Lords Sitting of 26 July 1966

Preamble
The House met (for Judicial Business) at ten of the clock; The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester

JUDICIAL PRECEDENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, before Judgments are delivered to-day, I wish to make the following Statement on behalf of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and myself.
Their Lordships regard the use of precedent as an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases. It provides at least some degree of certainty upon which individuals can rely in the conduct of their affairs, as well as a basis for orderly development of legal rules.
Their Lordships nevertheless recognise that too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law. They propose, therefore, to modify their present practice and, while treating former decisions of this House as normally binding, to depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so.
In this connection they will bear in mind the danger of disturbing retrospectively the basis on which contracts, settlements of property and fiscal arrangements have been entered into and also the especial need for certainty as to the criminal law.
This announcement is not intended to affect the use of precedent elsewhere than in this House.
Judgments having been delivered, House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
The Right Honourable Henry Brooke, C.H., having been created Baron Brooke of Cumnor, of Cumnor in the Royal County of Berks, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Brecon and the Lord Fulton.

THE COLONIAL OFFICE
2.40 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 whether, in view of the long and distinguished history of the Colonial Office, any action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government, on the absorption of that Office into the Commonwealth Relations Office, to mark the appreciation of this country of the service of those who have devoted their lives and careers to the Colonial Territories.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL. OF LONGFORD): No, my Lords, no such action is contemplated. I should like to take this opportunity to explain that the Colonial Office is not being absorbed into the Commonwealth Relations Office. What is to happen is that these two great Departments of State, each of which has hitherto been concerned with different aspects of Commonwealth affairs, are to be brought together to form a new Commonwealth Office whose responsibilities will cover all territories within the Commonwealth. None the less, I should like to thank the noble Lord sincerely for giving me this opportunity to express on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the very real gratitude which is due to those devoted men and women who over the years contributed so much to the social, political and economic advancement of the British dependent territories.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the concluding remarks of his Answer; and may I say that I and my noble friends would wish to be associated with them in every way possible?

THE COAL EXCHANGE
2.42 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: 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 purpose for which the Coal Exchange was demolished has been achieved.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, the site of the Coal Exchange was required for the route of the City's southern by-pass, which is in course of construction. Work on this particular section of the route is expected to start early in 1967.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, and, if it is in order, wish him many happy returns of the day?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that a very much earlier date was given in 1962? Does he further recall the efforts made in March of that year, both in this House and in another place, to save this unique building, described by Gropius as "a landmark in the history of early iron construction"? Is the noble Lord convinced that it is too late to prevent such vandalism in future?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord for his first remark. I have now reached an age at which I should be glad if people would "tell it not in Gath", nor publish it in the columns of The Times. My Lords, we have looked at this matter and have considered it in the light of every decision that was taken regarding it. I would agree with the noble Lord that, so far as possible, we ought to avoid demolishing these buildings, although this was not exactly an ancient monument. Other buildings of a similar nature ought to be preserved, if possible, for posterity. But, of course, this building has been demolished, and there is nothing we can now do about it.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I say that the noble Lord is wrong in
680
thinking that there is now any other building of this kind? The only other comparable building was the Crystal Palace. Something unique in Europe has been destroyed. My question to him is whether the Government are now better armed to prevent such vandalism in future.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I rather hope so, but offhand I should not like to answer the question whether they are better armed. I believe I can say that we have the will to do it, and that we will look to the arms when necessary.
LORD CARRINGTON: But, my Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing said in a speech over the week-end, I think it was, that 3,000 buildings scheduled as ancient monuments were being pulled down every year?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I should like notice of that question. I did not make the remark; it was made by my noble friend, and I will inquire of him exactly what he said.

SOUTH AFRICA'S ADMINISTRATION OF SOUTH WEST AFRICA
2.45 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: 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, in view of the recent judgment of the International Court on the case of the Mandatory Territory of South West Africa, whether the representative of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations will be instructed to propose that the International Court of Justice be asked to give an advisory opinion on the legal obligation of the Government of South Africa under the League of Nations Mandate of 1920 in relation to South West Africa.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, the proceedings against South Africa were brought by Ethiopia and Liberia. I understand that they and

681
other African States are now considering how they should proceed in the light of the Court's judgment. They may well wish to urge the General Assembly of the United Nations to seek a further advisory opinion from the Court. We feel at this stage that the initiative for such action should rest with them.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him this: is not the main issue whether the 1920 Mandate expired with the dissolution of the League of Nations in 1945, as maintained by the Government of South Africa? Is this not a legal question which justifies the United Nations in requesting a legal opinion under paragraph 65 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice? Would not such an advisory opinion assist the General Assembly in carrying out their charter responsibilities to protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the 450,000 indigenous Africans who inhabit South West Africa?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's question is, in essence, "Yes", though possibly it is somewhat of an over-simplification of the problem. With regard to the second part, as I said, we consider that this is primarily a matter for those countries who are interested in this subject at first hand, and in particular Liberia and Ethiopia. But I am quite sure that they, the United Nations and Her Majesty's Government will take full note of what my noble friend has said.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask my noble friend whether it was not the case that the British Government were one of those mainly responsible under the League of Nations for this Mandate; and, in those circumstances, have they not a direct responsibility, whatever the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia, and other African Governments, may decide on this issue?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, we have a direct responsibility not only for the reasons that my noble friend has given but also as a member—and, I may say, a prominent and very whole-hearted member—of the United Nations. But I still feel that it is appropriate that, in the first instance, the initiative should be taken by
682
the countries who took the initiative originally in bringing this matter before the International Court, and that it would be inappropriate for us at this stage to do anything about it ourselves.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was a follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the decision of the International Court of Justice that a judgment on the mandatory administration of South West Africa by the Government of the Republic of South Africa can be given only following a collective application by the United Nations, they will take the initiative in asking the United Nations to make such application.]
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I think the answers I have already given to previous questions cover the point raised by my noble friend.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, and appreciating what he has said, may I ask him whether he is not aware that the decision by the International Court at The Hague has created a situation, not only in Liberia and Ethiopia but in the whole of the Continent of Africa, with the exception of Southern Africa, which is terribly dangerous; and whether it is not increasing a feeling in Africa of disillusionment in Western Governments, in the United Nations and in the establishments which have been created by the United Nations? May I also ask whether Her Majesty's Government would do something in this very critical situation, which may lead to racial antagonism and even eventually racial war in Africa, to save that Continent and the world from this disaster?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am fully aware of the sentiments to which my noble friend referred which have been raised not only in Africa but in many other parts of the world. I would assure him that Her Majesty's Government are always prepared to do, and are always active in doing, to the best of their judgment, whatever lies within their power to reduce racial tension and to minimise the risk of racial trouble. But I would point out to my noble friend that it is somewhat misleading to assert that the recent judgment

