from the happenings which are going on in the North Country that Ennerdale is not yet secure; but we shall meet that when the moment comes.
I mention those two matters to emphasise as strongly as I can this point: that the only reason for the establishment of National Parks was, first of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said—and it is enshrined in Section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949—to preserve and enhance natural beauty, sometimes called our glorious heritage. That was the idea. When National Parks came we had agitated for three things among others. The first was the all-important matter of the preservation and the enhancement of natural beauty. We set out the usual arguments to the Minister then: that we were the most urban country in the world and that the difference in the pressure upon each square mile in our country as compared with that in other countries is colossal—over 700 persons a square mile here, 43 in the United States of America. One-third of our population lives in seven of our great cities. The natural beauty of our Island is of course very limited; land is very limited and the all-important question is how you are going to use it. Therefore, if you are going to preserve and enhance the natural beauty you must have some body powerful enough to override everybody else and to say, "Thus far shall you go, and no further".
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, say that we should set our faces against any developments in National Parks which are contrary to the spirit of the National Parks Act. I quite agree, and I will inquire in one moment into what we can do. I do not want to be pessimistic in the smallest degree, but I venture to say to this House and to
546
your Lordships that that which has been done and has now been in operation for nine years is such that we can never recall it.
In 1945—that is, four years before the National Parks Act—I was invited to deliver the Rede Lecture in the University of Cambridge, and, being so eager for the establishment of National Parks, I selected National Parks as the subject for that lecture in the Senate House at Cambridge. If your Lordships do not think it immodest of me, I should like to make one quotation from that lecture, delivered four years before the Act was brought in. I said:
"The great need is to make a sound national beginning and to make it now by the creation of National Parks, so that they may serve as a guide and stimulus and encouragement in that work of preservation which is the professed aim of Government and people alike. When National Parks are established, some, at least, of the growing dangers to the countryside will be overcome. The fairest places still left in these Islands will be secure from all assault arising either from accident or from design, and a very great contribution indeed will have been made to the happiness of millions in town and country alike."
Your Lordships may think that they are glowing words—indeed, they were. They were sustained by the view that National Parks were quite near—it was 1945. And I added to it, as all my colleagues in the open air societies added to it, that the essential thing was the setting up of a statutory body, armed by the Treasury with money, armed by the Government with powers, that should be able to override all those enemies of natural beauty who were so prevalent in those days and are so prevalent now. The difficulty was never with the small man, and the difficulty to-day is not with the small man. The difficulty always was with the great Government Departments, the great statutory bodies; and it was necessary, in our view, to see that National Park Commissioners should have those overriding powers. Well, they have not got them. When I think of my noble friend Lord Strang and his colleagues on that Commission confronted with the difficulties which are enshrined in this Report, I cannot conceal my admiration for their courage and steadfastness in view of their great disappointment.
Is it conceivable that in 1959, with all the knowledge that we have of the precious character of our countryside, and

547
how the Hobhouse Committee, to which the noble Lord referred, had spoken in the most moving language about how it was being eaten up, that the National Parks Commission should be writing these words:
"While welcoming the above statutory provisions on amenity"—
your Lordships will appreciate that in many Acts of Parliament, such as the Electricity Act, a provision is inserted that the undertakers shall have regard to the amenities of the district—
"we nevertheless cannot hide our disquiet that the year has also seen the granting of Ministerial consents for three major industrial undertakings in National Parks"—
then they are set out, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred to them.
The paragraph goes on
"We fully realise that in reaching their decisions the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and of Power had to take into account factors other than those with which, under the duty specifically laid upon us by the National Parks Act, we are specially concerned, namely the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty."
I would ask your Lordships to listen to this next sentence—
"But there is no disguising that their decisions will result in grievous damage to the landscape of two National Parks. We report at greater length…"—
as they do in the paragraphs referred to. Then there are the expressions which were read by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the various schemes. The Report is filled with that kind of note, such as where the Commissioners have said" Do not do this", and "We object to this", but without the power to enforce it.
I am one of those who recognise very fully indeed that we live in a democracy and that people who live in the National Parks have their rights, which must be considered. It is not enough to say, "Make me a dictator and let me overrule everybody". Never have we contemplated that. Our original proposal—and I still think it is the proposal which holds the field, though there is not much chance, now, I think, of its ever coming into being—was: give the National Parks Commission the power to override, to say to the great statutory bodies," You shall not do it, and if you have a grievance about it go to the appeal tribunal that we set up". We considered most carefully the nature of the appeal tribunal.
548
It was suggested at one time that it should be a Committee of the Cabinet. Upon inquiry, that was felt to be impracticable. It was then suggested that it might be a Committee of both Houses of Parliament. That was investigated and also felt to be impracticable. Finally, it was suggested—I think the proposal still holds the field—that a special Committee of the Privy Council should be set up and that gradually, over the years, a body of decisions would be gathered together which would be a perpetual guide all through the years. You would get, therefore, the decision made by the Commission, you would get your right of appeal, and everybody would be heard.
Incidentally, I should like, but it would take too much time to do it, to deal with all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Perhaps on this particular point I might interject this remark. Since the year 1956 the Commissioners have recommended that certain Amendments should be made to the Act of Parliament, and I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply to this debate will give us some encouragement on that matter. They are all set out in the Appendices to the Seventh Report and the Eighth Report, and one of them in the Seventh Report deals with the particular point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—saying to a man in the Cotswolds area, "You shall build it only to this design", or "You shall build it only on this site", and "we all recognise that this is going to cost more than it would if this were not a National Park, and we feel that you ought to be compensated".
But the Commissioners cannot do it. By one of the sections of the Act they are precluded. Therefore, a long list of Amendments has been set out by the Commissioners to make the Act of Parliament the effective thing it ought to be, year after year; and at the end of this, the Ninth, Report, there is given the correspondence with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in which he says how deeply he sympathises but there is no room in the legislative programme. I venture to submit to your Lordships that there ought to be; and I would ask the noble Earl who is dealing with this matter to represent in the strongest way possible that if we cannot go back to the ideal that we had in mind when the Hobhouse

549
Committee reported, of giving the Commission overriding powers, we can at least consider the adoption of the Amendments—I will not trouble your Lordships with them—that are set out in the Appendices to the Seventh and Eighth Reports, and which are referred to again in the Ninth, to make the Act of Parliament a much more efficient thing with regard to finance and all sorts of other matters.
Perhaps I might say this, because it might otherwise seem impertinent. The Minister of Housing and Local Government, Mr. Henry Brooke, and I were associated for some years, until he took office, on the Court of the University of London, and my admiration not merely for his ability but for his complete integrity I cannot really express to your Lordships; it is deep and profound. Therefore it enables me to say that I think that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has not paid sufficient attention to the recommendations of this Commission. I say that with all respect, and I say it after full consideration.
Pages 69 and 70 of the Report, dealing with the nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd—I am sure that the local pronunciation is rather different from mine—are worthy of your Lordships' attention. At any rate, there was an inquiry before this nuclear station was set up in, of all places, a National Park. The Commissioners were represented by counsel and gave evidence. Then there was the decision-letter of the Ministry of Power dated July, 1958, and these words occur:
"The National Parks Commission represented at the Inquiry that there must be a strong presumption against the construction of large industrial buildings in a National Park, and that this presumption could only be rebutted if it were demonstrated that the station was required in the national interest and that no other suitable sites were available."
What were they compelled to do? They were compelled only to submit, as a proposition: "You should not put it in a National Park. The only time you should put it in a National Park is if you are driven to do so as an absolute last resort, in the public interest."
Listen to what is said about the public interest:
"After considering the arguments and inspecting the site,…the Chief Engineering Inspector of the Ministry of Power came to
550
the conclusion that the presence of a nuclear power station would not even irredeemably impair the amenities of the Snowdonia National Park; he…ecommended that consent be given."
But mark that Mr. Buchanan, the Principal Inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—Mr. Brooke's Department:
"concluded that the question to be decided was whether the urgency of the power programme and the difficulty of finding sites for nuclear power stations were so great as to justify what he regarded as grievous damage to the National Park; his judgment leant strongly to the preservation of the National Park from such development, but in view of the important questions of national policy which arise in this case he did not feel able to make a formal recommendation."
I do not want to be thought impertinent or, indeed, intrusive into a field in which I ought not to enter, but I venture respectfully and humbly to say that the Ministry under Mr. Brooke, the Minister of Housing, ought to pay a great deal more attention to the recommendations of the Commission set up by Parliament for the very purpose of preserving natural beauty.
I have kept your Lordships a long time and I will conclude in a few moments; but there are one or two matters on a rather brighter note that I should like to stress. There is not time for me to expound all that the Commissioners have done. Their beneficial work throughout this country is immense and we are immensely grateful to them. I remember going to Wales and having the great privilege of speaking with the Bishop of St. Asaph at a great demonstration against the hydro-electric schemes in Snowdonia. As a result of the noble work of the Commission the visitor to Snowdonia will not see any of those four hydro-electric schemes. They are out. In my own beloved Lake country, in what I regard as the loveliest vale in all England (and indeed Ruskin thought the same), the Vale of Borrow-dale, one will not see there what was once proposed, the overhead transmission lines. Thanks to the Commission the lines are all going underground, although I believe the same battle is going to have to be fought in Upper Borrowdale. I would again say to the noble Earl who is to reply to this debate, surely it should be settled on the highest level what generating and electricity authorities ought to do. It is no

551
good putting into an Act of Parliament that they must consider amenity if, in fact, they never do so, and have to be forced to put such lines underground, lines which would destroy a lovely vale like Borrowdale, lone Borrowdale. A decision ought to be made upon that matter, and made, I think, at the earliest moment. There is another great thing the Commissioners have done. If one goes down to Dartmoor one will not now see the china clay workings which were originally set up at Lee Moor. They have been withdrawn. The immensely good work of the Commission cannot be overestimated.
I said that I would refer to the Forestry Commission once more. I am bound to say, though I do not want to be unjust—that is the last thing I want to be—that I cannot pretend to any love for the Forestry Commission. I see, for example, that they had a proposal which did not affect the Lake District. We have had enough trouble there and there is more trouble to come, but in Exmoor they proposed taking 15,000 acres of land for the purpose of plantation. The Commission said that that would completely alter the character and nature and the present wild beauty of the area, and the matter was finally referred to the Ministers. There were a number of discussions, and finally, after all that effort and struggle, with the Commission fighting very hard, the Forestry Commission withdrew their proposals, with the result that Exmoor was left free.
Let me therefore conclude by saying that, in view of all the Commissioners have done, it should be our bounden duty to give them every support in our power; and when they ask that the Act should be amended merely to give them more power to carry out what Parliament has asked them to do, it should be our first duty to see that they have that power and so are made much more efficient than they are now. I have always thought that the trouble about the National Parks was their administration. It was the decision—it is too late now to go back on it—to have them administered, so to speak, locally, whereas in truth they should be administered nationally. Naturally, when a local authority is concerned it has to consider the people living there, and the rates; and Park Planning Committees
552
are confronted with problems of the gravest difficulty every day in making a decision against amenity, on the one hand, and, perhaps, rural electrification, water power, buildings or what-not, on the other. If, therefore, we could get a public opinion which strongly supported the Commission in all these matters, and if we could induce Government Departments to look with a more benevolent eye upon natural beauty, which it is the purpose of the Act to preserve, I think we should make very great advances.
I believe it to be essential that the Commissioners should have more staff. There are only 26 people in the buildings here in London, and the work all over the country is perfectly immense. They ought to have more money. The grants which are made from central funds ought certainly to be increased. Grants ought to be available from the Land Fund for all kinds of meritorious purposes. By such means as these the Commissioners would be able to do more. If one has the money and more power, one can do more. I believe also that one of the great needs is to provide money for publicity. My noble friend spoke on the question of litter and matters of that kind, and I warmly support his words. We have always said, and I repeat here, that National Parks must be preserved in their beauty, but they must be preserved for the enjoyment of the people. And this means providing the facilities for boating, fishing, cross-country walking, rock-climbing, camping and what you will. The powers are there, but the money ought to be available for these things to be done.
In my own National Park, the Lake District National Park, great steps are being taken in the provision of lay-bys, provision for cars and all sorts of other facilities, including facilities for people to have reasonable and comparatively cheap housing accommodation for the visitors. All this requires publicity; it requires a little more money. I noticed in the other place a Question addressed to the Minister of Defence asking how much it cost per week per person to maintain our present defence, and the answer was.11s per person per week for all the millions concerned. One-eighth of a penny a week given by them to the preservation and guardianship of natural beauty in our parks would provide all the money needed.

553
My Lords, I end as I began, by saying that I think the House owes a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, not merely for his introduction of this matter here to-day but for all his work for National Parks in days past. It is a very great pleasure to me to be able to say to your Lordships that I think it is our duty to support the Commissioners in their great work and to do it with a very ready hand.
4.2 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucan has asked me to change places with him and speak now, as he has to leave the Chamber for a short time. I acceded to this request with a certain slight reluctance, because your Lordships are only too well aware how difficult it is to follow a speaker so famous for his eloquence as my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett. But I do so with some pleasure, because not only should I like to congratulate all those whom he has congratulated, to add my little meed and tribute to the work they have done, but I am sure your Lordships would like me to congratulate the noble and learned Lord himself. His speech has indicated how important a part he took in the history of this movement.
If your Lordships will permit me a little reminiscence. I remember very well, and with considerable delight, the occasion on which I myself, I think with the late Mr. John Dower and some other member of the C.P.R.E., called upon him at his chambers in Queen Anne's Mansions to ask him whether he would take on this job of being Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on National Parks. He agreed to do so, without very much pressure—indeed with an enthusiasm which he afterwards brought to all the work of the Standing Joint Committee; and I am sure that the eventual success, in so far as it has been a success, of this movement is in a substantial degree due to the excellent work which he then put in. I should also like to add to what has been said about, and to the tributes paid to, the Commission themselves, also, and particularly, the voluntary workers. I was especially glad that my noble friend Lord Silkin paid tribute to Mr. Michael Dower and the team of Cambridge undergraduates who have devoted so much of the long vacation
554
during the past two or three years to going into different parts of the country and removing the eyesores which were put there during the war years by the War Department and other Government Departments and which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett said, ought to have been removed by the Government themselves long ago.
Undoubtedly this is an important subject, much more important than most people realise. I like to look back to the time when I first began to walk over the Lake District hills, a little after the noble and learned Lord, at about the end of the First World War. At that time it was possible to walk all day long and meet hardly anybody. To-day it is not possible to walk over the Lake District hills, or the Welsh hills, or the Peak District, or indeed anywhere else, without meeting large numbers of young people. This has been one of the great revolutions of the times: the enthusiasm among the young people for getting out on to the moors and the mountains. It has enabled us to be the first at the top of Mount Everest and to achieve many other important adventurous exploits of that kind which redound to the credit of this country in the world. That is all part of the movement of which this National Parks movement has been such a signal and important part. I have, with the noble and learned Lord, often regretted that more interest has not been shown in Parliament, in your Lordships' House and in the other place, in this matter. We are indebted to my noble friend Lord Silkin for bringing it before us again. He has done so before. He was the architect of the Act under which the National Parks Commission are working, and it is good that he should from time to time bring the work which they are doing before us and give us an opportunity to discuss it.
My noble friend Lord Silkin has drawn attention to the main points which arise in the Ninth Report of the Commission and I do not wish to take up a great deal of time by going over ground which he has traversed, and on which I had been prepared to speak, but there are a few I's I should like to dot and a few t's which I should like to cross. Before doing so, however, I should like to say, as I said on the last occasion (which I think was as long ago as 1953), that I approach this problem from a

