Lords Sitting of 24 May 1960

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

ANGLESEY-DUBLIN AIR CAR-FERRY
2.35 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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 when they are going to make the necessary arrangements to enable an air car-ferry service to operate between Anglesey and Dublin, and why there has been such a delay on their part in providing the airport facilities for such a service.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, this is the second Question that I have had to answer for the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and in spite of the brevity of the Answer I do assure the noble Lord that I have gone through all the facts I give to him, and they are facts which I have satisfied myself are completely correct. The only aerodromes in Anglesey are the Royal Air Force aerodromes at Valley and Mona. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Air has carefully considered whether facilities for regular civil air services could be provided at these aerodromes, but because of the requirements of the Royal Air Force and the nature of the military flying he has had to decide against allowing scheduled air services to use them.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his efforts in trying to get a satisfactory Answer, but I cannot say the Answer he has got justified the efforts he put in. Is it not a fact that Wales has lost this air ferry to Liverpool owing to the dilatoriness of the Government in coming to a decision? And, secondly, if the Government will not allow any Royal Air Force Station in Anglesey to be used, is there an alternative airport which they could make avail-
1200
able for this car ferry to Ireland which is so essential to the development of services between the two countries?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it is quite true, as the noble Lord knows, that this particular Royal Air Force Aerodrome at Valley is the nearest to Ireland and, therefore, geographically speaking, is the most suitable for such a service. My right honourable friend could have allowed the service up to March, 1959; but that period has expired and he now requires this aerodrome for military services which could not possibly allow a regular service. It will be possible to land occasionally, by arrangement with the commanding officer from time to time. It is true, my Lords, I suppose, that Wales has indeed lost a place for carrying out a car-ferry service, but, unfortunately, there is no other aerodrome available. Such R.A.F. aerodromes as are in existence are not suitable for the type of service the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, will the noble Earl look at the possibility of opening up Withybush with a view to a car-ferry service to Cork?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said. But I assure him that every aerodrome has, in fact, been considered.

ORDNANCE SURVEY HALF-INCH MAPS
2.38 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: 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, in view of the increase in motoring and the paucity of accurate and detailed road maps of suitable scale, they will arrange that the Ordnance Survey resume publication of the pre-war O.S. ½ in. layered maps in overlapping sheets.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, the need for these maps is appreciated, and the

1201
current programme of the Ordnance Survey includes the publication of a new series of half-inch maps similar in style to the pre-war series. Following the recommendations of Lord Davidson's Committee the Department has, since the war, given first priority to its large-scale plans, which in some cases are as much as 60 years out of date, and to the revision of its one-inch and quarter-inch series. As a result, with the Department's limited resources, it will be some years before all the sheets of the half-inch series are published.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply.
LORD REA: My Lords, I understand that Ordnance Survey have a very valuable series of foreign maps. Could these also be made available to the British public?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Did the noble Lord say foreign maps?
LORD REA: Maps of foreign countries.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice. I do not know whether they are available or not. I should imagine they are.
LORD REA: I apologise for not having given notice.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is not aware that the motoring organisations already provide a very fine selection of foreign maps, as well as English ones?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether he has considered the advisability of reintroducing the half-inch map? Most motorists find that the quarter-inch map is quite enough for motoring, and the one-inch map, contoured, is adequate for walking. Would it not be better to confine the resources of Ordnance Survey to those two scales?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the Question was in relation to half-inch maps, and I have just said that we are going to publish a new series of half-inch maps. But the priorities are—nobody is ever quite satisfied where he stands in a queue—that the large-scale maps, the two big maps, 50 inches and 25 inches to one mile, which are seriously out of date,
1202
must take priority with our limited resources.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. What I was trying to suggest is that the half-inch map is unnecessary.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not think I could agree with that.