683
has given rise to disillusionment with the Western countries, since many members of the Court—who are independent individuals of the highest judicial standing and who, therefore, do not represent their own countries—in fact come from countries not normally known as Western countries.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain how it is that hundreds of thousands of Bantu are seeking to get into the Republic of South Africa because of the excellent conditions there, and the South African Government is having considerable difficulty in preventing them from doing so, while in marked contrast, in Communist East Germany a wall is erected around that Western country to prevent the people from leaving it because of the intolerable conditions there? Perhaps he could explain that situation.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I could certainly explain that situation. It is an extremely interesting point, but I do not think it arises from any action of the International Court.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, lest these questions take too one-sided an implication, may I be allowed to ask Her Majesty's Government two questions? I should like to preface them by saying that I am delighted to hear their refusal at the behest of misguided prejudice to take even more misguided action. However, when this matter arises again in the United Nations, as it undoubtedly will, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind two unquestioned facts? The first is that for the first time in their history the ten tribes who inhabit South West Africa have enjoyed peace and, under the Odendaal Report, if they are not hampered by outside interference, the South African Government propose to spend literally hundreds of millions on bringing plenty to add to their peace.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! order!
LORD MILVERTON: Is the noble Lord willing to say that that will be borne in mind?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he is straining the interrogative form about as far as it can be decently strained.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord has finished his question, I can give him that assurance. We will bear in mind all the relevant factors which may arise.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, is not the decision of the International Court merely a decision that Ethiopia and Liberia had no legal right to put forward the claim they were making, and is it not the case that the decision of the International Court is not a decision on the merits or otherwise of that claim? Is it not therefore very wrong to suggest, in any Question or in any other form, that there are political implications resulting from that decision which are likely to cause disturbance?—because there surely should not be if the effect of the decision is properly understood.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount is perfectly correct in his assumptions, as one would expect him to be. I think it is also perfectly true to say that, if and when the decision is undersood by the experts, there can be no problems of the kind he has described arising. But as realists we must face the fact that there are many people with very strong feelings about this who are not lawyers of such eminence as the noble and learned Viscount and who may draw other conclusions from it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of what was said from the opposite Benches—and I exclude what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—would Her Majesty's Government remember that all Parties in this country, including the Conservative Opposition (which was under the inspiration of Mr. Macmillan's "wind of change" speech in South Africa) are opposed to the system of apartheid in South Africa; that that system is being imposed on South West Africa; and that we look to our Government to express a moral opinion against this vicious racialistic system?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, that also is another factor which will be, and is borne in mind continuously in this matter, as also is the fact that Her Majesty's Government—and, I believe, people in this country—believe that all disputes and all disagreements should

685
wherever possible be settled by rule of law and the International Court of Justice.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, are the Government willing to admit that what is really at stake and the major issue is the welfare of the people of South West Africa? In addition, may I ask the Government one more question? Is not this, and most of what was said by the mover of this Question, just another attempt to turn The Hague tribunal from a court of justice into a political forum?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, if I may be so bold as to correct the noble Lord in what I am sure was a verbal slip, I do not think it would be correct to refer to the "mover" of this Question, but to the "asker" of this Question. The point of both the Questions on the Order Paper, as I understand them, is to elicit information through answers to genuine questions. I do not think I need go any further than that.

OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SAINT MARY, EALING BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

DOCKS AND HARBOURS BILL
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
Clause 4 [Consideration of applications for licences, etc.]:
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "he shall have the like powers and duties in relation to any such application", and to insert instead:
"(a) any decisions taken or other things done by a licensing authority in relation to those applications shall be of no effect; and
(b) the Minister shall have the like powers and duties in relation to all applications so made for the port in question".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the House will grant me permission, before
686
moving Amendment No. 1 I should like to take the opportunity to put right something I said at the Committee stage which I have since realised was not quite accurate. In response to a question from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I indicated that in the initial stage of the licensing an employer applying for licence would have a right of appeal not only against the decision in his own case, and against the proposals of the licensing authorities as to the employment of dock workers by the authority itself, but also against the decision in the case of other employers. This is not so. An employer will have no direct right of appeal against the authority's decision in the case of a fellow employer.
What I had in mind was that where an employer appeals against a decision as regards himself, he can, by doing so, enable the decision for the port as a whole to be reconsidered. This might be very necessary. If, for instance, he is appealing because he feels it is proposed to allocate to him too many workers, this could be put right only by allocating a smaller number to him and at the same time increasing the allocation proposed for other employers, since, one way or another, all available registered dock workers must be allocated by virtue of Clause 5(4). In this way, consideration of his appeal would bring in question the decisions affecting the other employers in the port. Provision is made for this in paragraph (b) of Clause 8(2) of the Bill. It would not, however, be possible for employer A to lodge an appeal directly against decision in the case of employer B. I think the House will agree that it would be undesirable to have "cross-appeals" of that kind. I am sorry that in the rather rapid exchanges during the Committee debate I did not put the position with complete accuracy. My Lords, I have, of course, informed the noble Viscount and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, of my intention to make this correction, and I hope that the House will forgive my mistake in Committee.
May I now come to the first Amendment in my name? The effect of this Amendment is to add to subsection (2) of Clause 4 the new provision in paragraph (a) of the Amendment. Paragraph (b) simply repeats in substance what is already in the subsection, but it is needed

687
because we now have to arrange the subsection in two parts, (a) and (b). The effect of paragraph (a) of the Amendment is that where a Minister calls in applications in a particular port because the licensing authority is not dealing with them expeditiously, the Minister will deal with them all afresh, and any decisions which the licensing authority has already given will be of no effect. The authority may, for instance, have decided one application but not the rest, but because all the applications in a particular port must be looked at as a whole, the Minister needs to start with a clear slate. This is a minor piece of tightening up which I think is clearly right, and I hope that the House will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, leave out from ("and") to ("as") in line 32 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Champion.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for the explanation with which he prefaced his remarks on this Amendment. For my part, I am most grateful to him. The noble Lord concluded his introduction to the Amendment before your Lordships' House by saying that in his view this Amendment was clearly right. I would echo what he then voiced.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Conditions and duration of licences
5.—
(5) A licence shall be granted for a period specified in the licence, being not less than three years nor more than seven years from the date of the coming into force of the licence.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved to add to subsection (5):
"Provided that the licensing authority may in exceptional circumstances, and with the prior approval of the Council, grant a licence for a period in excess of seven years from the said date."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am sorry to find myself having to commend this Amendment to your Lordships again. After the discussion we had on the Committee stage I had hoped that the noble Lord and his colleagues might have found it possible to
688
put forward an Amendment themselves to meet this point. Had it been my birthday to-day, instead of that of the noble Lord, perhaps I might have expected a birthday present; but it has not come that way. I put down this Amendment again, not in order to rehearse once more all the arguments, which your Lordships will not want to hear again, but in order to try to bring the issue into point so that your Lordships can be advised how to deal with it.
I agree, of course, with what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said in Committee, that here we are engaged in balancing two conflicting considerations. Where I differ from him, and from the view which, apparently, is the view of Her Majesty's Government, is that I feel that this Amendment, by giving some flexibility to the licensing authorities, would be an improvement to the Bill, and would not endanger the proper control of the licensing system; whereas the Government think otherwise. I cannot help feeling that in spite of his disclaimer the noble Lord still has some doubts about the ability of the licensing authorities to do their job properly, because I see no reason why, with the Amendment that I am putting forward, the licensing authorities should ever let the matter get out of hand or lose control of the position.
I agree that the licensing authorities will be undertaking new tasks, and it would very dangerous to be dogmatic about the difficulties which may face them. But I should have thought that the difficulties that might be raised by this Amendment are perhaps less than the difficulties which they will have to face in any case. At one time I think the noble Lord suggested that this would place an almost intolerable burden on them, but in fact the licensing authorities will have the duty of discriminating between applicants. They will have to discharge their duties to the best of their ability, and I do not see why they should not do so to the satisfaction of all concerned. This small degree of flexibility would not, I believe, add anything to their burden in this respect.
It may be that there is not a great deal one way or the other on this Amendment, and certainly I would not suggest to your Lordships that, if it were rejected,