555
rather different angle from that of my noble friend Lord Silkin. I approach it from the point of view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett. As I explained in 1953, I think the present Act went about the matter in the wrong way. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Silkin said that I was an extremist. I was putting before your Lordships' House the views of the Hobhouse Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, and I am very glad that to-day the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has come along and expressed exactly the same point of view about these matters. No one would accuse him of being an extremist, and I feel that he has now, so to speak, rescued me from the position into which I was put on that occasion by my noble friend Lord Silkin.
I was particularly glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, emphasised, and emphasised so very clearly, how the work of the Commission, and indeed the work of the local authorities who have been given the job of administering this Act, has been hamstrung and hampered from first to last by financial considerations. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Silkin himself has now agreed that that is so, because on the last occasion he said that it was possible to get 75 per cent. from the Ministry, and that in many of these cases that was ample to enable the local authorities, the local planning committees and joint planning boards, to carry through the work which was entrusted to them. It is not; and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has proved that so clearly that there is no need for me to rub it in. I think it is very clear that until these parks are regarded as National Parks, and the nation takes responsibility for the financial problems which are involved, we shall not really succeed in tackling this problem effectively.
I was glad also that the noble Lord drew attention in such forcible terms to the destruction that is being carried through, as is brought out so very clearly in this Report, in two of the most important National Parks in Wales, in the Pembroke area and in Snowdonia, as a result of the new atomic power station. It really is a ghastly thing, when you come to think about it, that in that beautiful country—in Snowdonia, particularly—this dreadful, unsightly atomic
556
power station is to be erected. It appears quite clearly from this Report that this station may be—and indeed is quite likely to be—completely out of date within twenty years. But at the end of that twenty years it will be almost impossible to remove it; because, as we have already seen at Windscale, once one of these places is erected, and it becomes, so to speak; charged with this radio-active matter, the problem of removal is almost insuperable. It is almost impossible to find words to condemn an attitude of this kind—that the most beautiful countryside in England should be destroyed in this way by a monstrosity of this kind which may be completely out of date within twenty years or so and which it may then be impossible to remove.
My Lords, I also agree with the noble and learned Lord when he says that the Act goes about this matter in the wrong way; in leaving this problem to be handled by local planning committees, or joint committees of local planning authorities. What is needed is a strong national authority which would be in a position to negotiate effectively with Government Departments, instead of being in a position only to make representations. After all, if a chairman as gifted in diplomacy and as experienced in administration as Lord Strang (and the National Parks Commission are extraordinarily fortunate to have a man with a combination of qualities such as he has, if he will forgive me for saying this in his presence) cannot succeed in persuading these Ministers to alter their ways, then it is a poor look-out.
It seems to me that the case I have mentioned shows conclusively that we ought to have a much more powerful National Parks Commission, able to argue on a footing of equality with the Ministers in respect of matters which are concerned with National Parks. And there should be the possibility of an appeal, possibly to a sub-committee of the Cabinet, or to a committee of the Privy Council, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has suggested, because at the present time the Minister is the judge in his own case. The Minister of Fuel and Power has the last word in the case I am discussing, and although everybody knows that Lord Mills has considerable sympathy for the Open Air

557
Movement and the National Parks Movement, in the end he has to look at the matter from the point of view of fuel and power, and has to give his decision on that basis. I submit that that is not right. The decision ought to be entrusted to somebody who can form an impartial opinion, and who would not have to look at it from the point of view of the Minister of Fuel and Power. Until we get that, I am quite sure that Lord Birkett is right in saying that we really have not got an adequate weapon with which to protect these lovely parks of England.
My Lords, there are one or two other points to which I should like to advert quite shortly. I should like to go back to what I was saying at the beginning, and to pay a particular tribute to a man who died this year, and whose name Lord Birkett mentioned—that is, the Reverend H. H. Symonds. Mr. Symonds was one of those personalities of whom it could be said that, so long as England can produce them, England is not too badly off. I knew him very well indeed. I sometimes quarrelled with him. He was a man who, when it was necessary, could stamp on anybody's toes; and could stamp very hard indeed. Sometimes he stamped on people's toes without a good enough reason; but, nine times out of ten, he had reason more than good enough. He was a great man, and we shall miss him very much. He and Mr. John Dower, Lord Birkett himself, and one or two other people—and the name of Sir Arthur Hobhouse ought also to be included—undoubtedly deserve the thanks of the nation for what they did in this movement.
There is one other matter, perhaps rather one of detail, on which I must disagree with Lord Silkin. He expressed the view that it did not matter whether there was a joint planning board or one of these joint committees to which a number of local authorities might refer a particular matter in order to get some advice. The National Parks Act provides perfectly clearly that joint planning boards should be set up, and it is only in cases where the Minister is quite satisfied that other arrangements are preferable that a joint planning board is not to be set up. Unfortunately, after the very first case, that of the Peak District, the Minister always found some reason for not setting up a joint planning board.
558
Lord Silkin said that it did not matter; that they both worked equally well. I do not see how anybody can read this Report without seeing that the National Park which has clone the best from the beginning is the one with the joint planning board—that is, the Peak District National Park. It gets two pages, almost all taken up by a very commendatory notice from the National Parks Commission. Many things, such as the voluntary warden system, were initiated by this Peak District Joint Planning Board, and much of the work of pulling down unsightly buildings was started in the Peak District. I should say that any impartial person coming to the reading of this Report must agree that a National Park with a joint planning board is in a very much better position to deal with these problems than, say, Snowdonia, where they have three or four planning authorities, with a sort of consultative committee from which they can get advice when they wish to do so. I wish that it were possible for Lord Strang to take part in these discussions, because I have not much doubt about the advice he would give is on this particular point.
My Lords, there are other noble Lords who wish to speak, and there is other business which your Lordships have to do later on this evening, so I will put my notes aside and content myself with saying that I am very much in sympathy with Lord Silkin's Motion, and I hope that it will receive your Lordships' acclamation.
4.18 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, my first duty is to say that I noticed that a very able member of the Commission who signed this Report had died since the Report appeared. I refer to Alderman Vaughan, who was affectionately known as "Billy" Vaughan. He was a very able man; a member of this Board and, I believe, also of the Forestry Commission. He was a man who made considerable contributions towards solving some of the problems; and he made them not looking serious or profoundly wise. When he began to chuckle one always knew that he was about to get to the root of the matter. I therefore thought it right to say a word or two about our regret at the loss of a very able servant, who has served in many parts of the life of this country.

559
Before I sit down I want to underline the point that Lord Silkin made concerning the warden service in these Parks. I want to underline it by saying that I got the impression that your Lordships' House probably thought that only Cambridge undergraduates were involved in this warden service. As a matter of fact, there are wardens—men and youths—from all parts of the country. I am pleased that this point was underlined by my noble friend Lord Silkin. Considerable notice is taken of another section of youth, as if they were the only representatives of youth in the land, but we have these young men giving up their week-ends to go into the Parks to help in seeing that they are properly conducted. At first, people are apt to leave gates open, to the annoyance and probable loss of farmers. These young men are doing a fine thing and I am glad that they have been given honourable mention in your Lordships' House to-day and in the Report. I am glad, too, that notice has been taken of the caravan experiment. Anyone who sees the caravan assemblies in some parts of the country will agree that the Commission will render a very real service if they can experiment with the size and positioning of these caravan gatherings and collect experience which will be useful to the local authorities.
In their speeches, my noble friends Lord Silkin and Lord Birkett drew attention to the fact that atomic energy stations are to be established in some of the parks. I am afraid that I have not the ability to be so selective in my language as they are, because I see this going much further than appears on the surface, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, the Minister of Fuel and Power, is here to hear what I have to say. From a notice I saw in The Times I understand that the matter of radioactive waste from these stations is still causing troubled minds, to put it at its lowest. The Times said:
"If the industry increases, so does the amount of radioactive waste which has to be disposed of safely and, if possible, economically. Proposals for new legislation are expected soon"
And it said that a Government pronouncement is to be made. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, whether a statement is to be made this afternoon on
560
this important matter, because if the newspapers have knowledge of these things, certainly Parliament ought to have knowledge of them.
I remember well the debate which took place on the National Parks Bill. I have never seen anything like it. Everybody agreed, and that is a rare thing in any Parliament. Conservative, Liberal and Labour were all one on the need to set up National Parks. There was an enthusiasm almost unparalleled in the ordinary way of Parliament. I have seen a good deal of the National Parks, as I was deputy for some seven years, and I can say now with much more authority than I could before that a fine piece of work was done by Parliament in establishing the National Parks Commission, with authority to safeguard the beautiful places in our land. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has given an able and elaborate description of some of these areas and of what is desired by those responsible for running them. But none of them ever thought that we should have the establishment of atomic energy stations in the National Parks, with the growing danger of radioactive waste and with all the nuisance that comes with industrialisation.
Your Lordships will forgive me for being a little personal. I was born in the Wordsworth country. My first sight was of the mountains with which his name has become associated and which, as I found later in travelling over the world, are almost reverenced by people in all parts of the world. When I was about eight years old—that is, something like seventy years ago—I had to leave that part of England and go into a county which I have learned to love and which holds my affection, in which I have done the greater part of my public work which, perhaps, has led me to stand here and address your Lordships this afternoon, but I have never forgotten the shock of seeing a great industrial county, with its pit heaps and clustered houses in the coal centres. I shall never forget that so long as I live.
These atomic energy stations are the beginning of the new industrial revolution, and if we allow them to be established in the National Parks, then we shall lay on future generations an even greater burden, maybe, than we have had to carry in the old industrial areas. It

561
is not good enough to say that a local inquiry may be held and that at that inquiry it may be decided that an atomic energy station should be placed here or there. If it is the intention to deliberately industrialise these areas, to direct into these areas the new Industrial Revolution which is surely coming—even ordinary men and women can see that this is developing at an immense rate—then I say that it is not a matter for a local inquiry to settle; it is a matter for Parliament. Parliament ought to have the opportunity very soon of knowing what is the mind of the Government upon these matters, and of deciding whether they agree or not.
That is all I have to say. I am pleased to have had the opportunity of speaking in this debate and expressing my fear. I think I know the pulse of industry as well as any man living in this country: I have fought with it, lived with it and slept with it for seventy years, and I know the danger of these things. I remember going down to one of those beautiful places where the River Dove flows and seeing a water rat eating a salmon—I suppose people would say that the sooner the water rat is got rid of the better, if he feeds on salmon. But half a dozen of us stood watching him. He finished his meal, wiped his whiskers and dived again for another one. I thought that was a wonderful sight. That is the kind of place that is at stake in this matter. I hope the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to give an answer on the matter of the Bill or Order or whatever is supposed to be coming—at any rate it has been stated in an eminent newspaper—and also give us some comfort about this matter by telling us that the Government are not going to rely on local inquiries, because this is a matter for the nation and not for a few people in some distant part of the country.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I regret that owing to another engagement I was unable to hear my two noble friends, Lord Chorley and Lord Lawson, but I did hear the eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett. This debate relates specifically to the Ninth Report of the National Parks Commission, but what it raises is the far bigger abstract question of amenity versus development of civilised
562
life. Lord Birkett was, I think, almost provocative in the uncompromising attitude he took up: that any change to a National Park area is for the bad. I wish I could feel as certain on the question as he and other noble Lords appear to do. I think it is a difficult question to decide as to where to hold the balance between the material necessities of a growing industrial country and the preservation of the right amount and the right kind of amenity. Ours is a thickly populated country, although not, I believe, the most thickly populated country in Western Europe. We have a limited area and a growing population which depends for its livelihood on an active industry, which must develop to keep pace with modern inventions. Our coal mines are being worked out, and nuclear power, oil refineries, and so on, are a necessity nowadays.
It is the unenviable job of the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and his Commission to try to save what can be saved of the natural countryside, and to resist, where they think necessary, industrial development; but it is for the Government to decide in the end what can or cannot be allowed. I think we should not forget that the intention of the National Parks Act was not to create great areas of natural country untouched by man, such as other larger countries can afford. The National Parks as designated include a considerable amount of cultivated land, arable land, villages and farmhouses, woods and reservoirs, and it seems to me that the right note was struck by the sentence in paragraph 53 of the Report which states:
"National Parks cannot be sterilised and remain for all time exactly as they were at the time of designation"
After all, the Parks as they were at the time of designation were probably much different from what they were a couple of hundred years before. The value of the National Parks, as it seems to me, is not to preserve something in its actual state in such a way that in a few generations it will become an archaism and something unnatural, in the nature of a folk park where you preserve a past and finished way of life. I do not think it was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the Government that passed the National Parks Act that we

563
should turn these great areas of our country into anything of that nature.
So I think it is unrealistic to protest at every operation of the Forestry Commission, because although our generation is accustomed to seeing bare hillsides, those hillsides may have been afforested long ago. I do not think it is reasonable always to protest against the building of a dam, because sheets of water and dams can harmonise perfectly well with the countryside. But when it comes to the developments at Milford Haven, then I confess that I come down on the other side. Here is a piece of England that is quite irreplaceable; the only deep-water estuary on the West Coast and the only piece of wild coast line. There, right on the coastline, on both shores of the estuary, we have large-scale industrial development. There, regrettably, we have lost something for good that can never be replaced. On the other hand, what we have got is an essential addition to our industrial equipment; something that we are told the Government are convinced is essential if the economy of the country is to prosper and develop. We have those quite irreconcilable considerations, and he would be a bold man who would come down unequivocally on either side.
One can express great regret, as indeed the National Parks Commission have done, when something of the sort has to be done; but let us not forget the other side, and let us not forget, either, the people of the area. If I might criticise the ideas of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, it appeared to me that he was inclined to approve of the setting up of an all-powerful body that would override all other considerations. It seems to me that the machinery of the National Parks Act gives what is essential, and that is a voice to local opinion. We may think the local opinion is misguided, retrogressive and ignorant of the value of amenity; but nevertheless it should be heard. If the people of these very poor counties, thinly populated, with very low rateable values, think that prosperity is going to come through the introduction of some industry, and if they think it is for the good of their own population, they should certainly be heard and due weight given to their opinions.
564
On the other questions, I think we would all go all the way with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett. An amendment of the National Parks Act is overdue, and money is needed. Let us recognise the fact that we are getting our National Parks on the cheap. The amount of money spent on them is absurdly small. A sentence from a pamphlet issued by the Fabian Society recently on the amenity question is worth quoting. It says:
"There is a need for wider recognition that amenity values are part of the standard of living, and that it is unrealistic to allow weight to them only if this involves no cost"
I think that those words should be borne in mind by Her Majesty's Government.
I should like to turn now to one rather specialised side of the National Parks Commission, and refer to paragraph 7 of their Report where they say that they are studying the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways. That was the Committee which was set up by the Government to report on what could be done with canals and waterways. Its terms of reference included other matters, too, but the important thing for this purpose is that they considered canals which have no further use for commercial transport purposes. The Government issued a White Paper (Cmnd. 676) giving their decisions on the recommendations of this Committee, and they accepted the principle that these unwanted canals should be redeveloped—that is, should be converted for purposes other than commercial navigation and made the best use of for amenity, recreation and other purposes such as water supply, land drainage and the like. For that purpose, they have set up an Advisory Committee to deal with these canals one by one, by means of schemes for redevelopment.
The Government will, they say, welcome schemes for developing the possibilities for recreation and amenity, and they ask for the co-operation of all interests concerned—local authorities and voluntary organisations of all kinds, including, among others, the National Trust, which body is at the moment, I believe, negotiating in some particular cases with the Transport Commission. It seems to me that the object the Committee and the Government have in

565
mind in connection with these waterways is closely in harmony—in fact, almost identical—with the object of the National Parks Act: to preserve and enhance natural beauty and promote enjoyment of it by the public. That is exactly what is required in the case of these waterways.
It seems to me that there is machinery almost ready to hand for these canals to be dealt with, under the provisions of the Act. Section 13 of the Act gives powers to local planning authorities as respects any waterway in the Park to carry out such work as appears necessary
"for facilitating the use of the waterway by the public for sailing, boating, bathing or fishing."
That is all right, but, by the nature of them, National Parks are mostly in hilly country, and so not many canals pass through them. In fact, there is only one case, the Brecon Beacons Park, where a canal passes through it. In several other cases, however, there are waterways quite close to the boundaries of a National Park. There, it seems to me, there are possibilities. There is that beautiful canal stretching to within six miles of Buxton, almost in the heart of the Peak Park, called the Peak Forest Canal, accessible from the Potteries and from Manchester, where there is twenty miles without a lock up on the 500 ft. contour, with wonderful views. That would be an ideal adjunct to the Peak District National Park. The Lancaster Canal approaches within a mile or two of the boundaries of the Lake District National Park. There are others, too, that pass through what were recommended as, and may yet be, areas of outstanding natural beauty under the Act.
If you preserve these canals they will give means of access by water for people who wish to visit these places. They can go in their own boats. If you cannot manage to make a through route you can still allow boating facilities for people who visit the Park. The authorities could provide mooring and camping facilities and ensure the preservation of the waterway as an adjunct to the amenities of the Park. That could be done in one of two ways. The Commission could represent to the Minister that a certain length of canal should be designated as a detached part of a National Park. If the Minister agreed, the provisions of Section 13 of the Act would allow the
566
Park Authority to incur expenditure to look after that canal. If that method were not favoured, it seems to me that it could be done under Section 14, where the Minister can acquire land, or under Section 12, where a local planning authority may acquire land.
In either case Government grant is payable, for the improvement of waterways for the purposes of public amenity, of 75 per cent. or, in exceptional cases, 100 per cent. In the same way, I believe that under Sections 87 and 88, which deal with the areas of outstanding natural beauty, the local planning authorities could apply those sections of the Act and thus deal with the waterways concerned. A very good example of that is the Kennet and Avon Canal which goes through the Marlborough Downs through very beautiful, unspoiled country. That seems to me a very good example of what could be done by this method.
I do not want to go into the matter at further length. Neither do I expect Her Majesty's Government to give me an answer, because I have not given them prior notice. But I do hope that this suggestion will be considered and that the Government may come to the conclusion, or indeed that the Redevelopment Advisory Committee may come to the conclusion, that this method offers a good chance of redeveloping these waterways which are going to be such a problem, so many interests being concerned and having to give their consent. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will cause the suggestion to be considered in due course. Meanwhile, I think we should express our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for once again having brought this subject to your Lordships' attention.
4.53 p.m.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to mention two points which are, I think, causing friction between the visitors to the National Parks and the local folk. The first one is the question of litter, which has been mentioned twice. The National Parks Commission have done a great deal of good, and so have the various youth organisations, in educating the public to have respect for the countryside; but there is still a great deal of litter in some of these parks. When it consists of bottles, and so