CIVIL DEFENCE
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: 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 the new Inspector General of Civil Defence, whose appointment was announced on May 16, will have executive responsibility in the Home Office for Civil Defence and, if not by whom executive responsibility will be exercised.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, when the present Director General of Civil Defence retires in October, responsibility in the Home Office for the work of the Civil Defence Department as a whole will fall to a Deputy Under-Secretary of State. The new Inspector General of Civil Defence will be responsible for planning and training and related matters, including liaison with the armed forces.
VISCOUNT BREDGEMAN: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his reply?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, will the noble Earl try to ensure, or will the Government try to ensure, that the headquarters of the various Civil Defence Commissioners (or whatever they are going to be called) should be put, wherever possible, near the military headquarters? I understand that for Wales they succeeded in putting military headquarters in England, in the north part near Wales, and the civil defence headquarters down in the South, near Cardiff. This would seem at any time, particularly in time of emergency, to be undesirable.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I doubt whether that question which the noble Lord has put to me quite arises from the Question on the Order Paper, but I am sure that what the noble Lord has said will be noted by the relevant authority.

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
SAINT PETER UPPER THAMES STREET CHURCHYARD BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

BALA TO TRAWSFYNYDD HIGHWAYS (LIVERPOOL CORPORATION CONTRIBUTION) BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as one who took an active part in speaking on the Second Reading of the previous Bill—and some of your Lordships will possibly remember that we had quite a stirring little debate on that measure, the point being as to whether or not a particular portion of the line should go—may I say that I support this Bill entirely? I am grateful to those who promoted it, and I think it will do a lot of good in North Wales in the particular circumstances that arise there.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

SCOTTISH AMERICAN INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
COMMONWEALTH TEACHERS BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the 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.
GHANA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (MINICOY LIGHTHOUSE) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

ABANDONMENT OF ANIMALS BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, this Bill received a smooth passage in another place under the guidance of my honourable friend the Member for Shrewsbury, and I hope that it will receive equally kind treatment this afternoon, not only from these Benches, but possibly from Benches opposite also. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has taken an active part in promoting the Bill and, I understand, is anxious to see it pass into law. The reasons why it is anxious for this are, briefly, these. The main Act dealing with cruelty to animals is the Act of 1911, and that Act is so worded that if anyone abandons a domestic animal which belongs to him in such a way that it might be caused unnecessary suffering, and if, then, some kindhearted person (some neighbour, or some R.S.P.C.A. inspector) comes along and rescues the animal, though no unnecessary suffering would have been caused, the owner of the animal, one might think, had committed an offence by abandoning it in the first instance; but up to now it has not been possible to prosecute and convict him for the offence of abandonment. That, then, is the reason why this Bill has been introduced in Parliament.
When it came before another place, it was in a slightly different form from that in which it now appears, for it was found on consideration that the terms of the Bill were drawn so widely that if someone brought up, say, a pet badger and then discovered that the home was not the place for it and wanted to turn it out into the woods, he would, as the Bill stood in another place, be guilty of an offence. So, after further consideration in Committee, the Bill was altered into the form in which it now stands. If your Lordships look at Clause 1 of the Bill, which is the only operative clause, you

1205
will see that the offence is one where a person
"without reasonable cause or excuse abandon it, whether permanently or not, in circumstances likely to cause the animal any unnecessary suffering …"
That is the form in which the clause is now and which I commend to your Lordships' attention.
One may ask whether these things in fact happen in real life, and I am assured that they do. Thoughtless people go away for their holidays and leave their dog or their cat in their house without making proper provision for it; people move from one place to another and leave their animals behind in their old home; and, sometimes, an unwanted animal is taken out in a car somewhere into the countryside and abandoned—I have been given instances of actual cases where that has happened. So your Lordships will see that there is good cause for bringing in this Bill. As I have said, there is only one clause. For the rest, the penalty clauses which were in the Bill originally have now been lined up with the 1911 Act, which I think is a good thing, because that in itself will pave the way, when the right time comes, for the co-ordination of the four or five Acts which now exist about cruelty to animals. The maximum penalty for this offence will be £50. I think that that is all I need say about the Bill itself.
If this Bill creates a new offence and one which carries a penalty, perhaps we ought to look a little further and see what is likely to happen when the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, and this law has to be enforced. This new offence can potentially cause a greater strain on the police, and, looking at it from the magistrates' court end, one sees that that is something one does not want to encourage too much, except in a very good cause. After all, the police have plenty to do in apprehending thieves and burglars and people of that sort, without having to spend too much time to see whether anyone has left his cat on the mat. I do not think that this Bill will work in that way. If it becomes law, most of the prosecutions will be initiated, not by the police but by the R.S.P.C.A. inspectors. As I have just said, the Bill will strengthen their hand and enable them to deal with anybody who abandons an animal in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering, even if the animal
1206
is rescued and does not in fact suffer at all.
I think, and certainly hope, that this Bill will act as a deterrent. People will know that this is an offence and therefore in future will not commit it; and if, as I also hope, great publicity is given to any cases brought in this way, that will serve to publicise this offence and help to attain the object we all wish to achieve: namely, that animals should not be caused unnecessary suffering and that the hands of the R.S.P.C.A should be strengthened to prevent this. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).

CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 6 [Enforcement of licensing provisions]:
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mills, I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("any") and insert ("all such").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think that it is usual to have an explanation of Amendments put forward in your Lordships' House. I think that even in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, it would be an advantage, before we pass

1207
this Amendment, if some noble Lord who is capable of explaining this will do so to the House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, we are all capable of explaining the Amendment, but my noble friend Lord Bathurst will oblige.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships. I was in the process of endeavouring to ask my noble and learned friend if he would have found it convenient to go on to the next Business, as my noble friend Lord Mills has not been able to be in his place just yet, though he will be here shortly; but if it is convenient to your Lordships, I will explain this purely drafting Amendment.
This Amendment is purely a technical one and clarifies the position with regard to information and documents. As it is now, the wording could be read to mean that it was the journey or proposed Tourney which may be specified. The Amendment makes it clear that it is the information or documents which should be specified in the requirement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 26, leave out ("which") and insert ("as").—(Earl Bathurst).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

DOCK WORKERS (PENSIONS) BILL
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this is an enabling Bill, to remove any legal obstacles which may be found either in the Truck Acts or in the Shop Clubs Act, 1902, to the introduction of the proposed Dock Workers Pensions scheme. The scheme is a private scheme which has been put forward by the National Joint Council of the Port Transport Industry, after complete agreement had been reached on its provisions between the workers and the employers.
1208
The National Joint Council will appoint trustees to run the scheme. The contributions will be collected by the National Dock Labour Board, and my right honourable friend proposes to empower the Dock Labour Board, by amendment of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1947, to do this. As this is a private scheme, and as all that we are asked to do is to remove certain legal obstacles which may stand in the way of its introduction, it would not be appropriate for us to enter into a lengthy discussion of the details, but probably your Lordships would like to have a brief outline of what it is about.
It is a modest scheme. The proposed contribution is 2s. 6d. a week from the worker, while the employer will pay an amount equal to that paid by the worker, plus any additional sum which may be necessary to make the scheme a viable one. It is expected that for some time to come the employers' contribution will be about double that of the workers. The benefits are graduated in accordance with length of service. Those who are already in the industry will be credited with their service to a maximum of twelve years, which is the minimum period which entitles the worker to receive benefits. Up to thirteen years' service the benefit is 10s. a week, plus a lump sum of £100. As the length of service increases the lump sum payment is gradually reduced, until it disappears after seventeen years, while the weekly benefits are gradually increased, although their period of increase is longer than that, going up to forty years. After forty years' service the insured worker is entitled to a pension of 40s. a week. There are also payments in respect of ill-health and death. That, of course, is in addition to the State retirement pensions scheme. It is not contemplated that the dock workers shall contract out of the graduated part of the State scheme because of this private one.
It is expected that the private scheme will embrace about 70,000 dock workers, including the lightermen, crane-drivers and clerks; it is also expected to include about 1,100 of the employers. Those who are already employed in the industry will have the option as to whether to come into the scheme or not, but for those who are employed in future it is proposed that participation