689
this otherwise good Bill would become a bad Bill. This is a marginal point, but I believe that it would improve the Bill, and I suggest to your Lordships that even if, as a result of this Amendment, there were one case in which a foreign corporation could be persuaded to establish a business here instead of on the Continent, on the lines of the example which I quoted to your Lordships in Committee, that would make the Amendment worth while. I am in some doubt about what advice to give your Lordships about the manner of dealing with this Amendment. Perhaps it would be right—in fact I am sure that it would be—for me to sit down now, if your Lordships would perhaps give me leave to speak again at the end of the discussion, and hear what the noble Lord has to say about the further consideration which the Government has given to this matter; and perhaps to hear what other noble Lords have to say on the subject. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Simon.)
3.9 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, because this is Report stage I can speak only once on the Amendment in the ordinary way, and the noble Viscount, having moved the Amendment, will be able to reply at the end of the discussion. I wonder therefore whether I may hear all the arguments of the noble Lords on this point before I reply, after which, of course, the noble Viscount will be able to reply to the whole debate.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was looking at me just now in an inviting manner, but I, too, do not wish to use up my one opportunity to speak, and I am happy to leave the field to him.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Earl did not rise to the fly which I dangled over his nose. When we discussed this Amendment at some length in Committee, I undertook, as your Lordships know, without any commitment as to what the result might be, to refer the issue again, in the light of the debate, to my right honourable friends who are responsible for this Bill. This I did. I can assure your Lordships that the matter was most carefully looked
690
at and full weight was given to the arguments which were deployed by extremely knowledgeable and able Members of your Lordships' House. The arguments were reinforced to some extent by those which I put up as to the sources from which the Amendments sprang, so I can say to your Lordships that this matter has again been carefully considered. These were no empty words just for the purpose of gaining time. They have been most carefully considered. But I have to tell your Lordships that, taking all this into account, the Government do not feel able to accept any Amendment on the lines of the one we are discussing, and adhere to the view that the provision now in the Bill should stand.
It would serve no useful purpose for me to go again in detail over the arguments which have brought the Government to this conclusion, since I stated them fairly fully in Committee, but clearly it is incumbent on me to say something now. We—the Government—have here to reconcile conflicting considerations—on the one hand, the employer's need for security, and, on the other hand, the need for the licensing authorities to retain effective control of the situation. We cannot and must not give all the emphasis to the first of these considerations at the expense of the second. Indeed, if we were to pay regard only to the employer's need for security of tenure—and I am talking here about the sort of employers who have invested, or would invest, heavily—which the noble Viscount has in mind, the logical thing would be to exclude them from the operation of licensing altogether, since the need to apply for a licence in the first place must import a degree of uncertainty into the situation and this must necessarily recur when the licence comes up for renewal, even though this might be after a long interval.
In the Government's view, to provide for licences for periods in excess of seven years will in practice (whatever may be true in theory) mean in the event that there will be too much surrender by licensing authorities of their control over the situation as it develops in the ports. I do not think we can escape this conclusion by hedging round a provision for longer licences by the sort of safeguards that are contained in the noble Viscount's Amendment—that long licences would be

691
granted only in exceptional circumstances and with the prior consent of the National Ports Council. I would submit that there would be a very large number of employers who could and would make out a reasonable case that their circumstances were exceptional. It just would not be acceptable or practicable for licensing authorities or the Council to pick and choose arbitrarily within the field of such employers. A provision such as that in the Amendment would necessarily need to be administered on some consistent principles, and in the Government's view the end result would be that we should have licensing decisions being made which would leave licensing authorities hamstrung in future years to deal adequately with a developing and changing situation.
I think I should emphasise that once a licence is granted, under the provisions of the Bill that decision is for all practicable purposes irrevocable until the licence has run its term. I think that in our previous discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the possibility of "interfering with the licence in the middle period if it is not going right"—I think those were the words, more or less, he used. But once a licence has been issued, it can be revoked only if the employer is guilty of a serious or persistent breach of a specific condition in the licence. This is not likely to happen.
I turn to the effects of the seven-year limit on investment. It will, of course, have no effect on investment by the licensing authorities themselves, who are likely to be responsible for the major investment effort in the immediate future. But in the case of private employers also, the Government are by no means persuaded that a seven-year limit will significantly inhibit investment. In the first place, an efficient employer who has made a heavy investment in the port is inherently likely to get his licence renewed. Here I should like to make a particular point which was not brought out in our previous discussions. The noble Viscount then laid great emphasis on the two kinds of employers in the docks—the general stevedoring employer, with whom he was not primarily concerned, and the employers—and here I am quoting the noble Viscount's words"—
692
"who engaged dock labour for the purpose of working their own cargoes on their own premises".
It was the latter group that the noble Viscount argued would sometimes be found to need licences for periods longer than seven years. But it is in relation to this particular group of employers that I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to sub-paragraph (iii) at the top of page 5 of the Bill.
This is part of Clause 4, which lays down the considerations to which licensing authorities are to have regard in deciding whether to grant licences. Subparagraph (iii) requires them specifically to have regard to
"the possibility of special difficulties being caused to an applicant if he is not allowed to engage in the handling of cargoes for use for the purposes of a business or undertaking carried on by him".
This is precisely the category of employer which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has in mind, and this provision ensures that such employers will be given special consideration when the initial decisions on licensing are made. But the same provision will apply when such an employer applies for renewal of hislicence. This is important. It is provided for in Clause 10, subsection (2), which has the effect of applying the provision I have mentioned in Clause 4 to applications for renewal of licences as well as to initial applications when licensing is first introduced.
The position, therefore, in relation to employers in this category is that they are not left to take their chance along with all the general employers in the port. They are specially singled out for the licensing authority's consideration. If a licensing authority were to refuse to renew a licence in circumstances where this would cause special difficulties to an employer handling his own cargoes, that employer would have a very strong case for appealing to the Minister to have the decision reversed.
It is perhaps worth pausing here to make the point that in relation to an employer of this kind, a refusal to renew a licence would not of course put him out of business. It would simply mean that his cargoes would have to be handled not by him direct but by a stevedoring employer acting as his agent. The rest of his business would not be affected. We have talked so much about compensation if renewal of a licence were refused