567
forth, it causes fires, and I am convinced that any money allowed to the National Parks Commission to carry out far more extensive advertising to educate the public further would be repaid by the number of fires avoided. The second point applies particularly to the North Yorkshire moors, where large numbers of sheep are killed on the roads by cars, some of which belong to the visitors. I think this also applies to the ponies in the New Forest. I wonder whether the National Parks Commisison are fully aware of the losses, which are causing great grief to the farmers, and whether they can do anything about it.
4.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is the father of a great deal of legislation designed to protect or improve amenity in this country. Your Lordships are always glad to hear him raise any of these subjects and give us an opportunity of discussing them. I should like to assure the noble Lord that the Government share fully his concern about the National Parks and also join with him in paying tribute to the work of the Commission, particularly its Chairman the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who we are very glad to see has recovered fully from his recent illness which prevented him from attending the late conference.
I should also like, on behalf of the Government, to add to the tribute which the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, paid to the work of the volunteers in the parks. He mentioned by name the team of undergraduates led by Michael Dower, whose father was the author of the Dower Report, and also the work of the voluntary wardens and their assistants, who do so much work in removing litter and in spreading interest and encouraging observance of the country code by visitors to the parks. There have been a good many complaints from farmers about careless or, sometimes, deliberate acts which have caused damage to crops or animals or farm property, and your Lordships, I know, will agree that the enjoyment of the parks does involve responsibility for leaving them unharmed for others to enjoy.
My own very small contribution towards the establishment of National Parks, unlike that of the noble Lord,
568
Lord Silkin, was completely unfruitful. Before the war I served for a time on one or two Committees whose duty it was to try to work out plans for National Parks in Scotland, but when the noble Lord introduced his legislation for National Parks in England, people in Scotland decided that they did not want them. The noble Lord has told us that he regrets that, and I will not go into it. It is not because they do not want to preserve beautiful areas in Scotland, but because they think they can do it better without having National Parks. Anyhow, we in Scotland do not object to the English having their parks. We congratulate the noble Lord on his ten fine babies. The Government are doing their best to cherish them and bring them up, although we are glad to be given advice from child welfare experts in all quarters of the House.
The first thing which the noble Lord asked me about was the eleventh baby—that is, the Norfolk Broads. He said he would like to know what was happening about that proposal. Since he raised this matter in the last debate on the subject, the Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways, set up by the Minister of Transport under the chairmanship of Mr. Bowes, has made its Report and in it has referred to the problem of the Broads. The Committee thought that schemes for the reclamation of the Broads which involved very large sums of money were not justified but that the dredging operations should be extended. It made proposals for new administrative arrangements, and in the White Paper to which the noble Lord referred, published in February, the Government said that such proposals should be thoroughly explored between the interested parties before any decision was taken.
Both the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners and the Joint River Board are interested in the administrative problems concerned, and local discussions are still going on. The discussions are being co-ordinated by the Clerk of the Norfolk County Council. Some people are in favour of the designation of the Broads as a National Park. Others are against it. I understand that the National Parks Commission propose to join in the local discussions at a suitable opportunity. At present these discussions are being conducted without the National Parks Commission,

569
and the Clerk has agreed to tell the Commission when he is ready for them to come in. I understand that the Commission have never been greatly in favour of creating a Park in the Broads, but I have no doubt they will be interested in anything that can be done to preserve the amenities there.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also asked me about "areas of outstanding natural beauty", as distinct from the Parks. Sections 87 and 88 of the Act enable the Commission to designate as areas of outstanding natural beauty stretches of beautiful country which, for one reason or another, do not qualify as parks and are administered by the local planning authorities. The Commission have recently announced a programme of designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty, and orders designating the Gower Peninsula, the Quantock Hills, the Lleyn Peninsula, the Northumberland Coast, Cannock Chase, the Surrey Hills and the Shropshire Hills have been confirmed by the Minister. A decision has not yet been given on the Dorset, Malvern Hills or Cornwall orders. The Commission are doing the preliminary work on orders for the Sussex Downs, the Forest of Bowland, East Hampshire, the North Devon Coast and the South Devon Coast.
The noble Lord also asked about long-distance routes. So far, six long-distance routes have been approved by the Minister under Section 52—namely, the Pennine Way, the Cornwall North Coast Path, the Pembrokeshire Coast Path, the Cornwall South Coast Path, Offa's Dyke Path; and recently, only last week, they agreed the Devon South Coast Route.
I think we recognised and expected that the main matters of concern which would be raised by your Lordships in the debate to-day were the various major industrial developments—one at Trawsfynydd, where the atomic power station is being built, and the others in the neighbourhood of Milford Haven. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was good enough to let me know he would mention them. I think your Lordships all recognise, and the noble Lord himself pointed out, that when you add up the total area of the National Parks they come to over 5,200 square miles; that is, one-tenth of the whole area of England. And
570
although, of course, that one-tenth of England does not contain anything like one-tenth of the population of England, it does contain a large number of people who have got to live—they cannot be expected to be walled off in a kind of stagnant museum, with no industrial development, no electric light and no modern amenities. It is the task of the Minister and of the Commission, as expressed by the Hobhouse Report, to see that the irreplaceable values for which these areas have been chosen are given due weight in the national balance; and one of the Minister's duties is to act as the final arbiter in deciding what are sometimes extremely difficult questions.
In his recent speech to the Conference of Park Planning Authorities at Bakewell, my right honourable friend showed that he was deeply conscious of his responsibility to safeguard the landscape from harm, and he gave an assurance that amenity always received due attention when the question of development was being considered. But there are cases in which development has to be permitted in the national interest.
Some of your Lordships may perhaps think it unfortunate that often the most suitable sites for modern industrial development, such as nuclear power stations, are in remote and beautiful country. When my noble friend Lord Lawson talks about the new Industrial Revolution, I do not know that we need think of this in terms of converting large areas of unspoiled country into areas which are completely industrialised. I think we have to think of probably much more scattered centres of industry. Remoteness is an asset to a nuclear power station, which, unlike other industrial concerns, does not need to be constantly supplied with raw materials after it has been constructed. But it does need millions of gallons of water for cooling daily, and even hourly. Therefore, these stations have to be built in close proximity to water. There are other geological conditions which have to be fulfilled and technical requirements which have to be met, and it is exceedingly difficult to find sites that will be suitable without selecting some part of the coast which is beautiful because of its isolation and its topography. I wish that it were possible to find sites which

571
were not only remote, out of the way and sterile, but also ugly, but it is extremely difficult to find a site which fulfils all those conditions and, at the same time, has the necessary physical requirements for such an undertaking as a nuclear power station.
In the case of the Milford Haven scheme the difficulty was that the favourable tidal conditions and depth of channel necessary for our purposes were not available in uncongested conditions anywhere else in this part of the United Kingdom. Alternative areas were explored, but none of them could compare with the Milford Haven conditions. Tankers of 50, 60 or 100 thousand tons need a very deep draught and sheltered water for unloading their cargo. I think that everyone regrets that this beautiful stretch of water, which is so much frequented by yachtsmen, should also have to harbour tankers—although tankers can be magnificent vessels in their own way. But, faced with the need for oil and the vital part it plays in industry, and therefore in the national economy as well, the decision was eventually given to allow the development; and similar conditions were required and found for the Angle ore stocking ground.
But the Minister did not give planning permission without very carefully considering whether some alternative place could be found. As he said in his speech, he gives great weight to the National Parks and believes that every prejudice in their favour should be allowed before he makes his decision. What he said was:
"Whenever a decision to allow industrial development in a National Park is eventually given it is never the case that the beauty and remoteness have not been considered. The scales are heavily tipped in their favour from the outset, but sometimes there may be exceptional weight on the other side."
I would again assure your Lordships that the presumption from which the Minister always starts is that, if at all possible, industrial development should not be permitted in the National Parks.
I would also suggest that there need not necessarily be a presumption that every kind of industrial building is necessarily ugly and an eyesore. The noble Lord; Lord Silkin, will remember that he had this Motion down a fortnight ago. I was lucky enough to be sent
572
to Lisbon a day or two before, and, so that I might have time to look at what he was going to talk about, I took the Papers with me. Thinking about the matter, one of the first things I saw in Lisbon was the great warehouse at Lisbon Docks for the cold storage of perishable goods—a magnificent modern building of very fine outline, decorated with statuary and friezes. I should say that it is one of the finest architectural sights one could have, and I could not help thinking what a pity it was that all commercial buildings could not be of similar character.
The National Parks Commission and the Minister try to ensure that whenever industrial buildings have to be put up in a National Park area the services of a landscape consultant, and if possible a good architect, shall be employed. In the case of Trawsfynydd Power Station, long before there had been any public anxiety and before the controversy had begun, Miss Sylvia Crowe, President of the Institute of Landscape Architects, had been employed by the Central Electricity Generating Board to help them to select the best site for a building of this kind. The architect who designed it is Mr. Basil Spence. Your Lordships may have seen in this week's Sunday Times a short article with a photograph of that power station to Mr. Basil Spence's design. It is not for me to express any kind of judgment on it, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will not feel that it is necessarily a hideous eyesore.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he has ever seen the buildings at Windscale in Cumberland, on the edge of the Lake District?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think that that is relevant to what I am saying.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, surely it is very relevant, because I should think that they are the most ugly buildings in England.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it is only too true that many commercial and industrial buildings are ugly, but I am trying to say that it is not always necessary that they should be ugly; and we are trying to take these measures to have both landscape architects and

573
structual architects brought in, in order that if, of necessity, these new buildings are set up in National Parks, they shall be put in the best possible setting and built to the best possible design.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me whether that was done at Windscale?—because if that is the result of all this care it looks as though it was impossible to design anything which was not hideous.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I was asking the noble Lord, so that he may judge whether it is impossible to design a building which is not hideous, to be good enough to look at Mr. Basil Spence's design for the atomic power station, which is the subject we are discussing in this debate. I am not going to express any opinion of my own about that, but I would ask the noble Lord to look at the photograph and to consider it.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, had some critical things to say about the Forestry Commission. The Report of the National Parks Commission mentions in paragraph 68 that they have been consulted by the Forestry Commission on proposals involving, in all, nearly 15,000 acres of land; and they mention the discussions which they have held with the Forestry Commission in which the Forestry Commission have been willing to take the National Parks Commission's advice. I believe that the Forestry Commission are invariably anxious to co-operate with the various local authorities in charge of the National Parks in order to decide where and in what circumstances woodlands are desirable from an amenity point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, referred to some old controversy which I believe took place twenty or thirty years ago in a very beautiful part of the country which I do not know; and I dare say he is right about it.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? One cannot deal with every matter of detail, but I gave the illustration of Eskdale to show the need for a controlling power. Before this debate I took the trouble to ascertain the position in Lakeland with regard to the Forestry Commission. On my advices, it is quite true that the Forestry Commission consult with the
574
Planning Committee, but very rarely do they concede the Planning Committee's point of view. I would have said that in debate, but of course there is not time to say everything.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has made that plain. Having no personal knowledge of the area with which he is particularly concerned I cannot speak about that area, but I have often found that in these questions of planting the public are actuated by sheer conservatism; and although conservatism is a good thing it is not always accompanied by a great deal of imagination——
LORD SILKIN: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have often found, when I have been concerned in some planting operation, perhaps trying to cover a barren hill with trees, that there is an immediate public outcry—"Oh, the beautiful hill! How can you be such a vandal as to plant your hideous trees all over this wonderful, majestic, sterile, barren bit of ground?" Then, fifty or sixty years later, when the trees have become mature and have to be felled, there is exactly the same kind of outcry—" Ah, the beautiful wood! How can you cut down this beautiful wood?" I believe the reason is that the life of a tree is often longer than the life of a man, and human imagination is sometimes a little weak. If we really want to enjoy the beauties of nature we ought to try to picture the whole life cycle of vegetable growth and regeneration in our imagination. Nature is not stagnant. We ought to enjoy not only trees at all stages but the mental concept of the whole life cycle of a tree, even though we cannot follow it and perceive it in our own short lifetime.
The noble Lord also, like some others, talked of the possibility of putting cables underground. That is a very good thing, of course; but though it is sometimes not too difficult with low tension cables, with high tension cables it is not only very difficult but expensive. I am told that the cost of doing so is about £310,000 per mile compared with £22,000 a mile, which is a very great deal of money; and it is not always satisfactory. It is not yet quite certain whether the electricity is transmitted as efficiently underground as it would be overhead.

575
But, of course, we are always glad to consider what can be done in that way.
In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, again for raising this matter I would assure him that Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of their duty of preserving and enhancing the beauty of National Parks. Every application for development within a Park, whether it is positive development to beautifying it, or action to prevent some undesirable development which will bring ugliness to the Park, will be considered most carefully, and planning permission will never be lightly granted in any case. Your Lordships may be assured that the problems of the Parks and the Park planning authorities and the National Parks Commission will always be carefully studied, and if we can do anything to ease any of their difficulties or to adopt any course they recommend it will certainly be done.
5.21 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate, both to those who have spoken and to those who have listened, and the interest has certainly been added to materially by the eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, for which we are all greatly obliged. I think the interest cannot be measured by the number of speakers who have taken part. This is not a particularly controversial subject, and it is difficult to create controversy and to make speeches where there is no controversy, and a series of speakers all saying very much the same thing becomes rather dull. So I want to pick on one or two matters upon which perhaps some difference of opinion has become manifest.
First, on the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, I dislike crossing swords with him not only because he is probably right but also because he is one of the most brilliant advocates of the day; and therefore, whether one is right or wrong, one can usually be proved to be wrong. But my opinion is that he has misdirected himself about the functions of the National Parks Commission. His view is that they should have the right of decision on applications for development in the National Parks and that there should be an appeal to some such body as the Privy
576
Council. I do not know whether he meant the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or merely a body of Privy Counsellors selected ad hoc. It seems to me that there are two difficulties, two major difficulties, about that suggestion. The first is the one that I found in considering the provisions of the Bill. Can you really isolate one portion of the area of a local planning authority and say to them, "You must not plan this bit. You can plan the rest of your area, but this bit is going to be taken away from you entirely"? I think, apart from its practicability, you lose a great deal by the fact that you are depriving local people of an interest in the most interesting and beautiful part of that area.
The other point was the fact that at that time, in 1949, we had only just created these local planning authorities under the 1947 Act; and there was difficulty in saying to them, two years later, "You have been set up to do a job. We trust you to do a job; we trust you. But we cannot trust you to do this particular, especially difficult job, which we must take away and give to an alien body, divorced from your area, whom we regard as being more suitable to carry out this task than you are" That was an impossible position for anybody in charge of this matter to take up. There were strong representations, which were carefully considered; but in the end we felt that we had to leave this matter to the local planning authorities. We asked them, however, to set up special committees for the areas concerned and to include in those committees people nominated by the National Parks Commission. I think that that was a very reasonable compromise.
I come to the next point. I can understand the argument that it should be left entirely to the National Parks Commission—let them decide. But once a right of appeal is given, is there any reason to suppose that a body of Privy Counsellors would come to any materially different conclusion from that of the Minister himself, advised as he is by his advisers? After a public inquiry the Minister would have to consider exactly the same facts and the same evidence as the Privy Counsellors would consider. Assuming equal good faith on both tribunals, in the end a decision must rest on the criterion that you attach to applications for development.