1209
in the scheme should be a condition of their employment. As I have already mentioned to your Lordships, the method of collection by the National Dock Labour Board will be by deduction from wages.
The first of these conditions—that is, the element of compulsion—may infringe the Shop Clubs Act, 1902; and the condition concerning deductions from wages may infringe the Truck Acts. What this Bill does is to exempt this scheme from the provisions of the Truck Acts and the Shop Clubs Act. There are precedents for this in respect of pensions schemes in the coal-mining industry, for the railwaymen, in the gas industry and also of the Port of London Authority. I think it is a matter of satisfaction that there should have been complete agreement about this proposed scheme by both sides of the industry, who have jointly asked us to enable it to be proceeded with; and I think it is agreed by all Parties that Parliament ought to give the necessary legal facilities to enable this scheme to go on. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
3.5 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will all share my regret that my noble friend Lord Crook, who is the Chairman of the National Dock Labour Board, is unable to be present to-day to add his welcome to this Bill on behalf of the Opposition. Unfortunately, my noble friend is on the business of the Dock Labour Board in Holland and, very much to his regret, he cannot be here. We, of course, support the Bill, which, as the noble Earl has explained, is necessary only because the proposed private contributory dock workers' pensions scheme must be put outside the scope of the Truck Acts and of the Shops Clubs Act, 1902. Indeed, our only part in the matter is the removal of these two legal barriers. Perhaps I may be allowed to express the hope that before long Her Majesty's Government will introduce a Bill to repeal entirely these obsolete sections of the Truck Acts and so avoid the necessity of bringing, in small Bills of this type to meet a principle which every one of us so fully approves; and maybe that hope
1210
will be justified at least in this Parliament.
Whilst I am not a lawyer, I wonder whether this Bill was, in fact, necessary. After all, there are so many private pensions schemes in the country in which the contributions are deducted from wages merely on the signing by the employee of a declaration that he wishes to join the scheme and agrees to the deduction from his weekly wages of the proposed contribution. What is certain is that neither this Bill nor the dockers' pensions scheme would have seen the light of day if my Party had won the last Election, because our national superannuation scheme would have provided the dockers, and, indeed, all other workers not already provided for, with a decent pension. Perhaps the fact that we are to-day considering this Bill is also confirmation of the fact that the Government's superannuation scheme is considered inadequate.
In default, therefore, of something very much better, which we hope in three or four years' time to have the power to introduce, we are glad that the millions of under-privileged, pensionless workers are to be reduced to the extent of 70,000 dockers, who now, like the miners, gas workers and others in nationalised industries, are to have the chance of a slightly more comfortable old age. Having said that, I should like to join with the noble Earl in congratulating the docks industry, employers and workers, on agreeing to this solution of their problem, because it is such a good augury for better future relations in the industry. It is, clearly, the product of joint consultation and effort. I hope that this is only the forerunner of a much better and more generous scheme.
The present scheme—and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having given us details of it—does not do much for the older men. They have to go thirteen years from now, and will receive a pension of 10s. a week, plus a £100 lump-sum payment. I like the idea of their getting a £100 lump sum payment, but we have to remember that the older men, who will get the smaller pension, are the very ones who have had such little chance to save. If the docker is now 60, it is quite certain that for at least half of his forty years' period at the docks he has been a casual labourer. This has meant that

1211
he had to be on call at a quarter to eight in the morning on the chance of getting four hours' work, and again at quarter to one, with the chance of another—or perhaps his first—four hours' work. If he did not get that, he had to sign on again. That situation lasted right up to the beginning of the last war, and it meant that many of these men went home at the end of the week with just a few shillings. In fact, if they worked for two-and-a-half days in a week they were precluded from claiming unemployment pay.
The unfortunate thing about this scheme—although I agree it is inevitable when there is no endowment fund—is that the elder men in greatest need will get the least. Even now that the industry is decasualised, the dockers are by no means sure of a decent weekly wage. The guaranteed minimum is, in fact, half way between unemployment pay and a fair wage—a sort of half-way house. The position is that an elderly docker can look back on a hard and often anxious life, with little financial reward to show for it. I am glad he is to get this extra 10s. a week now and the £100, but I heartily wish it were more. It is the younger men, particularly those who have opted into the scheme, and the new entrants, who are going eventually to enjoy the full 40s. a week pension and the ill-health retirement benefits. Nevertheless, despite what I regard as defects which are in-
1212
evitable in a scheme started without an endowment fund, it is a further welcome improvement in the docks industry.
It has been a long, hard struggle since the days of 1889 and the fight for the dockers "tanner", through the years of casual labour and poverty to a guaranteed minimum wage. It has been a fight with many great names—Cardinal Manning, Ben Tillett, Ernest Bevin and many others. Now we have this latest advance, which is a further tribute to the steadfast, patient work of the men's union and the corporations of employers. I hope we can now look forward to the final steps which will ensure that every man is employed in the docks as a permanent employee in receipt of a regular wage and holidays with pay. When that day comes it not only will mean ordinary justice for these hardworking men, but will enable us to bring our docks up to a standard of efficiency equal to the best in the world. I have very much pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE BILL
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past three o'clock.