693
that the impression might have been created that such a refusal would put an employer out of business. In the case of the private wharfinger—with whom the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is I think primarily concerned—it would be only the handling of his cargoes that would be affected. The only risk we are asking an employer of this kind to face is the possibility that the licensing authority, backed up if necessary by the Minister and the National Ports Council, might decide in seven years' time that it was no longer compatible with the efficient working of the port for him to continue to handle his own cargoes, and that they should therefore be handled in future by a stevedoring employer acting as his agent.
It is, I think, important to realise how relatively narrow is the issue between us so far as the private wharfinger is concerned. I remember that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, argued that if the kind of employers to whom I am now referring are going to get their licences renewed anyway, why not give them a licence for a longer period originally? He also suggested in our previous discussions that the possibility that these employers would get their licence renewed was really incompatible with the Government's argument that to allow longer licences would freeze the situation in particular ports. I am afraid I could not accept his arguments. When a licence is first granted, there might well be every reason to suppose that it would be renewed when it expired in, say, seven years. But that is not the same as a completely irrevocable commitment to renew it for a further period. Once the licence comes up for renewal, the licensing authority has a chance to review the situation. Until this happens, the authority is irrevocably committed to the status quo. And while it may seem virtually certain at the time the licence is originally granted that it would in due course be renewed, if it is going to be granted for a period as long as, say, 25 years, the situation may well have changed out of all recognition in that time.
I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, would be the last person to underrate the fundamental changes in cargo-handling methods which may well come about in the coming years, and the repercussions on the labour situation and
694
the way in which labour deployment is organised for such changes would entail tremendous alterations perhaps in the type of employment that is going to handle it. This is what we really have in mind. We cannot afford to enter a period of such rapid and far-reaching change without retaining the necessary flexibility in the planning and control of the pattern of our cargo handling and employment in the various ports.
When the noble Viscount moved his Amendment at the Committee stage, he said, if I may quote his words:
"… I do not feel that this involves a matter of principle upon which noble Lords might think it wrong, or at least unwise, to challenge the views of another place".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 276 (No. 39), col. 388; 19/7/66.]
To that I replied:
"This is a right which I shall maintain this House has and it is quite proper that those who have the experience noble Lords have should be able to put down Amendments here and ensure a reconsideration of the whole matter even if the Bill has gone through all the processes in the other House". [Col. 400.]
I happen to be wearing the hat of the Deputy Leader of this House, and until the Constitution is changed, if it is changed, I shall continue to maintain that right. I have no intention of attempting to subtract a word from what I said on that occasion, but I must add that the Government regard this issue as a matter of principle and would so advise the other place if the noble Viscount's Amendment were inserted in the Bill here.
The Government regard the maximum duration of licences as a basic provision in the whole licensing system, and would feel bound to resist as a matter of principle any extension of the present limit in the Bill. Whether the noble Viscount will feel obliged to press his Amendment in the light of what I have said is, of course, for him to choose—I sincerely hope he will not press it—but I think it is right that I should make the Government's position quite clear. Having looked at the question carefully since our previous discussions, we still feel that the provision in the Bill is right, bearing in mind particularly the special consideration which licensing authorities are required to give to the types of employer we are principally concerned with, which I referred to earlier in my speech.

695
I doubt whether we are going to be able to see eye to eye on this problem, but I assure the House that as a result of what happened on the Committee stage, the Government have again considered this very fully, and I am asking the noble Viscount to refrain from pressing the matter further. If he does this, and if he will get up and say: "I do not propose, having regard to all these considerations, to press the Amendment", I shall regard this as a very nice birthday present.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, before my noble friend resumes his seat, I should like to ask him this question. Would it not be permissible for the licensing authority to adopt the same practice as the British Road Services adopt, and enter into contractual undertakings with a particular firm which might require to use the same berth?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I rather fear that my noble friend is trying to lead me a little astray. In view of what I have said, it is clear that the licensing authority must not give to people undertakings outside the provisions of the Bill as they now stand—namely, that they will have a contractual right (I believe those were the noble Lord's words) for anything other than the seven years period which I have previously mentioned.
3.27 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I rise, perhaps a little belatedly, to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has said, that this point was argued at length on Second Reading and in Committee. Iargued it at some length myself, and I shall not do so again. In the main, I wish to confine myself to saying two things. First, I find myself in entire agreement with what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, had to say in moving this Amendment; and secondly, I find myself deeply disappointed by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Champion.
Given the way in which he said that he would have another look at this, I felt there was hope that on this matter the Government would show some reasonable flexibility. That hope was not only based upon the noble Lord's courtesy, or even upon what can some-
696
times be the rather frail words of a Minister's undertaking to have another look at an Amendment: it was sustained by the fact that the noble Viscount's Amendment had been endorsed by a great weight of opinion inside this House, from almost every quarter, including opinion about as well informed, if not as well informed, as any there is in this country—and that, of course, has been acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. But not only was the noble Viscount's Amendment sustained by opinion inside your Lordships' House: it also corresponded with the recommendations of the Rochdale Report; it was very much in line with the latest report of the National Ports Council itself, and certainly not at all out of line with the Devlin Report on decasualisation of labour.
I am sad for two reasons that the noble Lord has felt constrained, or has been constrained, in reply to take the line which he has done. I am sad because of the substance of this matter. In my view, the Government's failure to accept either this Amendment or one along these lines is a blemish on an otherwise good Bill; and it is quite a serious blemish, although, like the noble Viscount, I would not exaggerate, I hope, the importance of the point. I should like to hear what the noble Viscount has to say on the point about the private wharfinger which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, raised.
I should like, in substance, merely to make two comments without going over all the arguments again. The noble Lord said that one had to strike a balance here, and that to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment (I am paraphrasing his remarks) would be weighting the balance in favour of the security of tenure of the private employer. He said words to that effect. But I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that the Amendment is purely permissive. It is also discriminatory. It would allow the licensing authority to discriminate and, of course, it will depend upon the permission of the National Ports Council. So I do not feel that it would be weighting the balance in the way suggested; it seems to me that it would achieve a balance equally between the interests. Secondly—and this is the only other point of substance I wish to make—I

697
feel that the Government, if they persist in refusing this Amendment, will be erring on the side of rigidity. I recall what my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale said in speaking on this point in Committee: that when a Bill has become law a Government often regret not having introduced into its provisions some measure of flexibility. I am sure that, if and when this Bill becomes law, the Government may regret not having introduced this very moderate measure of flexibility into these licensing provisions.
That is all I have to say on the point of substance. On the point of procedure, I would be the first to acknowledge the courtesy and thoroughness which the noble Lord, Lord Champion (as one would expect from him) has shown in dealing with this matter, on Second Reading, between Second Reading and Committee, at Committee stage, and now at Report stage. But despite his courtesy, I find it rather disheartening, when all the weight of argument inside your Lordships' House has been deployed in support of the noble Viscount's Amendment, that the Government are still showing rigidity in this matter, and relating it to a point of principle when there is no point of principle involved. Personally, from the House of Lords' point of view, I find that a rather disheartening fact.
This point has not been argued, certainly from this side of the House, as a Party point, and I do not propose to argue it as a Party point this afternoon, I do not know what line or attitude the noble Viscount will be taking in reply. I would advise my noble friends that there is no greater expert on this matter in this House, or in the country, than the noble Viscount, and I, for one, am happy to be guided by his reaction to the noble Lord's reaction to his Amendment. I shall certainly be glad to go into the Lobby with him if he decides to press it, and I hope my noble friends will follow me. But if he decides to let it be negatived, then my advice would be to let it be negatived. If, in his wisdom, he decides that it should be withdrawn, that also would be my advice.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I am sorry that the Government have felt it necessary to adopt this very rigid attitude. I am greatly obliged, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who, as we expect
698
of him, gave a thorough and reasoned discussion on the Amendment. He called your Lordships' attention in particular to Clause 4(3)(d)(iii), and of course he is perfectly right. There is provision there, and rightly, for special consideration to be given by the licensing authorities to applicants handling their own cargo, who are, perhaps, those I had most in mind in arguing this Amendment.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord's statement (which will be on the Record) that in such circumstances the applicant would have a strong case for appeal if his application were rejected, has the force of law, but it is certainly helpful to people in that position to be able to say what the Minister said when the Bill was going through his House, particularly if they appeal to one of his successors. I think that, in seeking to find the correct point of balance, the Government are wrong. But without the noble Lord having spelt it out so completely, I realised when I came into the House this afternoon that if the Government had made up their minds there was little use one going into the Division Lobby against them. I have no idea whether the Amendment would be carried, for very few Members of your Lordships' House have expressed their views. Even if it were to be carried, I fully anticipate that the Government would rescind it in another place; and I would not be so rash as to think that on a matter of this kind the Members in another place would not be guided by the Government's advice. In all the circumstances, I can give the noble Lord, rather belatedly, this birthday present: that I do not propose to press this Amendment. In fact, I think it would be simplest if I asked your Lordships' permission to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Determination of appeals and objections]:
3.38 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this Amendment corrects a slight inaccuracy in Clause 8(2)(a). That paragraph deals with the Minister's powers and duties in disposing of an appeal or objection, and says that they shall be the same as the powers and duties of the licensing authority in relation to the decision which is appealed against or objected to. But