577
I believe that the Minister and all Ministers have been most conscientious in trying to weigh up the various considerations: the importance of preserving the character and the beauty of the National Park as against the importance of the proposals that were before them. I think that they have not always given sufficient weight to the claims of the National Parks. Though I admit that they have given weight to them—they have said so and I accept that fact—I do not think' they have given sufficient weight. But I have no reason to believe that a committee of Privy Counsellors to whom this matter would be put would take a different view unless they adopted a different criterion. Therefore, although I fully understand the considerations which have influenced the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, to put this point, I do not think that in the end he would find himself any better off with the Privy Counsellors than he would with the Minister.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has tried to reassure us of the interest of the Minister in the National Parks; and let us accept that. I would not altogether go along with him in his analogy of the very beautiful warehouse in Lisbon. I know Lisbon; I think I know it fairly well. It is one of the loveliest cities in Europe, and a very fine warehouse in Lisbon or outside Lisbon is in its proper place and fits in with the rest of the buildings, and there is no complaint. I agree with him that a warehouse can be made beautiful if there is a proper design for it. I do not think that the fact that it is in Lisbon, or outside Lisbon, is really material. I would ask him what he would think of a very beautiful warehouse on the borders of Lake Borrowdale. I think he would take a rather different view.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I would rather have a beautiful one than an ugly one on the borders of Lake Borrowdale.
LORD SILKIN: But would the noble Earl want one at all? That is the real
578
issue. The issue I want to put before the Government is this: having made up their minds that here are ten areas which they have selected as areas of outstanding beauty, areas which must be preserved, whose beauty must be enhanced and where the people of this country are to be encouraged to come for enjoyment and recreation—having done all that, are they going to permit industrial development for these areas quite contrary to the character of the areas? Nobody is suggesting that there should not be any development at all. I made that quite clear in my opening remarks. There is development which would be quite appropriate for the area; but the kind of development that has been allowed in these areas in the last year, which I have illustrated, is wholly inappropriate to the character of the area. That is the complaint that I make and that is why I think the Government have not applied the right test.
The noble Earl says that it is very difficult indeed to find a suitable site. He set out the requirements, and I would not challenge what he says. However, there are cases where you must accept the second best. Let us agree that the particular areas chosen are the best and are the most suitable for the industry but they are not unique, and it may be that in certain cases we have got to make a sacrifice. I believe that these who have the cause of National Parks at heart—and they constitute a very large section of the population—would be prepared to make that sacrifice in order to preserve the character of these National Parks.
That is all I wanted to say. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I fully accept the sympathy which the noble Earl has expressed in the cause of National Parks. I hope that we shall have no more Trawsfynydds and Milford Havens, and so on, to discuss when the next Report comes along. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MENTAL HEALTH BILL
5.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 44:
Special provisions as to pyschopathic and subnormal patients
(2) Within the period of two months ending on the day on which a patient would cease to be liable to detention in a hospital in default of the renewal of authority under this subsection, the responsible medical officer shall examine the patient, and if it appears to him that the patient, if released from the hospital upon attaining the age of twenty-five years would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself, shall furnish to the managers a report to that effect in the prescribed form; and where a report is duly furnished under this subsection the authority for the detention of the patient shall be thereby renewed, and shall continue in force accordingly after the patient attains the said age, but without prejudice to the application to the patient of the provisions of section forty-three of this Act.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2) after "himself" to insert:
"or is liable to be exposed to danger or serious exploitation by other persons, or would be likely to resort to criminal activities, or is incapable of caring for himself".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, and I hope it will be convenient if I discuss with it Amendment No. 86, so as to avoid the necessity for a separate discussion on that Amendment. It will have the added advantage of giving the noble and learned Viscount a clear run for the last 29 Amendments.
The words which it is proposed to add at this stage of the Bill are taken from the Sixth Schedule, on page 118, and they indicate the extraordinary difference—and, so far as I can see, the quite inexplicable difference—between the treatment proposed to be accorded to subnormal patients who enter hospitals when this Bill becomes an Act and that to be accorded to those who are there already. As your Lordships will be aware, a subnormal patient who enters a hospital under this Act, when he
580
becomes 25 years of age, and assuming he has not been previously released, will then be released—indeed, must be released—from the hospital unless, in the opinion of the medical officer, he would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself. That may be perfectly satisfactory, and may be a full safeguard for the patient. But I would submit to the noble and learned Viscount that, if that is his answer—that it is perfectly full and satisfactory—then it ought also to be completely sufficient for patients who are already in hospital now, or who will be entering hospital prior to the passing of this Bill.
If he does not agree to that, we shall be faced with the position that we shall have, in the same hospital, two classes of patients—those who are already in hospital, and those who go into hospital after this Bill becomes an Act—who are of the same mental age and of the same degree of mental deficiency; and presumably one can be discharged from the hospital at the age of 25 and the other cannot. There can surely be no possible justification for that distinction. If the noble and learned Viscount thinks that these additional safeguards should be taken into consideration for patients already in hospital, then he should accept this Amendment, and make the treatment applicable to all patients in exactly the same way. If, however, he argues that Clause 44 is quite satisfactory as it stands and that the only criterion is that the patient is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself, I shall be perfectly satisfied to accept that. But in that event it will be necessary to delete these same words where they occur in the Schedule on page 118.
It can be argued—I do not know whether it will be—that for patients already in hospital it may be necessary to have these additional safeguards because they may have been there longer: they may be, as it were, institutionalised. But most of the young people who go into mental deficiency hospitals under this Bill, especially if they are there until the age of 25—they cannot, under this Bill, be compulsorily admitted after they are 21—will have to be there a considerable number of years; and therefore they will be equally institutionalised. So there appears to be

581
no justification for any difference of treatment.
I mentioned that I should like to say a word on Amendment No. 86, which is on exactly the same point. When you look at paragraph 13 (1) (b) of the Sixth Schedule you see these words, which give another reason for not discharging one of these patients:
"…and that there is no suitable hospital or other establishment into which he can be admitted and where he would be likely to remain voluntarily…"
They are the words which, later on, I shall seek to remove. Those words do not apply in Clause 44, and they are an additional reason why a particular patient who is in hospital prior to the passing of this Bill could not be discharged, even if he satisfied the medical officer in every other way that he was not likely to do harm to himself or to anybody else; that he was not likely to be exploited, and that he was not likely to resort to criminal activities: he was, it was thought, safe to be released into the community. But to revert to the Schedule, if the medical officer said there was no place for him to go, or no other hospital to which he could be transferred voluntarily, that would be a reason for keeping him beyond the age of 25. That is unconscionable. We should be visiting upon the patient the consequences of our own failure to provide alternative means for these young people to come out of hospital. I emphasise that that would be a reason only for those who are at present in hospital, and it is not a reason under the other part of the Bill—namely, under Clause 44.
I do want to emphasise to the noble and learned Viscount that what I am asking for is equality of treatment for the same types of patient—those with exactly the same qualifications. Either we should add these safeguards to Clause 44, or, if the noble and learned Viscount is convinced that they are not necessary, we should delete them from a later stage in the Bill. Surely one or other of these alternatives must be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 16, after ("himself") insert ("or is liable to be exposed to danger or serious exploitation by other persons, or would be likely to resort to criminal activities, or is incapable of caring for himself").—(Lord Stonham.)
5.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): May I first deal with the dilemma with which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, very ably confronted me? As your Lordships are aware, the Royal Commission explained in paragraph 568 of their Report why the criteria which they had already suggested for future psychopathic and subnormal patients are not necessarily applicable to existing detained patients. The basis of our approach to future patients, if I may so call them, is that they should be liable to compulsory admission during their formative years, when treatment is more likely to be effective, and after that they should be detained only (except for short periods) if they have come into conflict with the criminal law. In paragraph 568, they said this. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for reading it but I think that it contains the whole argument.
"Some of these patients will not have been admitted to hospital until a fairly late age and will so have missed the opportunity for training while young. Some may have been so long in hospital that they have become completely institutionalised and quite unfit for life outside, and may yet not be willing to remain without compulsion; not all of these could properly be classified as severely subnormal, though in their present condition they would in fact be incapable of leading an independent life. Others of these patients will be known to have committed acts, before or since admission to hospital, which might have been made the subject of a criminal charge but were not because the patient was already under Order or was 'subject to be dealt with' under the Mental Deficiency Acts on other grounds. Others will not be known to have broken the criminal law.
"In each of these categories some patients will have been in hospital only a short time, others for many years. We do not think it would be right to say that these patients should simply be sorted into those who had been convicted of a criminal offence before admission and those who had not, and that when the new system comes into force none of the latter should be detained in hospital any longer. If that were done and that only, criteria which we have recommended should apply in future to people who have been living in the ordinary world and are accustomed to its standards would be applied to some patients who have been living for many years in a sheltered and artificial community; some but only some, parts of a system which is based on the assumption that most of those who need training will be given it before they are twenty-five would be applied to patients who did not receive training at that age."
The Commission went on for these reasons to recommend, in paragraph 569, that there should be special grounds—I

583
repeat, special grounds—for continuing the detention of existing patients in the psychopathic and subnormal category. Paragraph 13 (1) of the Sixth Schedule gives effect to this recommendation.
These grounds arise, therefore, from the circumstances of existing patients and are not applicable to patients newly admitted in future, to whom Clause 44 will apply. May I summarise these grounds again. They are
"(a) that if that patient were released from the hospital he would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself, or would be liable to be exposed to danger or serious exploitation by other persons, or would be likely to resort to criminal activities; or
(b) that that patient is incapable of caring for himself and that there is no suitable hospital or other establishment into which he can be admitted and where he would be likely to remain voluntarily;"
The words "likely to resort to criminal activities" make me venture to add something to my reply which I think is of the greatest value for the general approach towards this problem. A great deal has been said at times, and a great deal more is felt and not said by people who have not studied this problem, about the likelihood of subnormal and psychopathic patients resorting to crime. Until recently we have had no statistics by which this suggestion could be refuted or confirmed. But we know of no firm evidence to support it and in the absence of such evidence we have resisted suggestions that on this ground we should seek to alter or reverse the policy of enabling as many patients as possible to resume life in the general community after a period of training or treatment in hospital.
The forms of crime which are usually in mind in connection with subnormal patients are either persistent petty crime, such as the petty crime of pilfering, or serious crimes of violence, particularly sexual offences. At present, the Home Office Research Unit, with the assistance of the police, is conducting an inquiry into the extent to which sexual offenders have formerly been mental patients and provisional results of this inquiry are now available. They show that only a small proportion of these offenders have a history of treatment for mental disorder. During the period from July 1 to December 31, 1958, 3,630 persons
584
were convicted by the courts in England and Wales on charges of sexual offences—that is, homosexuality, rape, indecent assault on women, unlawful sexual intercourse with girls under 15, incest and indecent exposure. Out of this total, only 261, about 7 per cent., had at one time or another, so far as is known, received treatment for their mental condition.
Those who feel that the ex-mental patient is likely to be a sexual offender are particularly concerned about the need to protect small children. I am sure that we have all come in contact with that feeling. Out of 946 cases in which offenders had committed an indecent assault on a girl under 15 years of age, only 50—that is about 5 per cent.—were offenders with a mental history. In relation to offenders who had previously received treatment for their mental condition, these figures include both those who had been mentally ill and those who were mentally deficient. Therefore, the percentage of offenders falling into the subnormal and psychopathic group—the only ones covered by the present Amendment to which we are directing our minds—would be only part of the percentages quoted. In any case, if at the age of 25 subnormal or psychopathic patients are considered liable to commit this type of offence or violence of any sort, Clause 44 allows for continued detention on the ground of danger.
With regard to petty crime, we still have no statistics either way, but again, I am advised that there is no doubt that a great many of these patients are living completely law-abiding lives, and we should not be justified in detaining in this way in hospital patients who are not considered dangerous to themselves or to other people, simply on the ground that there is a possibility they might resort to a comparatively minor form of crime. If in the event they do break the law they can, if necessary, under Part V of the Bill, be re-admitted to hospital at any age and detained for as long as is considered necessary.
I think that that is an answer—and it is one I should like the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to consider—to each horn of the dilemma. But it is a comforting matter to all of us who are anxious about this subject to see the better (I am not going to use offensive adjectives at all)

585
approach to that fear which I have found widely held, especially by people who live near hospitals. The figures I have given on the sexual offences are important and show that many people have overestimated this problem. When we come down to figures of 7 per cent. and 5 per cent. in all, and then, as I say, consider the psychopathic proportion of that, I think it is cheering and inspiring to us on our general thesis.
LORD SILKIN: With regard to the 261 cases of sexual offenders, does the noble and learned Viscount know what proportion of the total number of persons involved that represents?—I do not mean of the total people who have been convicted of that sort of offence, but of the people suffering from mental disorder. I would ask the same about the 50 who have been convicted of indecent assault of girls under fifteen. If it was 50 out of 50 who had been discharged, that would be a very dangerous position. Fifty out of 946 total cases does not really give us a measure of the danger of discharging these people.
Tin LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought I had given the figures correctly before, but let me give them again. I said that during the six months July 1 to December, 1958, 3,630 persons were convicted by the courts in England and Wales on charges of sexual offences; and I gave the offences. Out of those 3,630 convicted, only 261, or 7 per cent., had, so far as is known, at one time or another received treatment for their mental condition. So it is out of the number convicted that only 7 per cent. have received medical treatment. With regard to the assaults on children, it is only 50 out of 946, which is about 5 per cent.
LORD SILKIN: I have followed that. But we are trying to measure the danger to the community of releasing this type of person, and I was wondering whether 261 or 50 respectively constituted a large proportion of the people who have been released. For instance, if we take the last five years, if there had been 1,000 people released, and 261 of that 1,000 had committed this type of offence, the danger would be a real one. The same with the 50 cases: if this was 50 out of, say, 200 that had been released in the five years, there would be a real risk to the community. I think we are entitled
586
to have some reassurance on that matter. I hope I have made my point clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have looked at it, of course, from the other side. I think we all agree that it is a surprisingly small percentage of the number convicted. Purely from my own study of the subject, I should not have thought for a moment that the percentage of releases was anything like as high as 7 per cent. or 5 per cent. I do not want to pronounce on it, but I think that, even without that aspect, if you asked ordinary people who have not studied this subject they would be inclined to think that a much higher proportion than 7 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the people convicted of these offences had been people who had received medical treatment. I agree that to round off my statement I ought to have the other figures, and if I can get them for the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I will. I should not have thought that they would be depressing, but that is only my a priori view, and I will try to get it confirmed.
For these reasons, we think it is necessary to apply rather different criteria to patients who have already been in hospital some time than to those who are going in in the future. As I have already explained, it is possible for anyone who is convicted by a court to be dealt with under the other sections of the Act. As with all the Amendments, I want to study carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, but I thought it would be helpful to him if I dealt rather more fully with this Amendment than he may have expected, so that he would have in mind the reasons which have influenced us in drafting the Bill in this way.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for dealing with the matter in such detail and I shall accept his invitation to study what he has said. At the moment, however, it seems to me that, although many reasons have been given for this difference, a good many of them are not relevant. The noble and learned Viscount will recall that on Monday last, when answering in an earlier debate on this particular point of the difference between subnormal and severely subnormal patients, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 217 (No. 91), col. 349]:
"It is the intention of the Bill, and of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on

587
which it is based, that the severely subnormal group should extend well over the lower ranges of the present feeble-minded category."
The people who are going to be admitted, therefore—and I should like for a moment to leave out those who have committed a criminal offence, because I do not think that that is relevant—are the ordinarily retarded mental patients, be they subnormal or severely subnormal; and we have already learned that the severely subnormal category will be much wider than we have hitherto regarded it, so that those who come in will be just as much addicted to sex difficulties as those who are in already.
The only possible justification that I can see for any difference of treatment is if it is thought that there will be in the mental deficiency hospitals a hard core of severely subnormal people who may never come out of the mental hospital. That is all right. But I should say that they are already covered by the words of this clause—in other words, they would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to themselves. So they will never be released if they are going to be dangerous to themselves.
It seems to me that the noble and learned Viscount has not addressed himself sufficiently to this point: that there will be persons with exactly similar qualifications, or disqualifications, and some of them can be discharged at the age of twenty-five and some of them cannot. The decision whether to discharge or not to discharge will rest entirely on their date of entry. That seems to me totally unjustifiable. I can imagine its leading to a great deal of difficulty among patients, and particularly among the relatives and friends, with further damage to the patient, which is really quite inexplicable. I hope, therefore, that the Lord Chancellor will look at this point again. It seems one of manifest injustice which the words of the Royal Commission—which seem to me on this subject rather confused and not altogether relevant—do not assuage. I shall certainly study very closely what the noble and learned Viscount has said, but I think that this point must be conceded. I should be perfectly happy with the clause as it is now, and would withdraw my Amendment, but that is not the argument. The argument is that if I withdraw the Amend-
588
ment to add these words, then they must come out on a later stage of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will study what the noble Lord has said. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I would say that I have not got the complete figures, but I think the figure which has been given to me will help the noble Lord. It is that about 300,000 mental patients were discharged in the last five years. That is 30,000 in six months, which is roughly nine times the number of those who were convicted in that period. I think that that is sufficient to negative the noble Lord's fear that they might be a very high proportion of those discharged, but I will try to obtain more complete information.
LORD SILKIN: That is, indeed, very reassuring.
LORD STONHAM: When I said, "at a later stage", I meant that those words would have to be deleted from the Schedule by a suitable Amendment. Is that point clear to the noble and learned Viscount?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take the noble Lord's point, although I do not agree with him. He says that we must either do one thing or the other (he is not abandoning either, really) and that he will consider what I have said and before the Report stage decide whether he wants to return to the charge. He is not in the least prejudiced from doing that.
LORD STONHAM: With that understanding, and hoping the consideration will be mutual, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Special provisions as to patients absent without leave]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is partly consequential on Amendment No. 33 and does the necessary drafting. It goes with the next Amendment, No. 37. I can give a full explanation if wanted, but I think your Lordships would be perfectly safe in assuming that they are essentially drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 4, leave out ("of section forty-three") and insert ("or subsection (4) of section forty-three or subsection (2) of section forty-four").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Where the authority for the detention or guardianship of a patient is renewed by virtue of this section after the day on which, apart from this section, that authority would have expired under section forty-three or section forty-four of this Act, the renewal shall take effect as from that day.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Special provisions as to patients sentenced to imprisonment, etc.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 46 and insert the following new clause:
Special provisions as to patients sentenced to imprisonment, etc.
("46.—(1) Where a patient who is liable to be detained by virtue of an application for admission for treatment or is subject to guardianship by virtue of a guardianship application is detained in custody in pursuance of any sentence or order passed or made by a court in the United Kingdom (including an order committing or remanding him in custody), and is so detained for a period exceeding, or for successive periods exceeding in the aggregate, six months, the application shall cease to have effect at the expiration of that period.
(2) Where any such patient is detained in custody as aforesaid but the application does not cease to have effect under sub-section (1) of this section, then—