699
this is not quite wide enough. It is necessary for the Minister to have the same powers and duties as the licensing authority had in relation not only to the authority's original decision but also to the application from the employer. For instance, the licensing authority's power under Clause 3(3) to call for additional information from an applicant for a licence is a power we would want the Minister also to have when he deals with an appeal. But this is a power which relates to the application rather than to the licensing authority's decision, and is therefore not covered by Clause 8(2)(a) as it stands. The Amendment puts matters right by vesting in the Minister all the powers and duties of the licensing authority in connection with the application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, after ("to") insert ("the application which gave rise to").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Levy on licensed employers]:
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to tighten up the wording. The phrase "such wages" is a little vague, and the Amendment spells out more precisely what is meant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 30, leave out ("such wages") and insert ("gross wages paid by him during that period").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Default orders]:
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which is designed to bring the wording of subsection (1) of the Clause into line with subsections (2) and (3). It is desirable that the language should be consistent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 37, after second ("any") insert ("other").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power of harbour authorities to provide inland clearance depots]:
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 7, leave out ("such").—(Lord Champion.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether I am in order but this particular Amendment gives me the chance of asking a question which I asked at Committee stage, which was whether it would be possible for a consortium of harbour authorities to establish such depots. If the noble Lord prefers to postpone an answer to that point I shall be quite happy.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am happy to be able to reply to the debate on the Amendment! I said on the Committee stage that I thought so, but I would make sure. I can now confirm that the clause will enable a harbour authority to act jointly with other harbour authorities in that way, provided, of course, they have the consent of the Minister of Transport for a depot off harbour land. The fact is that for this purpose—or as I am told is the proper way of putting it—the rationale is that the clause empowers a harbour authority to act together with any other person, and by virtue of Section 19 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, a "person" includes any body of persons corporate or unincorporate, so that I think the position is completely answered on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Further provision as to harbour reorganisation schemes]:
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg to move the last two Amendments in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 11 leave out ("purposes") and insert ("objects").
line 15, leave out ("purposes") and insert ("objects").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

BUILDING CONTROL BILL
3.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Bill read.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make a brief Statement? As the House will be aware, on July 20 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced a number of measures to deal with the economic situation, and in particular, so far as the Building Control Bill is concerned, that, when it became law, the Minister of Public Building and Works would make an Order reducing the cost limit above which a project is subject to control from £100,000 to £50,000.
Because of the economic situation it will be necessary for the Minister to defer a larger proportion of privately sponsored work than the 10 per cent. from which he has hitherto withheld approval. How much depends on the rate of application, the merits of projects and the development of the economic situation. Lowering the limit will give the Minister scope to defer less urgent smaller schemes instead of some larger schemes more in the public interest. It will increase the scope for adjusting the volume of privately sponsored work: the control will apply to about 1,000 projects costing £220 million in a year, compared with 500 projects costing about £180 million a year with the £100,000 limit.
When the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, anticipated this move in Committee he suggested that the Government would amend the Bill and introduce a lower limit with retrospective effect. This has not been done because the Government consider that the argument for retrospection is not overwhelming, as it was in July, 1965. Apart from this, to amend the Bill to replace the cost limit of£100,000 with a limit of £50,000 would suggest that the lower figure was regarded as the normal point of control—a permanent arrangement. The Bill set out the framework of a control which is considered fair and reasonable for the normal circumstances of an expanding economy when demand for building work
702
tends to outrun the capacity of the industry to meet it. In the present special circumstances of economic difficulty it is necessary to impose a tighter control, but this is an emergency measure. The reduction of the limit by Order makes it clear that this is not regarded as a permanent measure to reshape the control, but as a temporary measure to meet exceptional difficulties.
The intention to make an Order adds point to the reference that I made in my winding-up speech in the Second Reading debate to the possibility that the cost limit for licensing might be reduced to £50,000 after a building costing £95,000 had been started, quite properly, without a licence. The question was raised, should work on the building cease until a licence had been obtained? This is covered by the provision in Clause 8(3) which requires that Orders shall contain appropriate transitional provisions, and continues:
"An Order under this section whereby any work will cease to be exempt from control shall contain such provisions as appear to the Minister to be appropriate for preserving the exemption in relation to work done after the date on which the Order comes into force which was contracted for, or forms part of an operation begun before that date."
Transitional arrangements similar to those in Clauses 4 and 7 would thus be included in any Order lowering the cost limit or bringing under control any work not previously controlled. Work on a project which had been begun or contracted for before the Order came into force would be exempt from the provisions of the Order. Thus no licence would be required to continue work on a project costing £95,000, started or contracted for before an order reducing the cost limit came into force.
The subject was discussed twice in Committee in another place, when Opposition Amendments to spell out the provision in more detail were withdrawn. On that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary said,
"No Minister would consider making an Order which did not make provision similar to that in Clauses 4 and 7. If he did, Parliament would not approve the order. … If no provision were made the order would probably be held ultra vires in any case."
Later he confirmed that "the position is completely safeguarded". Clause 8(3) leaves the Minister a limited discretion

703
about the details of the transitional provisions because it is impossible to foresee all the circumstances which might arise in connection with the making of an Order. My Lords, I thought it right to make this Statement in case some uncertainty had arisen following the Prime Minister's Statement in another place, and to give the explanation why we are not amending the Bill at this stage.
3.50 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having made this Statement. I am bound to say that I did not expect, and I doubt whether anyone else expected, that a Statement of this very considerable complexity would be made on the Motion that the Report be received. I presume it is in order or the noble Lord would not have done it, but I do not think any of us were prepared for it. Not only is it a Statement of considerable complexity, but it is also of considerable seriousness for the building industry, and therefore we shall have to study, and study fairly slowly, what the noble Lord has said when we read it in print to-morrow. Certainly I would not attempt to make any comments on the detail of it now. If any other Member of the House wishes to do so, that will be very interesting. I hope this is not going to be a precedent and that we are not going to get very complicated statements made without any warning on a very important matter.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether this Order applies to tunnels?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Order I am referring to is the Order which the Prime Minister indicated in his Statement last week would be made after the passing of this Bill.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that I am rather surprised at his view. I felt it right to make this Statement at this stage because I have had some representations following the Prime Minister's Statement. There is a clear intention of making an Order immediately after the Bill has been passed by Parliament. Some thought we ought to amend the Bill at this stage. The purpose of my Statement was to explain why we are not amending the
704
Bill, and secondly, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will see—
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, if I may intervene, the noble Lord is apparently making a second speech, and as he was not the mover of the Motion I am wondering whether he is in order in addressing your Lordships twice.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was rising to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape. I was trying to be helpful. If I wish to put myself in order I ask for the leave of the House to reply. This I now do. As I said, I made this Statement to set some fears at rest and to deal with a number of queries about the proceedings on this Bill. I have only been helpful, and I am rather sorry about the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Newton.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord has mentioned some figures about the number of extra contracts which will come within this Statement, which would not have been covered in the Bill. I did not catch them but the number was increased considerably. Can he say what addition to the staffing of the Department will be required to examine each of these projects with sufficient care to be able to decide whether or not to give a licence?
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1:
Prohibition of work except under licence
1.—
(11) Where a person contracts to carry out any work to which this Act applies, that person shall not be precluded from recovering payment for the work under the contract by reason only that it was carried out in contravention of this section or of the terms of a licence issued under this Act if he proves that he would have a defence under subsection (6) of this section if he were charged with an offence under this section in respect of that work.
3.54 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (11), to leave out all words after "proves that" and to insert:
"at the time when the work was carried out he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that it was being carried out in contravention of this section or, as the case may be, of the terms of the licence."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 1(2) lays down quite clearly that the responsibility for obtaining a licence and seeing that future work falls within that licence rests upon the person who will bear the cost of that building. Subsection (4) lays down the responsibility of those participating in the operation to see that the operation remains within the licence. Subsections (5) and (6) provide the defence particularly for the contractor; in other words, the contractor will not be guilty if he proves that at the time when the work was carried out he did not know, or could not reasonably have known, that there was any infringement of the licence. Subsection (11) is a further protection, particularly for the minor contractor. As I understand it, the basic principle of general law is that you cannot enforce an illegal contract, and therefore if the main contract is illegal it may well be that the minor contracts are equally illegal and therefore cannot be enforced against the main contractor.
I understand considerable difficulties arose in the past under the Defence Regulations. The Government took the view that some protection should be available to the innocent contractor. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, questioned whether it was right in subsection (11) to allude to what might be hypothetical criminal proceedings as a defence in a civil court. This point has been carefully considered, and we take the view now that it would perhaps be best to remove the words as suggested in my Amendment and to include the proposed words which will lay down the defence of such a contractor. This would mean that he would have a case against (shall we say?) the main contractor or the owner of the building, if he himself was unaware or could not reasonably have known that there was an infringement. I think this will meet the point of the noble Viscount, and in those circumstances I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("that") to end of line 23 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, my noble friends Lord Colville of Culross and Lord Hastings asked me to express their apologies for their inability to be
706
here this afternoon. I am afraid that I was not here during the Committee stage of this Bill, but I have read the proceedings. I feel sure that if my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross were here he would express gratitude to the Government for meeting his legal point. Far be it from a layman such as myself to know whether it does or not in fact, but it certainly appears to do so, so I would thank the Government on my noble friend's behalf.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, might I say, with some slight knowledge of the contracting business, that as the noble Lord is no doubt well aware, it is very difficult to alter the terms of a contract? Indeed, one might say that the contract thereby ceases to be a contract; it becomes a scrap of paper. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that it is something to think the Government are endeavouring to safeguard the contractor, be he large or small, who entered into a contract for perfectly legitimate reasons and on sound grounds but finds his contract is null and void or a mere scrap of paper.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Work below cost limit
2.—
(6) for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) of this section there shall be disregarded any work in respect of another building or other works or, as the case may be, any other work in respect of the same building or works if that work—

(a) is exempt from control by virtue of section 3, 4, 5 or 6 of this Act; or

(b) was carried out before 28th July 1965,or is exempt from control by virtue of section 7(1) of this Act, or would be so exempt if this Act had come into force on that date;

but regard shall be had to all other such work as is mentioned in those subsections, whether or not authorised by a licence under this Act or exempt from control under this Act and whether carried out before or after the commencement of this Act.
3.59 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (6), to leave out all words after "that work—" and to insert:
"

(a) is exempt from control by virtue of section 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7(1) of this Act; or

707

(b) was carried out before 28th July 1965; or

(c) would have been exempt from control by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection if this Act had come into force on the date mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection;

but, except as aforesaid, regard shall be had to all such work as is mentioned in the said subsections (2) and (3), including work carried out before the commencement of this Act and work which has been authorised by a licence issued under this Act or which is exempt from control by virtue of this section or section 7(4) of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment replaces part of subsection (6) of Clause 2, the drafting of which was criticised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, at Committee stage. The object of the subsection is to ensure that the cost of work on projects which are or were of a kind exempted from control by Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6—and this is what I would stress—or which had been begun or contracted for before July 28,1965, should be excluded from the aggregation requirements set out in subsections (2) and (3). Examination of the points raised in Committee revealed that the subsection was defective in that it failed to exclude from aggregation the cost of work done between July 28, 1965, and the enactment of the Bill on projects which qualify after enactment for exemption under Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6. The subsection has been redrafted to cover this point and at the same time it makes its meaning clearer. If I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, after our early brush, may I express through him to the noble Viscount our gratitude for drawing our attention to this particular point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 5 to 15 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, as this Bill has some complicated regulations that have to be administered by the Ministry, I wonder whether it would be in order now for me again to ask the noble Lord how many extra staff will be required to administer the Bill as it is written and as modified by the Statement of the Prime Minister?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shep-
708
herd, for what he has said. I must confess that I have found this point extremely difficult, not only in the debate on the Committee stage but also, I am afraid, following the explanation, lucid though it was, that the noble Lord has just given us. At any rate, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will be gratified to find that he was perfectly right, as it happens, to have pursued his point on the Committee stage. I am glad, too, that he has in that way been able to help make the Bill a better one than it was.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to the attitude of the Government on this Bill, because on a previous occasion he referred to the frailty of undertakings given by Ministers. Speaking from some years of experience, I would say that Ministers do make an honest effort in regard to any undertaking that they give in this House. It is true that on some occasions we cannot agree, but we do make an honest effort. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that I did not understand this subsection until my officials drew a diagram and a plan to indicate the matter. Only then, when I saw it drawn out on paper, did I understand what the subsection did. I do not intend to try to go through it again as I did on the Committee stage; but I am quite willing to explain it to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, afterwards. In regard to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I am afraid that I should need notice of his question. I doubt whether there will be an increase in staff owing to the temporary nature of the Order that will be made after the passing of this Bill.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, since the noble Lord has referred to me, and because I am anxious that there should be no misunderstanding, I should say that I did not refer to the frailty of Minister's undertakings; I referred to the frail words. I fear that in the last case to which the noble Lord referred the great and reasonable weight of our Amendment was too heavy for those frail words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Work begun or contracted for before commencement of Act]:
(4) There shall be exempt from control under this Act any work which has been authorised in writing by the Minister before the commencement of this Act.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross,on the Committee stage moved a rather long Amendment which, although the noble Viscount thought it explained the earlier attitude of the Government a little more clearly than was done by the Bill, I think would not have been helpful in relation to the Bill itself. Then the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, came to my assistance. I am glad to repeat my thanks to him. He suggested an alternative to the word "authorised". I have looked at it with the officials, and we think that in all the circumstances, particularly as we are already amending the Bill, we should meet the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I am happy, therefore, to move this Amendment which replaces the word "authorised" with the word "approved."
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 38, leave out ("authorised") and insert ("approved").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment. He said that I came to his assistance. I thought I was coming to the assistance of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. But that they both thought I was coming to their assistance may show that I was coming to the assistance of the House, which was perhaps a good thing. I thank the noble Lord for the Amendment that he suggests should be made.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Conesford, on having made such a happily successful suggestion. I am glad that his fine choice of language should once more have made an indelible impression upon the Government. I am even more glad that the word "authorised" has been taken out of the Bill. Quite obviously, it was a most unfortunate word to have been used in the first place.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, may I just say, with all respect to my noble friend Lord Conesford, that
710
I am rather at a loss as to the difference between the two words. This merely reminds me of what an old American friend said:
"A grapefruit by any other name will squirt in your eye just the same."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I well recall my noble friend the Leader of the House, I think addressing the noble Marquess opposite, saying that he, my noble friend, could be happy only if he were making the noble Marquess happy. I hope that kindness and generosity from this side of the House will be recognised as a hallmark, and that it will help us in future legislation in perhaps more difficult circumstances. Perhaps I may express my gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and to his deputy on this occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for their assistance in the passage of this Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