(a) if apart from this subsection the patient would have ceased to be liable to be detained or subject to guardianship as aforesaid on or before the day on which he is discharged from custody, he shall not cease and shall be deemed not to have ceased to be so liable or subject until the end of that day; and

(b) in any case, sections forty and forty-five of this Act shall apply in relation to the patient as if he had absented himself without leave on that day.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 [Discharge of patients]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (4) to leave out "and in the case of a local authority the members so authorised shall be members of the health committee of that authority." The noble and learned Viscount said: Your Lordships will see that Clause 47 provides for the discharge of patients detained or subject to guardianship under Part IV of the Act. In the case of patients subject to guardianship the order for discharge may be made by the responsible local health authority and in the case of patients detained in a mental nursing home the order may be made by the registration authority within the meaning of Part III of the Act. Subsection (4) of the clause provides that the power of discharge by an authority may be exercised by any three or more members of the authority and in the case of a local authority the members shall be members of the health committee of that authority.
The effect of the Amendment is to delete the requirement that the members of the local authority who may be authorised to exercise this power shall be members of the health committee of that authority. These words were included in the Bill following the wording of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on this point, but the intention of the Royal Commission clearly was—and it appears to be quite simple—that the members concerned should be those who have an interest in and knowledge of the subject of mental health by virtue of their membership of the health committee. Representations have, however, been made that it is unnecessary to make this a statutory requirement. As part of the relaxation of Governmental controls over local authority functions, it has been accepted by us that the statutory requirement that certain committees, including the health committee, shall be established, should at sonic convenient future date be abolished, thus enabling local authorities to conduct their affairs through committees in the way which suits them best. It would therefore be somewhat anomalous at this stage to require membership of the health committee for the purposes of this clause. I should have thought that local authorities could be trusted to ensure that orders for the discharge of patients were made on their behalf by appropriate members.

591
I am supported—which is an envious position for any Minister—by both the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, leave out lines 32 and 33.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Appointment by court of acting nearest relative]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment re-words paragraph (d) of subsection (3) to put right two points which were inadvertently overlooked when the clause was extensively redrafted at Report stage in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 22, leave out from ("has") to ("under") in line 24 and insert ("exercised without due regard to the welfare of the patient or the interests of the public his power to discharge the patient from hospital or guardianship").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Duty of mental welfare officer to make application for admission or guardianship]:
6.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the wishes of any" and insert "any wishes expressed by". The noble and learned Viscount said: Clause 54, makes it the duty of a mental welfare officer to make an application for the admission of a patient to hospital or guardianship if he is satisfied that the application ought to be made, and having regard to the wishes of the patient's relatives. As I think I explained, this clause, like one I dealt with earlier, might as it stands be held to oblige the mental welfare office to consult the patient's relatives, and to ascertain their views as to who should make the application, in all cases, including cases of emergency which are to be dealt with under Clause 29. This Amendment and the next one are intended to make it clear that the clause does not impose on the mental welfare
592
officer any duty to consult beyond that laid on him by Clause 27 (2) (which relates only to applications proposed to be made under Clauses 26 and 23) and does no more than require him to take account, among other relevant circumstances, of views already expressed to him by the relatives. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 17, leave out ("the wishes of any") and insert ("any wishes expressed by").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STONHAM: I am not very happy about this Amendment. As the clause stands, the mental welfare officer is obliged, whenever it is reasonably practicable (I think those words are fair enough) to ascertain the wishes of the relatives. The Amendment now places the onus on the relatives of informing the mental welfare officer that they object. As we all know well, many of these relatives have great difficulty in knowing how to object and to whom they should object. It seems to me, particularly having regard to Clause 27, to which the noble and learned Viscount referred, and in which the position of the mental welfare officer has been made much easier—I might say more safe—that it is surely not unreasonable to ask or expect or require the mental welfare officer to take some steps to find out what the wishes of the relatives are. If, of course, they are inaccessible, or he cannot find them or they are a long way away and they do not reply to letters, then we have already covered that point. But he ought to be required to take steps and not leave the whole of the onus on the relatives.
The next Amendment to this clause, moreover, appears to encourage the mental welfare officer to by-pass the relatives. In many of these cases we are not dealing with well-informed people; and very often they are frightened people. I myself have had a great many of them to deal with and I do not think we ought to weaken this requirement placed on the mental welfare officer to find out exactly, or to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to find out, what the wishes of the relatives are. I think I heard the noble and learned Viscount say as almost his last words that the relatives had expressed a view, but I can see nothing in the clause which supports the assumption that the relatives have already expressed their

593
view. The clause reads now "having regard to the wishes of any relatives," but we are asked to take out "the wishes of any relatives" and to insert "any wishes expressed by". They may not have expressed any wishes yet there is apparently no duty on the officer to take reasonable steps to ascertain them. That is why I am uneasy about this change.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will have another look at the point. What was in our minds was the emergency case. Assuming that the relatives had expressed a view, I think it would be reasonable to act in an emergency bearing in mind the views already expressed. I should like to look again at the point the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made, when there are no views already expressed by any relatives. It is a difficult point, because obviously in many emergency cases it would be important to act at once. I do not think there is any difference as to our intentions. We want to get it in as perfect a form as we can.
LORD STONHAM: The particular point I had in mind was that a certain mental welfare officer might know the relatives and might think to himself, although he is not entitled to, "I do not care what She thinks about it; I am going to put him away". Some steps should be taken to ascertain the wishes of the relatives.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will look at it again.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 24, at end add ("or as restricting the power of a mental welfare officer to make any application under this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Regulations for purposes of Part IV]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
"(d) for requiring local health authorities to consult such bodies or persons as may be prescribed by or determined under the regulations in connection with the approval of medical practitioners for the purposes of section twenty-eight of this Act, and for con-
594
fining approval to such practitioners as may be agreed upon between these authorities and and any bodies or persons required to be consulted by them respectively."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment deals with a difficulty that was not at once foreseen. If I may put it very briefly before your Lordships, it deals with the arrangements to be made for requiring local health authorities to take the advice of persons nominated by the hospital authorities before approving doctors for the purposes of Clause 28 of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that clause and the Amendment which was down upon it. Paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of Clause 56, as it now stands, allows the Minister by regulations to provide "for the constitution of committees" to advise local health authorities on this subject. The intention was to require local health authorities to appoint a small committee consisting entirely of doctors, some of whom would be nominated by the Regional Hospital Boards or boards of governors of teaching hospitals, and some of whom would be nominated by the local authority itself. It was expected that the local authority representatives would usually include at least one of their own medical officers.
The County Councils Association pointed out to us the practical difficulties if such a body were constituted as a committee of the local authority. It would have to have on it a proportion of members who were themselves members of the local authority, and it would be quite contrary to normal practice to appoint one of their own officers. We have therefore re-worded paragraph (d) so as to allow the nominees of hospital authorities to meet informally with the medical officer of health to present agreed advice to the local health authority, so achieving the desired object, and also the object of your Lordships, without introducing unnecessary constitutional and procedural difficulties. This deals with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised by his Amendment at page 17, line 26. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 13, leave out paragraph (d) and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Powers of courts to order hospital admission or guardianship]:
6.20 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "him" to insert:
"including any facilities for psychiatric treatment in any prison psychiatric hospital or otherwise within the prison system".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment takes us back into that terribly difficult area where crime and mental disorders overlap and where moral and medical issues are so inextricably entwined. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—together, I hope, with other noble Lords—is supporting me here. Clause 60, as the Committee will see, deals with certain persons convicted before the courts, whom the courts can, in certain circumstances, recommend should be sent to and detained in hospital on the ground of mental illness, psychopathic disorder, subnormality, or severe subnormality. In subsection (1) (b) we are told that the court, in coming to a decision of this kind, is to have regard to all the circumstances—and I am now quoting the words:
"including the nature of the offence and the character and antecedents of the offender, and to the other available methods of dealing with him."
At this point our Amendment would add the words
"including any facilities for psychiatric treatment in any prison psychiatric hospital or otherwise within the prison system."
Strictly speaking, I would concede that the Amendment could be said to be verbally redundant, on the ground that any psychiatric facilities are already covered by the phrase "other available methods of dealing with him", but I hope and believe that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will not consider that that would be a sufficient answer to an Amendment which raises such important issues. It seems to me that there are two good reasons for tabling this Amendment. In the first place, it will prove a valuable addition to the Bill, as we have to keep before our minds in years to come the great importance of psychiatric development in the prison system, and in particular the need, which has been admitted for so long, for a psychiatric prison hospital. In the second place, it enables us to seek, and I hope obtain, from the Government—though not, I would expect, per-
596
haps to-day—at any rate a general outline of their feelings and philosophy in regard to the future treatment of what I may perhaps be allowed to call mental delinquents: that is to say, delinquents mentally afflicted.
We have discussed the White Paper, Penal Practice in a Changing Society, more than once in this House since it was issued in February, but the Committee perhaps will not mind my reminding them that in paragraph 76 of the present White Paper we are told that work will be starting shortly on a psychiatric prison hospital at Grendon Underwood, Bucks. That was in February, and I believe that there has been some further move since then, this being July. I am told—the Lord Chancellor will put me right if I am wrong—that this projected psychiatric prison hospital will accommodate about 300 prisoners, and it is hoped that it will be completed in 1962—three years from now.
I have been told too, though I am not sure whether this is the official view—perhaps this afternoon or later we shall be told if it is so—that in the broad sense this psychiatric prison hospital will give effect to the East-Hubert Report. I do not know whether many of your Lordships have read that Report. I have been studying it over the week-end. I make reference to the Report with, I hope, a "dead-pan" expression on my face. I do not want to seem to be praising or blaming the reference to the East-Hubert Report and the implications of their ideals, because the Report which I have in my hands here and which can be obtained from any museum, I suppose, was based on investigations which were conducted between 1934 and 1938, and the issue of this Report, which it is now hoped to implement in about 1962, was published in 1939. Its most important recommendation—it is extremely interesting—can be studied briefly in paragraph 172, and I will quote that to the Committee. It says:
"We believe that the most satisfactory method of dealing with abnormal and most unusual types of criminals would be by the creation of a penal institution of a special kind."
So a penal institution of a special kind was suggested in 1939. Six years of war passed immediately afterwards, and you can say, if you like, that we start again

597
at 1945. But there is the fact that this was published in 1939.
We know that in this country all ideas take a long time to fructify, but some take longer than others, and, on any calculation, 23 years is really a shockingly long time for a hospital of this vital importance to come into existence. I am afraid that this does not reflect any credit on anybody, and anybody who has been in any Government of one kind or another must share the blame. However, what I am asking the Government this afternoon to say is what are the principles on which it is intended that prisoners with mental troubles or handicaps will be allocated as between these three kinds of institution; the mental hospital, the psychiatric prison hospital, when it comes into existence (and I certainly hope that there will be more than one), and, thirdly, the ordinary prisons, where there will be, we hope, an increasing amount of psychiatric treatment available.
I think I am not being unreasonable and I shall not press the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to give a thorough or final answer to that question this afternoon. I am sure he will agree that it is not in any case a subject on which it would be wise to be dogmatic. It is clearly a field where the best answer is bound to involve a great deal of trial and error. I think everyone feels strongly that, before accepting this clause and other related portions of the Bill, the House should be given a chance of expressing its views and of giving the Government an opportunity, perhaps on the Report stage, to say how their mind is working, because at present I think it is fair to say that we have no clue at all in regard to their philosophy. I would gladly offer some ideas of my own, but I have spoken for some time already for a Committee stage speech and I am sure that the Committee would prefer to hear the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, with his special experience.
However, I cannot sit down without pointing out the great danger of not building a prison psychiatric hospital, and of not building more than one, because if we delay that course we shall have on our hands a number of prisoners who will either be rejected by mental hospitals or, if they are accepted, will destroy the whole atmosphere of the much improved
598
system that we are trying to establish under this Bill in the mental hospitals. If these prisoners remain in ordinary prisons they will be the greatest stumbling block in the path of prison reform. Yet we cannot cast them off from aid altogether; they are human beings, and we have a duty to them, as we have to all citizens; and something in the nature of a prison psychiatric hospital is the only answer. But even then, I think that all who have gone into this question most thoroughly are agreed that one is not enough. Apart even from the question of numbers, we cannot leave together the hopeful and the intractable cases: certainly we shall need eventually a variety of prison psychiatric hospitals. The whole subject bristles with problems and responsibilities and opportunities. I feel that we are entitled, as I said before, before we leave this Bill, to know the Government's mind on this matter, even though in the broadest outline. I hope that, if not to-day, at a later stage, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will seek to make the Government's intentions plain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 8, after ("him") insert the said new words.—(Lord Pakenham.)
6.30 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My noble friend used his Amendment as a peg on which to hang a very wide argument, but I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will not mind that. The clause itself is, I believe, a very good and valuable one, and the Amendment would force the court to think about the proper disposal of those who are before it and to have regard to all possible facilities. May I approach it from a slightly different angle from that of my noble friend? I do so from the point of view of one of the commonest kind of mental patients coming before the court: that is, the attempted and unsuccessful suicide. As a rule, such a patient is seen by a doctor who is called in. The doctor then has the dilemma of whether to inform the police or to get the mental welfare officer or his successor, the relieving officer; or to get the patient into hospital straight away.
If he informs the police it is quite likely that the patient will be taken to prison, quite properly, because he has committed an offence. There the prisoner may be remanded in custody and investigated.