RESERVE FORCES BILL
4.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Establishment of force for home service in volunteer reserve
2.—(1) There shall be established, as part of the volunteer reserve, a force for home service (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the home service force") which shall consist of—
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other enactment, a member of the home service force shall not—
(a) be required to serve, either on permanent service or otherwise, outside the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;
EARL JELLICOEmoved, in subsection (1), after the first "a" to insert "territorial". The noble Earl said: I hope

711
it will be in order for me to speak on this clause not only to this Amendment but to the other Amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thurlow, with the exception of the second Amendment, which covers a rather different point, and Amendment No. 8. With your Lordships' permission, I shall be speaking now not only to Amendment No. 1 but to all the Amendments to Clause 2, save Amendments Nos. 2 and 8.
The point about inserting "Territorial" is that it is in the descriptive title of this Home Service Force, and is a matter to which I referred on Second Reading. We are here dealing with the T.A.V.R. III. In the second line of Clause 2 of the Bill the Committee will see that this is referred to as "a force for home service" or, in shorthand, as a "home service force". The effect of these Amendments would be to change the longer descriptive title (I am now referring to the total effect of all the Amendments on this clause, with the exception of Amendment No. 8) to "a territorial force for home defence"; and the shorthand title to "the territorial force". Thus, "force for home service" would become "territorial force for home defence", and "home service force" would become "territorial force".
I hope I can persuade noble Lords opposite that this would be an improvement of nomenclature. I know that am only seeking to change the title of these new forces, but surely your Lordships would not seek to argue that titles are entirely unimportant. I remember very well the fuss made by this House about the proposal to call what is now the Admiralty Board "the Navy Board". I was at the receiving end—at the wrong end—of that particular argument. In any event, when one christens a baby, whether it is an old baby like the Admiralty or a new baby like this new force, it is a good thing to get its name right. I think it is right to insert the word "territorial" here. The force, as I understand it, will be exclusively recruited on a local and territorial basis, unlike A.V.R. I and II, and probably IV as well, part of which will be recruited on a wider basis
The Government themselves have said that they would like this force to be called the Territorials. I believe they
712
are quite right in this wish. This is an old and splendid name, and we should not easily let it go; but if it is right to call this force "the Territorial Force" or "the Terriers", could we not spell this out in this Bill? Why not, as the Amendment suggests, call the force the Territorial Force, or, if noble Lords would prefer to keep it closer to the Volunteer Reserve, the Territorial Reserve? That, in short, is the purpose of this series of Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, after ("a") insert ("territorial").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I should like to add a few words to what the noble Earl has said about this name, "Territorial". I am thinking particularly, as I am connected with it, of the Territorial Force as it has existed in the Highlands, in the Highland Regiments. It has come to mean a great deal to Scotsmen in that area. It has always been the most fruitful source of volunteer effort. People still think of it as such, and, as the noble Earl has said, they will always be known as "Terriers", so I think it is reasonable to have it in the Bill. I am sure that if some other noble Lords could have seen on parade today the battalion which I had the honour to command a great many years ago, they would not have been able to distinguish them from the highest class of Regular battalions. Pride and tradition of that sort is worth keeping alive. It is true that it is called a defence force, but if you are attacked your only defence is to go into action and beat those who have called upon you to defend yourselves. Therefore I myself, and many friends of mine in the Highlands, would support, with the greatest possible vigour, the Amendment moved by the noble Earl.
LORD OGMORE: I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his series of Amendments, all of which have exactly the same effect, that is to say to insert the word "Territorial" in the title of this force. It is tremendously important to keep the word "Territorial". The Territorial Army and its forerunner has been in existence and named as a Territorial Force or Army for upwards of sixty years. It is extremely well known throughout the country. Everybody

713
knows what the Territorial Army or Territorial Force is, and everybody knows what a "Territorial" or "Terrier" is. There is also the Territorial Decoration, which is widely known in the world of decorations. The original force, when created by Mr. Haldane in the great Liberal Government of 1906 to 1910, was named by him the Territorial Force. That was the original name of the Territorial Army, and it became the Territorial Army only after the First World War. So if we pass this Amendment we are only going back to the original name of the force as proposed by Mr. Haldane and as accepted by Parliament at that time.
I feel there is every reason to stick to the name. I was one of those who caused the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, some concern, as he has said, and perhaps some embarrassment, over the title of the Board of Admiralty. They were going to call it the "Navy Board". This House did not like that, and we made them stick to the "Admiralty Board". That is how it still stands. I hope the House to-day will be as adamant on this important matter of nomenclature as it was at the time of the Conservative Government, when we forced the Government to stick to the term "Admiralty".
LORD LEATHERLAND: If this was not an official Amendment to an official Government Bill, I might find myself in a frame of mind where I could cultivate some sympathy for the Amendment. As has been said, "the Territorials" is an honoured name; everybody knows who the Territorials are. As has also been said, the Government themselves have indicated that in a colloquial sense it will refer to this as the "Territorial Force" or "the Terriers". Therefore I hope that at some time, if not necessarily this afternoon, the Minister may find it possible to make general use of this word "Territorial", with the diminutive of "Terriers". The only reason why I would vote against the Amendment this afternoon if it were to be pressed to a Division, as I hope it will not be, is that I do not want to delay the passage of the Bill. I do not want this Bill to become a shuttlecock between the two Houses. I want it to appear on the Statute Book quickly. I believe that any little rough edges which there may be in the legislation as such can be adjusted or
714
put right by Ministerial order or by some other instrument when the initial stages of the measures of reorganisation have been completed. Therefore, I am in complete moral sympathy with the Amendment, but as a matter of procedure, if it is pressed to a Division, I will vote against it.
EARL FORTESCUE: May I make one further suggestion? Whatever this new force is called, whether it be Territorial Force or the Home Force, I would ask that it be spelt as heretofore with a capital for the initial letter, and not as printed in this Bill.
4.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): I feel that there is complete agreement in the Committee that this force, T. & A.V.R.III as it will be technically called, should be known as the Territorials. I say straight away to the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, that it is well established now that, in practice and in reality, the force we are talking about under Clause 2 will be known as the Territorials.
It could be argued that to concede this particular Amendment would be a minor adjustment which would make everybody happy. But I submit to your Lordships that there are quite valid reasons why we should not accept it. To start with, the Amendment would have no legal effect: it would make no difference whatsoever to the Bill. May I say here that, like the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I shall have to refer also to Amendment No. 2, because it is related. We try to avoid putting into Statutes expressions suggesting titles, and the titles which appear in the Bill—other than the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve, which is a general title covering the whole of these particular forces—are primarily for legal purposes. They are related to the Bill itself, and not necessarily to the use that will, in fact, be made of them. There is no reference, for instance, in the text of Statutes to the titles Army Emergency Reserve, Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, Long-term Reserve or Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association, and I think it is just as well that there is not.
Your Lordships will recall that in 1940 there was a force created by Defence