599
On the other hand, if the doctor decides to get the patient straight to a mental hospital, the mental hospital informs the police after the patient's arrival, or the doctor does so after the patient's departure, and usually the situation proceeds much more smoothly. The doctor, in his dilemma, makes the decision whether he requires the case dealt with legally or from the hospital point of view; and almost the only type of case where he will feel it is right that the patient should be dealt with legally is the hysterical psychopath who is making a suicide attempt for demonstration purposes, in order to annoy.
It seems to me that when mental patients arrive at courts it is rather "hit and miss" as to where they end up. They may end up in Broadmoor or in a psychiatric ward; they may end up in a mental hospital. I hope that under this clause the matter will be clarified considerably and that as many as possible of these patients, particularly those who are mentally ill as opposed to psychopathic, will be sent to ordinary mental hospitals as ordinary patients—because that is what they are. It is purely fortuitous that they happen to have committed an offence in the course of their illness. Almost always they are very ill and very mad, and they differ in no way from other patients in mental hospitals. That is where they should be. That is where they will get better quickest.
There is one other strange situation which has arisen as a result of the improvements in active mental treatment, particularly electrical convulsive therapy. A deeply depressed patient who is committed for attempted suicide or infanticide or attempted infanticide is remanded for trial in a prison. Should that patient be given electrical convulsive treatment before she is tried—it is usually a lady? I do not know what the right answer is. Obviously, her mental state will be completely changed by the time she comes to trial. She may become perfectly sane and sensible. Yet at the time of committing the crime and being arrested, she will have been quite insane. It seems very inhuman that she should not be treated. I do not know whether or not treatment is generally given. I rather think it is not given before trial, but it means that the patient must remain ill for a considerable period.
600
I hope that the noble and learned Viscount may like the Amendment on its merits. It does not seem to me to weaken the clause in any way, but it does widen the information before the court. I hope, also, that the court may as far as possible lean towards sending patients to a hospital, rather than to the psychiatric facilities within the Prison Service which should be reserved for the very intractable and difficult cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, anticipated, I am not going to worry about certain technical difficulties which the Amendment raises, because I want to accept his invitation to give a preliminary view of our philosophy on this matter; and I hope that if there are any further points the noble Lord wants made clear he will not hesitate to ask me about them. One may pose the question: "How is the court to reach a decision on the most suitable method of disposing of the case?"
The court will, I am sure, be guided to a great extent by the medical evidence, and your Lordships will appreciate—though I hope you will not mind my repeating myself because I believe one has to have this in mind in order to grasp the flow of the argument—that the question of making a hospital or guardianship order cannot arise until, first, the court is satisfied on the evidence of two doctors that the offender is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, subnormality or severe subnormality: and secondly, that the mental disorder is of a nature or degree which warrants detention in a hospital for medical treatment or the reception of a patient into guardianship; and thirdly, that arrangements have been made for the admission of an offender to a particular hospital or, where guardianship is recommended, his reception into the care of a particular local authority or a particular individual.
Having been satisfied on medical evidence that these requirements are fulfilled, the court must then have regard, first, to the nature of the offence; secondly, to the character and antecedents of the offender; and thirdly, to other available methods of dealing with him, before they reach a decision. In a great many cases, especially with the mentally ill and the severely subnormal,

601
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that there will be little doubt in the mind of the court that a hospital order is the most suitable, if not the only, method of dealing with the offender.
The offender who is diagnosed as a psychopath will present the court with a more difficult problem and, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, knows better than anyone, the choice between prison and hospital in such cases will often not be a clear-cut one. The court will be able, if it wishes, to consult the doctors about their grounds for concluding that detention in a hospital is the proper course; and will be able to ask the prison medical officer, who will normally be in attendance at sessions for assizes, what treatment would be available if the offender were sent to prison; and how much help the prison medical officer would be able to give would depend on whether he has made one of the medical recommendations before the court. If the offender has been on bail, the opportunities of the medical officer will, of course, be limited.
May I now say a word about the present position as to treatment? At present psychiatric treatment by consultant psychiatrists is available in three prison hospitals: those at Wormwood Scrubs, Wakefield and Holloway; and a certain amount of support in minor therapy is given by prison medical officers. Prisoners can be sent to mental hospitals as voluntary patients under Section 22 (2) of the Prison Act, 1952, and prisoners who are certifiably insane or mentally defective are at present transferred to the appropriate hospitals and institutions and will continue to be so transferred under the corresponding provisions in Clause 72 of the Bill.
LORD TAYLOR: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for a moment? When he says "the appropriate hospitals", does he mean Broad-moor or the county hospital or the area hospital to which they would normally go?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that it was limited to Broad-moor.
Now I come to the proposed East-Hubert institution at Grendon Underwood. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham,
602
made some play with the dates, but I think he will understand that Norwood East was one of the Medical Commissioners of Prisons, and Dr. Hubert was a psychiatrist engaged as a psychotherapist at Wormwood Scrubs and, therefore, although the report, I am sure, is still a valuable document, the name has been given in memory of the very great work in their own name of these two distinguished gentlemen. I am not going to avoid the point, but I say merely that this is not a case like that of the distinguished great grand-uncle (I think I have it right) of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who, when asked whether he was Mr. Smith, said, "If you believe that, you will believe anything" It is a name given in honour of their services.
And now I will come to some facts about the Institution. As to the numbers, it will house 350 prisoners and will provide facilities of the kind mentioned in the Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said, it is unlikely to be opened until well into 1962; but I think these are the points which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, wanted to know. It is not intended to send to it prisoners who qualify for transfer to outside hospitals under Clause 72 of the Bill; that is, those who, in modern terminology, are certifiable. Imprisonment with a view to detention in the East-Hubert Institution is not, therefore, an alternative to a hospital order for offenders as to whom the court is satisfied that they qualify for hospital orders, if their primary need is for treatment in hospital. Nor is it intended that courts should select prisoners to go to the East-Hubert Institution. It is essential to the success of the Institution that its population should be selected by the prison medical service and their consultant advisers.
In so far as the Amendment might seem to encourage courts to make open recommendations that particular offenders should be sent to the institution, that would frankly be a source of embarrassment. May I refer (I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is familiar with this, but others may not be, and it may be useful for it to be put shortly on the record) to a statement made on page 101 of the Report of the Prison Commissioners for 1954? I think, if noble Lords will bear with me while I

603
read it, that it will deal with the matter in one place. They stated—and I quote:
"There appears to be misunderstanding in some quarters as to the functions which it is intended this new establishment should serve, and it may be well to recapitulate those originally envisaged. They were:

(a) As a clinic and hospital, where cases could be investigated and, if necessary, treated by psychotherapy and other means, and their disposal decided on. This would serve also as a centre for criminological research, and for co-ordinating the various aspects of prison and after-care organisation:

(b) As an institution in which selected cases could live under special conditions of training and treatment. Many cases who proved unsuitable for, and unmodified by, the re-educative and rehabilitative influences of the modern prison system would be allocated to this section. Its aims would be, by the application of psychiatric experience, to achieve alterations in future behaviour:

(c) As a colony in which a further type of offender could live, who had proved himself quite unable to adapt himself to ordinary social conditions but for whom reformative measures, however specialised, seemed useless and ordinary prison life inappropriate:

(d) As an observation and treatment centre for Borstal lads who because of mental abnormality appeared unsuitable for, or had failed to respond to, ordinary Borstal training and for various reasons were considered unfit for early licence."

The Report goes on:
"No major departure from these intentions is at present contemplated and it needs to be emphasised that it is not intended that the Institution at Grendon should become solely or even mainly an establishment for psychopaths. The orientation will be treatment/research, and to weight the clinical climate with the more difficult and often irreversible psychopathic personalities would vitiate the forward-looking therapeutic atmosphere which it is hoped will obtain. It is likely therefore that the cases selected will be those with real therapeutic promise, and it may well be that those in the third category will not be sent to this establishment at all, and certainly not initially."
The plans indicated in that extract will be the bases of the plans, and the new Institution will be developed from the point at which it starts in the light of circumstances. Methods of dealing with psychopaths and their allocation as between hospital and prison will have to be worked out in the light of the developments, of facilities for treating them in hospital and
604
of knowledge in this field and its progress. It will be a matter—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham—of trial and error, and we shall do our best to learn as we go. At the moment the emphasis in the Bill is on disposal by the courts by the ordinary means, unless, in the circumstances and conditions which I mentioned, a hospital order is clearly the most suitable course; and it is probable that many psychopaths will be sent to prison until experience has shown other and better means of dealing with them. I am sure I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, say that in the course of our debates. That is a fact at the moment. But we are anxious, as I said, to learn and to improve as we go along, starting broadly on the principles that we stated in 1954 and improving them in the light of experience.
I hope that what I have said will be of some help to the noble Lord. Lord Pakenham. At the end of the day it is almost impossible to get away from the great element of discretion that must exist in dealing with particular cases. But I have, so far as I can—and I am afraid it has been a rather long answer—tried to give the guiding principles. I hope that they may be of some advantage, and even if they are not fully satisfactory, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will find matters in them on which he can get further information, which I shall try to obtain for him.
LORD TAYLOR: May I raise one final point with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on his account of Grendon Underwood? Some of us have been very worried about Grendon Underwood, and the statement which he has read out from the Report of the Prison Commissioners makes clear why we are worried. The real problem is these psychopaths. We were hoping that Grendon Underwood would be a place where they would be investigated and looked after, and where the problem would be tackled—as, indeed, it has been tackled at Herstedvester, in Denmark. We know perfectly well that psychiatrists dislike looking after psychopaths, and will dodge them if they can. They much prefer the easier patients, who recover perfectly well out-

605
side prison—indeed, many of them recover without any treatment at all.
It would be so easy for Grendon Underwood to be filled with extremely recoverable, hopeful patients, who would recover anyway; and to leave these poor, wretched psychopaths with nowhere to go, and still with nobody wanting them. As the noble and learned Viscount read out the list of people who were going in, I thought his categories (b) and (c), and probably (d), were all psychopaths; but then when he came to the end of them there was an assurance that it would not be overweighted with psychopaths, and that they would be kept out of Grendon Underwood. My concern, at any rate—and it is, I think, the concern of many of my fellows in the field of psychiatry—is that this should be an institution primarily for the treatment and investigation of criminal psychopaths, who form the hard core of criminality and the hard core of psychiatry. We hope that it will not be blocked with perfectly recoverable depressions, anxiety states, and all sorts of minor psychiatric maladies. No doubt it would give the doctors there great pleasure to treat these cases, but it would not be doing the really tough, difficult piece of work.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have checked the words again, and the words the Prison Commissioners used were
"…it is not intended that the institution should become solely or even mainly…"
That still gives the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, quite a lot of room. Judging from the enthusiasm with which this has been awaited for a long time by everyone interested in these problems, I do not think that there is a real danger of their trying to take an easy way out. However, I shall certainly convey what the noble Lord. Lord Taylor, has said to my right honourable friend.
LORD PAKENHAM: I think that all of us—not only those of us who are here to-night, but a great many other Members of this House, and others outside—will be very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for what he has said, and will study it very carefully. I feel that there is little more I need say until I have studied what he has said. Before the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, got up, I was thinking of calling attention to the fact that we are
606
really left quite uncertain as to what is to happen to psychopaths. It is impossible, therefore, to feel that the Government's intentions are as clear or are as comprehensive as ideally they should be. Whether this Bill is the right moment to press the point home, or whether it is more the subject for debates on penal reform, is something that perhaps we can think over. But I am sure the noble and learned Viscount, to whom we are most grateful, will realise that we do consider that what he has said, with all his fullness and all his kindness, has left the problem of psychopaths, so far as we are concerned, quite uncovered. I do not say that it is in the slightest bit easy, but, standing here, I do not know what the Government intend to do about psychopaths. Therefore, while I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, it is possible that I may want to return to it before the end of this Bill. I think that is rather doubtful, but I shall certainly hope to raise it again in this House on another occasion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Effects of hospital order and guardianship order]:
6.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the first of a series of Amendments, the others being Nos. 46, 73, 77, 78 and 79. They all deal with the application of the provisions of Part IV of the Bill to patients who are the subject of orders or directions made under the provisions of Part V, and they are purely drafting, in the sense that they excise certain provisions which are not appropriate in these circumstances. I could go through them all in detail, but I do not think there is anything that could by any stretch of the imagination, be controversial. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 4, leave out from ("than") to ("as") in line 5 and insert ("sections thirty-one and thirty-two, or section thirty-four as the case may be)")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 20, at end insert ("and the remaining provisions of the said Part IV shall not apply.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is one of the series of Amendments which I mentioned to your Lordships when I discussed Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 32, at end insert—
("(5) Where a patient is admitted to a hospital in pursuance of a hospital order, or placed under guardianship by a guardianship order, any previous application, order or direction under this Act by virtue of which he was liable to be detained in a hospital or subject to guardianship shall cease to have effect:
Provided that if the first-mentioned order, or the conviction on which it was made, is quashed on appeal this subsection shall not apply and section forty-six of this Act shall have effect as if during any period for which the patient was liable to be detained or subject to guardianship under the order, he had been detained in custody as mentioned in that section.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Power of higher courts to restrict discharge from hospital]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 22, leave out from ("duration") to ("shall") in line 24 and insert (",renewal and expiration of authority for the detention of patients ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This also is one of the series of Amendments that I mentioned when we dealt with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—>
Page 48, line 7, at end insert—
("(4) A hospital order shall not cease to have effect under subsection (5) of section sixty-three of this Act if an order restricting the discharge of the patient is in force at the material time.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 66 to 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Patients absent from hospitals in England and Wales]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships will see that Clause 93 deals with the retaking in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, of patients absent from hospitals in England and Wales. The effect of certain drafting Amendments in the Commons was to apply the clause to patients subject to guardianship, and the present Amendment restores the provisions of the clause to what was originally intended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 38, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 26, at end add—
("(4) This section shall not apply to any person who is subject to guardianship.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 94 to 123 agreed to.
Clause 124 [Rules as to procedure]:
7.1 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) Rules made under this section shall make provision—

(a) for the applicant to be represented by any person selected or appointed by him;

(b) for the applicant and any person appointed by him under paragraph (a) of this subsection to receive copies of all documents to be submitted to or considered by the Mental Health Review Tribunal;

(c) for the submission of oral evidence by and on behalf of the applicant; and

(d) for the oral examination and cross examination of all witnesses including persons by or on behalf of whom any documents have been prepared for consideration by the Mental Health Review Tribunal."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely procedural. It sets out matters which, in our opinion, should be taken into consideration in making rules under subsection (1). There are later Amendments to be moved by the noble and learned Viscount which deal with two of the matters referred to in my

609
Amendment. As usual they deal with them in much better language than the language used in my Amendment. But paragraphs (c) and (d) of my Amendment are still left. I have no doubt that, generally speaking, evidence will be permitted, but since we are setting out in some detail the rules of procedure before the Tribunals, I think that it would be proper to say in terms that oral evidence and examination and cross-examination will be permitted. I do not suppose for a moment that it is intended that these should not be permitted, but we think it better that that should be stated. It would look as if the whole of this clause might be looked at again in the light of the Amendments to be moved by the noble and learned Viscount. The effect of his Amendments, which we would gladly accept, is that my own Amendment would not stand. Therefore, having moved it, I propose in due course, when I have heard what the noble and learned Viscount has to say about it, to withdraw my Amendment in favour of his, in the hope that at the next stage it may be possible to incorporate something relating to the giving of oral evidence before the tribunal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful for the manner in which the noble Lord has moved his Amendment. I think that it would be convenient if I tried quite shortly to give a description of the procedure which we envisage for the Mental Health Review Tribunals and in the light of which I would make my rules. We envisage that the general arrangements would follow the recommendations in paragraph 448 of the Royal Commission report: they would be, first, that when the patient's application is received, the Tribunal would call for a written report from the hospital authorities, including a medical report. Secondly, the Tribunal would visit the hospital and interview the patient and any other person it wished; the medical member or members of the Tribunal would examine the patient. Thirdly, if the patient or other applicant asked for it, but not otherwise, the Tribunal would arrange for a hearing on more formal lines, with the hospital authorities and the patient present together and
610
making their statements in person or through representatives. Fourthly, the Tribunal would be able to make any other inquiries it wanted; and, lastly, the Tribunal would make its decision, based not only on what had been put to it by the patient and other persons in writing or orally but also on its own inquiries and its own assessment of the patient's mental condition.
That being our objective we come up against the age-long problem of formality or informality. It is a difficult one, and those, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and myself, who have been bred to the law have a natural bias in favour of clear rules of procedure, because on the whole we find that justice is obtained better in that way. On the other hand, we must face the fact that a great number of laymen think that lawyers are rather bewitched by procedure and forms, and have tried in various fields to introduce the informal procedure of general conversation. One finds that the rebound from that is a complaint about inquisitorial procedures.
I hope that your Lordships will not misunderstand me. I put it in rather light terms, but it is a very serious problem. Anyone who, like the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has been interested in, for example, the law of Parliamentary privilege, knows that there are many complaints in various books against that procedure, because it provides no method of presenting the case of the accused, or for the accused person to be represented, or any formalities of that kind. I instance this only to show how difficulties arise, and I am very anxious, in the rules which I have to make for these Tribunals, to have an informal hearing. I think that in many cases, where there is not a complaint so much as a desire to have a case looked at again, informality would be good. On the other hand, one can well imagine that when the patient or relatives and the hospital have come to an issue, they would want a formal presentation. Therefore I should prefer if I were given a considerable flexibility in regard to the rules.
Subsection (2) deals with the specialities about which I can make rules in particular. I am a little afraid that paragraphs (c) and (d) of the noble Lord's

611
Amendment would tie me down to formality, and I should like to consider that point again. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that the substance of his paragraph (a) is met in an appropriate and flexible form by the Government's Amendment No. 53. It would be possible under that Amendment to provide in the rules not only for the representation of the applicant but also for that of the patient when the application is made by, for example, the nearest relative under Clause 48 (3). Similarly, the noble Lord's paragraph (b) is met by Amendment No. 54, our paragraph (e), which enables the rules to provide for copies of all documents produced to the Tribunal to be made available to the applicant and to any patient in respect of whom an application is made. But it does give the Tribunal discretion to withhold documents if it considers it desirable to do so in the interests of the patient or for other special reasons. Noble Lords will remember that in paragraph 448 the Royal Commission explicitly stated that the doctors treating the patient—and the members of the Tribunal—must be able to use discretion in deciding how much of the medical report should be made available.
With regard to paragraphs (c) and (d), to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred, again I should like to consider between now and the Report stage what he said. Even in the second class of cases where the patient desires a more formal hearing, I think that there are still advantages, despite the difficulty I have mentioned, in having the proceedings as informal and as flexible as possible. I hope your Lordships will not think it conceited of me to say that there are certain safeguards, one of which is that the rules will be made by the Lord Chancellor. Secondly, they will be submitted in draft to the Council on Tribunals, because it is the Government's intention to apply the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. The result is that they will be made by the Lord Chancellor and submitted to the Council on Tribunals; and then, of course, they will be sent, with the Council's suggestions, to the Lord Chancellor and will come under the general supervision of the Council. But I think that, in view of what I have said about the recommendation of the Royal Commission, one will
612
have to be flexible about whether the Tribunal should state its reasons, because it may be equally bad for the patient to know the reasons. That is a matter we have to consider, but obviously the same reasoning applies. The third safeguard is that the rules will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
I should like to have the opportunity of studying Lord Silkin's speech in cold print, but I hope he agrees that my general approach to the matter is the same as his would be if he were faced with this problem. We must try to get a procedure which will make quite sure that no individual is prejudiced in any way but which is at the same time sufficiently flexible to ensure that no person is frightened by it. Possibly the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, remembers when the Beveridge Report dealing with workmen's compensation was introduced. One of the matters which surprised me (because I had always thought that workmen's compensation cases were conducted in a kindly and reasonable way; and, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I have in my time appeared in many hundreds) was that when the Beveridge recommendations were produced in another place so many of our trade union colleagues testified to the frightening effect on the ordinary person of going into a court. That was one of the biggest shocks my professional sense has ever had. I want to avoid that by making this procedure flexible, yet at the same time to give protection. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will for the moment be content with that as a statement of my general approach. I will consider before the next stage what he has said.
LORD SILKIN: I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that his general approach is the same as mine. We do not want applicants, especially applicants who are suffering from mental trouble, to be frightened by the atmosphere of one of these Tribunals, and we should certainly like the proceedings to be conducted as informally as possible. On the other hand, I think he ought to provide for cases where it becomes necessary to cross-examine the doctor on the grounds upon which he is expressing an opinion; and it is a little difficult to do that informally. I do not think the decision as to whether the doctor ought to be cross-examined or not

613
should rest solely with the Tribunal. If there is a desire on the part of the applicant or his advisers to cross-examine, then I think they ought to have the right to do so. But if that point can be met in the rules, or if it can be met by an understanding that that will be the case, and the rules that the Lord Chancellor is going to submit can be amended from time to time in the light of experience, then I think the safeguards that he has given should be adequate: that the Tribunals will approve them; that they will be approved by the House and be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure; and that he himself will frame them.
I think also he is right in saying that there should be reserved to the Tribunal power to withhold, in certain circumstances, the reasons for their decision, or even to withhold certain documents which might be damaging to the interests of the patient. I should myself be willing to trust the Tribunal to make a fair decision on that. So what we are left with is that the Lord Chancellor will consider whether it is necessary to have in the rules some reference to the question of examination and cross-examination of witnesses, while preserving in the general case the informality that both he and I desire.
LORD STONHAM: Before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, there are two points I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount for consideration. I am wholly with him about having this procedure as informal as possible, but would he look closely at the procedure of the pensions appeal tribunals. I have been concerned in the rôle of appellant's friend on a good many occasions, and I am sure it is impossible to get rid of the sense of fear and excitement in the mind of the appellant or, in this case, the patient. The pensions appeal tribunals treat appellants extremely kindly, and they are as informal as they can be. If that procedure could be followed, I am sure it would be excellent.
The other point I am rather anxious about is that we should not be placed in the position that we deny to a patient who has not committed any crime the rights which in this Bill, under Clause 62 (3), we give to a person who has been convicted by a court and appeals.
614
All the items which my noble friend asked for in this Amendment are, of course, merely listing what is open to someone convicted by a court under Clause 62 (3). We ought not to have the feeling that we have denied to a patient who has not committed an offence the rights which are given to one who has been convicted by a court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will gladly consider that point.
LORD SILKIN: I am sorry if I appeared to shut out my noble friend. If I had done, we should have missed two very useful suggestions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 26, at end insert—
("(d) for regulating !the circumstances in which, and the persons by whom, applicants and patients in respect of whom applications are made to a tribunal may, if not desiring to appear in person, be represented before the tribunal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STONHAM: I am probably entirely wrong, but as I read this paragraph it would appear that the words "if not desiring to appear in person" means that if the patient does not wish to appear he cannot have a friend or representative with him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:"Appear in person" is a term of art. It means "to conduct one's own case".
LORD STONHAM: I am quite clear that he can appear in person, but can he appear in person and have a friend with him as well? It certainly was not clear to me by these words; but then I am not a lawyer.
LORD SILKIN: It is quite clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord mean someone who just sits beside him but who does not take part in the case?
LORD STONHAM: I have, no doubt it is my lack of intelligence in this matter. From the wording of the paragraph it seems to me that you either appear in person without assistance, or you do not appear and somebody represents you.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble Lord need worry. The point is covered. But for his peace of mind I will look at it again.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 30, at end insert—
("(e) for making available to any applicant, and to any patient in respect of whom an application is made to a tribunal, copies of all documents produced to the tribunal in connection with the application except where the tribunal considers it undesirable in the interests of the patient or for other special reasons;
(f) for requiring a tribunal to furnish such statements of the reasons for any decision given by the tribunal as may be prescribed by the rules, subject to any provision made by the rules for withholding such a statement from a patient or any other person in cases where the tribunal considers that furnishing it would be undesirable in the interests of the patient or for other special reasons").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 124, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 125 to 132 agreed to.
Clause 133 [Correspondence of patients not subject to detention]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships may remember that I mentioned Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57 when we were discussing an Amendment on the last occasion, and that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he would not move the Amendment to leave out the Clause. These Amendments deal with the point which I mentioned, which was the undertaking of my right honourable friend to excise the people in local authority homes. The Amendments are for that purpose, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 15, leave out from ("shall") to ("apply") in line 16.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: These Amendments are acceptable so far as they go, but the noble and learned Viscount has undertaken to look further into the whole question of censorship of correspondence. Therefore, I give him notice that I will not move the next Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 18, leave out from ("purpose") to end of line 30 and insert ("but not being liable to be detained therein, as it applies in relation to a patient detained in a hospital under Part IV of this Act.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 31, leave out ("other").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 134 [Warrant to search for and remove patients]:
7.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (4)
"and in the execution of a warrant issued under subsection (2) of this section the constable to whom it is addressed may be accompanied—

(a) by a medical practitioner;

(b) by any person authorised by or under this Act to take or retake the patient."

The noble and learned Viscount said: Clause 134 provides for the issue of a justice's warrant authorising entry of premises in two sets of circumstances. Subsection (1) deals with cases where there is reasonable cause to believe that a mentally disordered person is being ill-treated or neglected or is not under proper care or control. In such cases the constable to whom the warrant is issued must, under subsection (4), be accompanied by a mental welfare officer and a doctor. Subsection (2) deals with cases where powers of entry are needed to obtain access to patients who are already liable under the Bill to be taken to some place (for example, to hospital under Clause 31) or to be retaken (for example, under Clauses 40 or 139). In these cases no provision is made, in the clause as it stands, for any person to accompany the constable when he enters the premises. It is not necessary in these cases to impose this as a requirement, because it is here a question of taking or retaking a known patient who is already liable to be detained. I want to tell your Lordships that in practice we expect that the constable would take with him a doctor or the person who has applied for the warrant under subsection (2), and

617
that this Amendment removes any doubt about his power to do this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 135 to 137 agreed to.
Clause 138 [Provisions as to custody, conveyance and detention]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 41, leave out ("detained or kept in custody") and insert ("kept in custody or detained")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 [Retaking of patients escaping from custody]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 139 confers powers to retake the persons described in subsection (1) of Clause 138, if they escape; these include persons who are being taken to or detained in a place of safety under subsections (1) or (3) of Clause 134, or under Clause 135. Clauses 134 (3) and 135 (2) place a limit of 72 hours on the period for which such persons may be detained in the place of safety. Clause 139, as it now stands, places no time limit on the period during which persons can be retaken after escape. But subsection (2) of this clause does not apply to these persons because they are not liable to be detained in hospital or subject to guardianship when, for example, they are being taken to or detained in a place of safety under Clauses 134 or 135. The Amendment remedies the omission by providing in effect that such persons may not be retaken after the end of the 72 hours during which they may be detained in the place of safety or, if they escape while being taken to the place of safety and before reaching it, after 72 hours from the time of escape. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 33, at end insert—
("(3) A person who escapes while being taken to or detained in a place of safety under section one hundred and thirty-four or section one hundred and thirty-five of this Act shall not be retaken under this section after the
618
expiration of the period of seventy-two hours beginning with the time when he escapes or the period during which he is liable to be so detained, whichever expires first.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 140 to 143 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after Clause 143 to insert the following new clause:
Research
"—(1) The Minister may undertake, or cause to be undertaken, research into the nature, causes and treatment of mental disorders, as defined in this Act.
(2) The Minister shall undertake, or cause to be undertaken, from time to time research into the manner in which the provisions of the Act are operating. The results of such research shall be laid before Parliament."
The noble Lord said: beg to move the new clause standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Pakenham and myself. This is the last Amendment I shall be moving, your Lordships will be pleased to hear, but I should like, if it is in accord with the practice of your Lordships' House, to say a personal word of thanks to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the great courtesy and kindness with which he has received our Amendments. Sometimes if they have been a little off the wicket he has driven them for a good four, but when they have been on the wicket I must say I think he has been wonderfully reasonable and we are reasonably hopeful. One realises that it is a very difficult time for him, with a great deal of legislation flowing through; and one realises also that a Bill gathers momentum as it proceeds through Parliament and it may be that it is rather difficult to get Amendments as fully considered as they would be in another place at this stage. Yet we hope very much that we have advanced arguments which he will be able to study and deploy with his colleagues, and that we may have made a real impression on this Bill.
I come to the new clause, and your Lordships will see that it is in two parts. The first enables the Minister to undertake research into the matter of this Bill. The second enforces on the Minister research into the working of the Bill. The Title of this Bill is the Mental Health Bill, and it is a strange thing that in a great measure like this there should be

619
no reference to research. We are well aware that the Government have power to carry out research into mental illness under the Act which constitutes the Medical Research Council, and our attempt to insert this clause is no criticism whatsoever of the excellent work which the Council are doing—if one may say so, the increasingly good work which they are doing. They have already established two new committees in psychiatry and are establishing two new research units.
There are, however, limitations to what the Medical Research Council can achieve, and I well remember that, when the drafting of the National Health Service Act itself was under consideration, the question arose as to whether medical research should be mentioned in that Act. The official view taken then was that it was quite unnecessary because it was already covered by the Medical Research Council. Nevertheless, it is included in the National Health Service Act, in Section 16. That section says:
"Without prejudice to the general powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Minister under the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, and the duties imposed on the Committee of the Privy Council for Medical Research under the said Act, the Minister may conduct, or assist by grants or otherwise any person to conduct, research into any matters relating to the causation, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness or mental defectiveness."
If it was thought appropriate to insert a research section into the National Health Service Act, despite the existence of the Medical Research Council, we feel that it is equally appropriate to insert it into this Mental Health Bill. It is particularly appropriate, indeed, because Section 16 of the National Health Service Act refers to the "treatment of illness or mental defectiveness". We are now abolishing mental defectiveness under this Bill, and that means that the particular section relating to research into mental defectiveness in the National Health Service Act will become meaningless. We therefore feel it is not only appropriate but necessary that the first part of this new clause should be in this present great and valuable Bill.
Another argument which may be advanced is that it is undesirable to have more than one official channel flowing towards medical research, a multiplicity of ways by which money can be
620
obtained for carrying out medical research. But, of course, often a committee controls each of these channels. Somebody has an idea and applies to one committee. The idea is turned down. They then apply to another one. It is accepted and it proves fruitful. Committees are very human affairs, and time and again have blocked for quite reasonable reasons, good research
One cannot help thinking what would have happened if in 1934 Dr. Meduna, of Budapest, had had to approach the Medical Research Council with a theory which he then held. It was that there was a biological antagonism between schizophrenia and epilepsy. He noticed that people who had schizophrenia never developed epilepsy, and vice versa, and he thought if he could produce epilepsy artificially it might cure schizophrenia. It was a stupid hypothesis, but he went ahead. He discovered that by giving a dose of insulin it was possible to induce the effect of epilepsy, and as a result the whole of the modern physical treatment of mental illness came into being. Likewise, in 1938 two Italian gentlemen, Cerletti and Bini had the ridiculous idea of connecting patients up to the mains and giving them fits. They connected the patients to the mains, and that was how electrical convulsion therapy began. Yet had they approached a respectable committee of the Medical Research Council, one feels they might have received very little encouragement indeed; they might have been turned down as cranks or psychopaths.
The same thing exactly happened with Professor Fleming, with penicillin. Fleming was a difficult man in some ways. I remember we were told, when I was a student, that he had certain strange ideas about a substance called penicillin; that it was about as useful as lysozyme, which was quite useless; that he had "a bee in his bonnet" about it. He certainly had "a bee in his bonnet", but he happened to be right. Had he been able to attract £15,000 or £20,000 a year at that time for research, penicillin might have been isolated eight years earlier; but he was not able to because he was "out of the establishment", as it were. That is a risk with all medical research. We have a good group of people allocating money honestly: they do excellent work, and they organise excellent work. But if there is only one channel, then one block

621
of the official channel may frustrate the extraordinary, slightly off-beam work which may be just that which is going to prove most fruitful. That is why we want the Minister of Health, as well as the Medical Research Council, to have this power—which indeed the Minister has in respect of illness under the National Health Service Act, though not now in respect of mental subnormality. So much for the first part of our new clause.
The second part is something new and something which we hope we may see often incorporated, if not in this Bill, in future legislation. In industry the term "feedback" is becoming common. Whenever a new process is developed or a new idea worked out, there has to be some kind of intelligence machinery to inform the industrialists how the thing is going and to watch it all the time. We believe that this is equally essential in Parliamentary legislation. Of course, there are, and all Ministers receive, returns made by the various units of whatever service is operating. But returns are somewhat inaccurate. In one hospital region, there are two mental hospitals, one of which is always the first in sending in its return, and it is always the better and more complete return. But the hospital happens to be by far the worst hospital in the region—I will not reveal its name. The other hospital is always the last to send in its return. They are usually rather badly filled in and scrappy, but everybody knows that it is not merely the best mental hospital in its region but perhaps one of the two best mental hospitals in the country—I refer to Warlingham Park. So returns are extremely unreliable.
The second way by which Ministers get information on working Acts is by inspection. The Board of Control is "going by the board"—though in fact all its officers will remain as officers of the Ministry. But their inspections were not so detailed as to qualify for the term "research". The third way is by detailed field study—by going and looking and seeing and studying how this Act of Parliament is working.
This Bill is a leap in the dark. We do not know how it is going to work. It has been thought up by the Royal Commission wisely and carefully, but we have no real prototype for it. The nearest to a prototype is the Mental Treatment Act,
622
1930. The patients were dealt with in a similar manner to the proposals contained in this Bill, but, for quite other reasons, these arrangements failed. We believe that this Bill will work, but I think it quite probable that snags and difficulties will arise. Why should not Parliament know how its work is progressing, and apply modern methods of social research to see whether we are achieving what we set out to achieve and, if not, how we can put it right? That is what the second part of the clause seeks to do. I hope that this kind of provision for social research into the working of Acts of Parliament may in due course become general. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 143 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Taylor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that we have dealt with his first point but in a way slightly different from the one he proposes? If he will be good enough to follow me, he will find that Section 16 (1) of the National Health Service Act, 1946, provides, as he told us, that, without prejudice to these general powers or to the duties imposed on the Committee of the Privy Council for Medical Research under the 1919 Act, the Minister may conduct, or assist by grants or otherwise any persons to conduct, research into any matters relating to the causation, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness. The noble Lord quoted "or treatment of illness or mental defectiveness." If lie has a copy of the Bill and if he will look at page 133, line 1, he will find there a Schedule repealing various enactments. He will see that in the National Health Service Act, 1946,
"in section sixteen the words 'or mental defectiveness' shall be omitted."
So that gets rid of his first trouble. Then, if he will look at line 21, he will see these words:
"In section seventy-nine, in subsection (1), in the definition of 'hospital' the words 'or mental defectiveness' shall be omitted; and in the definition of 'illness', for the words 'mental illness' there shall be substituted the words mental disorder within he meaning of the Mental Health Act, 1959'".
So the Minister has power to conduct or assist research into mental disorder as described by the Act.

623
Secondly, the Committee of the Privy Council for Medical Research is of course set up under Statute and has the duty of promoting medical research of all kinds. Thirdly—I do not think the noble Lord mentioned this—the National Health Service Act, 1946, by Section 16 (2), empowers Boards of Governors of teaching hospitals, Regional Hospital Boards and hospital management committees to conduct research into the causation, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness, which now has the meaning which I have explained—namely, including mental disorder.
On the other point, it is, of course, the duty of a Minister of the Crown to conduct research of a very different kind—that is, to see that any Act for which he is responsible is being properly carried out; and he is usually greatly assisted in carrying out his duties by Questions in Parliament, by debates on the Adjournment, and by putting down his Vote and moving that his salary be reduced by £100 or £1,000 if the House of Commons is feeling more discontented with him. But, in addition, the Minister of Health is under a duty to produce an Annual Report on the proceedings of his Ministry, and he would be greatly in default if, after the passing of this Bill, he did not refer to its working in subsequent Annual Reports. Therefore although I and my right honourable friend are most fully behind everything Lord Taylor has said as to the desirability of research, I hope that in view of my explanation he will not find it necessary to press this Amendment. If he has any other thoughts about the second half of his Amendment I should be pleased if he would communicate them to me before the Report stage.
LORD GRENFELL: As I understand it, the Lord Chancellor has said that this provision is incorporated through the National Health Service Act. I shall speak for only a short time, but I would mention this fact, namely, that not a lot of money has in the past been allocated to research into the subject. Although it was authorised, it has not actually been done. I am thinking rather of the new discoveries which are being made regarding the possible cause of mongolism in children. My noble friend Lord Taylor will know better than I do
624
whether we are on the brink of great discoveries, but I should like to put it rather forcefully, in this way if I may: that not only is this a great tragedy but it is a mental sickness which is costing a great deal of money, because we have to keep many people at the taxpayers' expense who really can be of little help or use to the community as a whole.
We cannot just leave research to the voluntary associations. It is a duty of the Government to get the finance and to put it forward, to help the people who are working so hard in this sphere of medical science. I hope that this point will be taken carefully into account in the future, and that mental health research will not in future be the "Cinderella" of research in medical science. I would not attempt to go further than that, except just to ask my noble and learned friend to nut that forward to his right honourable friend.
7.51 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I ask one question of the noble and learned Viscount? Would he see any objection to our returning to this question on the Report stage? I have various views on this matter which it is really my duty to explain on behalf of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People; and the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, who was anxious to be here and is a leading figure, in many senses, in this country, hoped that in his absence I would say a few words. But the hour is late. The noble and learned Viscount has explained the position from one point of view, and I wonder whether he, or my noble friend, Lord Taylor, would see any objection to returning to this topic on the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that would be very convenient because there are certain more cheerful aspects of this matter which I did mention on Second Reading. I have in mind the two units that I mentioned, one on the epidemiology of mental disorders and the other on psychiatric genetics: and the two new committees, one on clinical psychiatry and the other on the epidemiology of mental disorders. I should have thought it would have been very convenient to have perhaps a rather fuller debate on this matter which we all consider most important. I am sure I am only doing what every one of your

625
Lordships would like me to do when I say that I will especially convey to my right honourable friend the point made by my noble friend Lord Grenfell in regard to the matter which we know is so near his heart.
LORD TAYLOR: May I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply and particularly for agreeing to my noble friend's suggestion that this matter be dealt with at the Report stage? I wonder whether I am right in assuming that in view of the contents of the Seventh Schedule, research now comes within the ambit of the Bill—consequentially, as it were.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, certainly.
LORD TAYLOR: Would we, then, be correct in debating research on the Seventh Schedule, or would it be more appropriate to put down a further Amendment on the Report stage?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It could be either this Amendment again, or another. It is not for me to draft the noble Lord's Amendments, but some general words encouraging my right honourable friend towards research will give him the paving stones for discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clauses 145 and 146 agreed to.
Clause 147:
Transitional provisions
(2) For the purposes of Part III of the said Sixth Schedule, an order sending a person to an institution or placing a person under guardianship, made before the ninth day of March nineteen hundred and fifty-six on a petition presented under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, shall be deemed to be valid notwithstanding that that person may not have been found neglected within the meaning of section two of that Act when that order was made if—

(a) that order has been continued, at any time after that date, by order made by the Board of Control under section eleven of that Act after consideration of the reports and certificate required by that section; or

(b) the period for which that order was in force on the said date has not expired before the commencement of this Act, but the Board, after considering a special report from the medical practitioner responsible for the care or treatment of the patient, have determined that the patient is not a proper person to be discharged.

7.55 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: Since this is the last Amendment which will be moved from this side of the Committee, may I join with my noble friend Lord Taylor in expressing most grateful thanks to the noble and learned Viscount not only for the extreme care with which he has explained and dealt with the long list of Amendments, but also for his kindness. I feel that if, at the end of the day, when we have finished with this Bill, we have been able to make any improvement it will be in large measure due to the way in which the noble and learned Viscount has dealt with what my noble friend has called our "bowling". My noble friend was good enough to suggest that the noble and learned Viscount had scored a few glancing fours off the bowling, which carried the implication that he had not yet scored a six. This, therefore, is his last opportunity for that. I hope, however, that he will not take it but will rather do for the first time something which, with all his kindness, he has not yet been able to do on any previous Amendment; that is, to say a short, straight, sweet and simple "Yes"—which I should certainly very much appreciate.
My main ground for moving to delete this subsection is that it seeks to make an illegality legal—which, to me, is offensive and intolerable as a matter of principle. Secondly, in my view, in cases where it does not perpetuate an injustice it is unnecessary. After the High Court judgment in the Kathleen Rutty case, it was ascertained that some 6,000 persons who were detained in mental deficiency hospitals as having been found neglected were not, in fact, so found, and therefore were illegally detained. After that judgment, some few thousand of them were released, leaving about 2,700 still detained in mental hospitals and, as I have indicated, detained illegally.
Doubtless many of them are genuinely subnormal, but if so their continued detention does not depend upon the retention of this subsection. They will continue to be detained like any other subnormals or severely subnormals under the provisions of Part IV of this Bill when it becomes an Act. So we cannot be condoning an illegality, and

627
deliberately doing so, because of a fear that people who ought not to be released, because of the state of their mental retardedness, will be released if this subsection is removed from the Bill. The right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Health, has admitted that a considerable proportion of these 2,700 people still illegally detained would not now be detained but for the fact that they have nowhere to go. That is to say, we are punishing them, we are keeping them in mental deficiency hospitals, because of our failure to make proper provision. We are continuing to make them pay for the fact that some local authorities have used the Mental Deficiency Act as a means of dealing with awkward and inconvenient children under their care.
I think that has certainly happened, and that is a disgraceful practice which we are now asked, in effect, in this clause to condone. I would submit that it would be quite shameful if we were to agree to this. I do not dispute that many of the 2,700 are generally subnormal, but the removal of this subsection from the Bill will not release them unless they satisfy the other provisions regarding release of subnormals. If they do that they ought to be released, and if the Amendment is accepted it will, in my view, compel local authorities to make proper provision so that perfectly normal people now in detention can be released and given a fair chance to start life again. It will not wipe out the unfortunate injustice that they have suffered, and may have suffered for many years, but it will at least give us an opportunity to make such restitution as lies in our power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 33, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Stonham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say first on this Amendment that it is not the case that this subsection is required in order to detain illegally people who are not suffering from mental disorder. It was never suggested in the Rutty case that Miss Rutty was not a mental defective within the meaning of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913. The question at issue was solely the interpretation of the words "found neglected"
628
in Section 2 (1) (b) of that Act, which sets out the grounds on which defectives may be detained in hospital or placed under guardianship. For forty-three years, from 1913 until 1956, those administering the Act (the justices, the local authorities and the Board of Control) took a wide view of the meaning of these words, interpreting them as covering, for example, defectives in Poor Law institutions and in children's homes who were in need of, and were not receiving, the care and supervision appropriate to their mental condition. I am the last person who should criticise a decision of the Courts, and I am not doing it for a moment, but it is material that the view which I have just stated was given support in an obiter dictum in the Radcliffe case in 1915 and was not challenged until the Rutty case in 1956; that is, the practice was based on an approving obiter dictum in a case in 1915 which had never been questioned.
In the Rutty case the Divisional Court interpreted the word "neglected" in a much narrower sense. This decision does not mean that the orders in other similar cases automatically became illegal or would necessarily have been upset by the courts if challenged. The Court of Appeal have, indeed, in two subsequent cases expressed, again as obiter dicta, some doubt as to the correctness of the decision in the Rutty case. That decision did, however, throw doubt on the validity of the orders in similar cases, of which there were some 5,000. The Board of Control therefore immediately reviewed those cases, and since then some 2,300 have been discharged from order, most of them remaining in hospital informally. None of the 2,700 who remain subject to detention has asked to leave hospital.
The subsection which the noble Lord seeks to leave out provides for the validation of the orders in these remaining cases but—and I emphasise this—only after the order has been reviewed, either when the order comes up for renewal in the ordinary way, under the provisions of the Mental Deficiency Acts (in this event the Board of Control consider the case on reports both from the medical officer of the institution and from the independent visitors of the institution) or, in cases where there has been no statutory review since March 9, 1956, on a further special review by the Board after obtaining and considering a report on the

629
patient. When the main provisions of the Bill come into operation the patients who remain subject to detention will again have to be reviewed and classified according to the definitions in the Bill, and the provision in the Sixth Schedule relating to renewal and right of application to the Mental Health Review Tribunals will apply. There will thus be full safeguards for these patients.
With regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that these patients should not continue to be detained merely because there is nowhere else for them to go, I want to say only this: it is true that there are some who could be transferred to some other form of care if it were available, but this, I want to emphasise, does not mean that they are not properly cared for where they are and, in particular, does not imply that they are not mentally disordered. As I said, the point at issue in the Rutty case was not whether Miss Rutty was mentally defective but whether she was "subject to be dealt with" under the terms of the Act and under the interpretation of the words "found neglected". I feel that it would be really inhuman to discharge these patients from hospital if they have nowhere else to go, and I hope I have made clear that there are the most complete safeguards.
It is one of the difficulties of legislation and of my own profession that on certain rare occasions an Act turns out to have the meaning which was not the meaning which Parliament intended to give it; and it happens on even rarer occasions that, as in this case, the second highest Court in the land gives an obiter dictum of approval to a construction of an Act which forty-one years later turns out not to be approved by the Divisional Court that has to deal with the matter. One can only regret these imperfections of legislation. I assure your Lordships that full consideration of this matter will show that nobody is going to be adversely affected or be deprived of the chance of having his case fully examined.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful for the last words of the noble and learned Viscount. They go to meet my point. I would make it perfectly clear that I did not say, and I certainly do not think, that these people are not being well cared for. That was not in my mind at all. The real point is this. If—and
630
the noble and learned Viscount has confirmed that there are such cases—the state of their subnormality were such that if they had somewhere to go then they could go and could be released, I feel that it is a gross failure on our part if arrangements do not exist whereby they can be released. We ought not, therefore, to put this subsection in a Bill and, as it were, legalise an illegality. I cannot possibly go into the other argument which the noble and learned Viscount adduced, because I have no knowledge of that at all and it would be completely valueless to do so. I am dealing merely with the law in the case as it is now. He said, I think, that it was quite wrong to say, as I suggested, that this clause is required to detain in hospital people who are subnormal. I am glad of that assurance. I am not certain, however—in fact what he said confirmed my fears—about people who could be released not being released because there is nowhere for them to go. It seems to me that what we shall have to do, therefore, is to press for redesignation, and press local authorities, wherever they are, to see that some other provision is made for them rather than that they should go on staying in a mental hospital when it is admitted that that is not necessary. With those remarks, and again with my thanks to the noble and learned Viscount, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 3, leave out from ("a") to ("have") in line 5 and insert ("report by a medical practitioner qualified to make a special report under the said section eleven").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 147, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 148 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 25, at end insert—
"(6) The repeal by this Act of the provisions of the Lunacy Act, 1890, and of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, relating to the superannuation of officers or employees shall not affect any arrangements for the payment of

631
allowances or other benefits made in accordance with those provisions and in force at the commencement of this Act."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 148, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 149 to 151 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Section substituted for Education Act, 1944, s. 57]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This meets a point on which my right honourable friend gave an undertaking in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 8 and insert ("It shall be the duty of every local education authority to ascertain what children in their area are suffering from a disability of mind of such a nature or to such an extent as to make them unsuitable for education at school; and for the purpose of fulfilling that duty any officer of a local education authority authorised in that behalf by the authority may by notice in writing served upon the parent of any child who has attained the age of two years require him to submit the child").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At present, the local education authority must give a child's parent fourteen days within which he can appeal to the Minister of Education. The Amendment extends the period of appeal from fourteen to twenty-one days. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 32, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This has the same effect, in the new Section 57A of the Education Act, as the Amendment at page 101 has in the new Section 57. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 9 and insert ("the local education authority shall cause to be served on the parent of the child the notice authorised by subsection (1) of section fifty-seven of this Act, and subsection (2) and (3) of that section shall apply accordingly;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This extends from fourteen to twenty-one days the time allowed for parents to appeal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 23, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 40, leave out ("sections fifty-seven and fifty-seven A") and insert ("section fifty-seven").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 45, leave out ("those sections") and insert ("that section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, also, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 47, leave out from ("of") to ("officer") in line 48 and insert ("that section to a medical or other").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Application of Part IV to patients admitted to hospital or placed under guardianship under Part V]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, leave out lines 14 and 15.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, also, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, column 2, leave out line 16 and insert—
("In subsection (2), the words 'or subsection (2) of section forty-four' shall be omitted").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, column 2, leave out lines 18 to 23 and insert—
("For references to an application for admission or a guardianship application there shall be substituted references to the order or direction under Part V of this Act by virtue of which the patient is liable to be detained or subject to guardianship ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 18, column 3, leave out ("The section") and insert ("Subsection (1) and paragraph (a) of subsection (2)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 107, leave out lines 8 and 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 107, leave out lines 16 to 19—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, also, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, leave out lines 8 and 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth and Fifth Schedules agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Transitional provisions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 37, after ("treated") insert ("for the purposes of the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to mental nursing homes").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 19, leave out ("said provisions") and insert ("provisions of Part III of this Act relating to mental nursing homes")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 3, leave out ("three") and insert ("two") [years].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, also, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 4, leave out from ("may") to ("apply") in line 6 and insert ("between the expiration of the said period of two years and the expiration of the current period of treatment").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 18, leave out ("but not more than two years").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, leave out line 20.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.17 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM had given notice to move, in paragraph 13 (1) (b), to leave out all words from "himself" to the end of the paragraph. The noble Lord said: In view of the earlier discussion on this point, I do not propose to move this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 39, leave out from ("that") to end of line 40 and insert ("none of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph are").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, also, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 21, leave out ("was liable to be detained") and insert ("immediately before the commencement of this Act was liable to be detained in a hospital").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 32, leave out ("serving") and insert ("subject to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 121, line 39, after ("applies") insert ("or a short-period patient").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, also, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 123, line 38, leave out from ("and") to ("any") in line 39 and insert ("notwithstanding anything in section one hundred and one of this Act, such rules may provide for treating as sufficient for conferring jurisdiction under the said Part VIII").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Minor and consequential Amendments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As this is the last Amendment, may I say how deeply touched I was by the kind words which the noble Lords opposite said about me. I have tried to give the service to the House to which the House is entitled and which it expects from the Lord Chancellor. But, on this Bill, the whole atmosphere in which we have discussed it has, for the Government,
636
made the conduct of the Bill a pleasure, and I am deeply grateful. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 141, leave out lines 48 and 49.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PAKENHAM: I know that my noble friend Lord Lawson would wish me to associate myself and him with what was said by our noble friends behind us, the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Taylor, in paying tribute to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I need not say more, except that it seems that in handling this Bill the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has taken on the character not only of a great Lord Chancellor but also of a great psychiatrist. With a little more practice, he would have had the noble Lords on these Benches "stretched on the couch", with most satisfactory results. But, in all seriousness, we are deeply grateful to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

EDUCATION BILL
8.21 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WAGES COUNCILS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.