715
Regulation with the title of Local Defence Volunteers—the L.D.V.s—but the title Home Guard came into general use. We have therefore deliberately avoided any suggestion of a title in Clause 2. Certain changes have been made to meet the wishes of the Opposition in another place. The title "Special Force" was used. It was then changed to Home Service Force, and we shall be coming on to debate that more specifically. But I suggest that these particular names or titles are for the purposes of the Bill. The Territorials will be the practical, if informal, title of the force. The formal title (and I share in the confusion which exists among some of your Lordships about these various titles) is the T. and A.V.R. III.
It would be wrong to suggest the informal title, unless we were going to mention the others. We should then have to apply different titles to other sections of the T. and A.V.R. For instance, we should have to bring in the word Volunteers—but I do not wish to put ideas into the minds of the Opposition. Then we should be driven to putting in the Special Army Volunteer Reserve and the "Ever-Readies" which would quite unnecessarily complicate the Bill, and, as I submit, to no advantage whatsoever. I would remind your Lordships that if the Bill were drafted as a source of information to the uninformed public, one could hardly say that it would serve that purpose at all well. Indeed, it calls for a good deal of research, as do many Bills, in order to understand the full purport; and, as I explained on Second Reading, this is part of a general body of legislation.
We have in the general title the name Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve. We agree that they should be called "Territorials". The Government have come a very long way—and, I may say, to great mutual advantage—to meet the representations that have been made, and we should not unnecessarily complicate the Bill for no purpose. The Territorial, whatever else he will do, will not carry a copy of the Act around in his knapsack—and it would not do him much good if he were to do so. Although I fully acknowledge the force of the representations which have been made, I assure your Lordships that this Amendment will make
716
no difference whatsoever. Nothing will be achieved by it and we are, in fact, going to call these men Territorials.
The debate on the Navy Board and the Admiralty Board was one of the more notable occasions in your Lordships' House, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who moved the Amendment, strongly supported by myself. It is perhaps repeating the obvious to say that when one changes positions one sees that one was not quite so well informed in Opposition, or in attacking the Government, as one thought. But there were good historic reasons for the title which was going to be formally changed, and as it was part of legislation it was a legitimate subject to debate. Indeed, on that occasion I believed that "Admiralty Board" was the more correct title. Subsequent researches have rather indicated that perhaps the title "Navy Board" was more historically correct. But there is no advantage whatsoever in making the change proposed here, and I assure the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair—and I was recently talking to Highland Territorial officers who feel very strongly on the importance of the continuation of the word Territorial—that the name will continue. This Amendment is unnecessary and, indeed, objectionable on Parliamentary grounds, but I should like to give that very firm assurance to your Lordships.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The noble Lord's reply has still left us very largely in the air. We are told that the Government wish the A.V.R. III to be known as the Territorials. We are told that this is not the right place to give authority for them to be so known. Could the noble Lord tell us exactly how the Government intend to give official authority for the use of the word "Territorials" as the name of the A.V.R. III?
LORD SHACKLETON: It is not necessary to give this official authority. One chooses a name. The official name is the T. and A.V.R. III. Does the noble Lord wish us also to insert the other titles in the Bill? Does he wish to put in the "Special Army Emergency Reserve"? Does he want to put in the "Volunteers"? I repeat again: it is not necessary to do that by legislation, and

717
all that is necessary is for the Government and those concerned to agree that these are the Territorials, and that this is what everybody wants them to be called.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am sorry that I did not make myself quite clear to the noble Lord. He took us back to the Home Guard days. If my memory is right, the name "Home Guard" was authorised by either Army Council Instruction or Army Order. I put it to the noble Lord that, if I did accept for a moment that the name should not be in the Bill, it must be conveyed in some official way, and I should have thought it ought to be conveyed officially, either by Army Council Instruction or by Army Order, or by whatever is the modern method.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has stated that the Amendment makes not the slightest difference. That being so, nobody is going to refer to the T. and A.V.R. III: they would not be such fools. Therefore, why not call these men by the name which everybody else wants?
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think I will attempt to explain it again. But the noble Viscount must be aware that legislation serves purposes other than the obvious, if I may use an obscure sentence. I take the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I appreciate that he is much more expert on these points than I am, and I should not like to hazard a guess as to whether it will be necessary to do what he suggests. But I will certainly bear it in mind, and if there is an opportunity at a later stage I will see that he and the House are informed. I am satisfied that it is not necessary to insert this Amendment, but should it later appear to be necessary, or, indeed, considered desirable, this will be considered.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the careful way in which he has dealt with this Amendment. But I must confess that I am far from being convinced by his arguments. He suggested that the changes which we are seeking to make—and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Leather land, that this
718
is not a very strong Party matter—have no legal effect. But I was not claiming that they did. So he was knocking down a skittle which was not there. The noble Lord also referred—and he was absolutely right to do so—to the way in which the Government had to some extent met the wishes of the Opposition in another place on this point by taking out the word "special". But that, of course, was done quite easily, and it had no legal effect. Precisely the same would happen if we inserted the word "Territorial". I do not think that this argument as to the lack of legal effect is in any way convincing; and I must confess that, on the question of the formal title, how anyone in his senses could prefer this horrible portmanteau term, "T. and A.V.R. III", for "Territorial Force" I fail to understand. It is indeed a very curious preference.
This Amendment has attracted a good deal of support from a number of your Lordships, and I must say that I am very loth to abandon it. However, I recognise that the noble Lord has a point about putting in the title; that if we put in the title of one force, then, in logic, we may have to put in the others. There may be some force in that, and it is a matter which I should like to have another look at between now and Report stage. But I cannot for the life of me see how this affects my first Amendment, which does not affect the title of the force, but merely the description, since if "home service" is not amended, the name will become "a territorial force for home service". I should have thought his argument did not bite on this first Amendment, and I should have hoped he would feel able to consider at least the first Amendment sympathetically. Even if only that were included, it would pave the way for the informal title; and it would give a great deal of pleasure to many people to have the word "territorial" formally written into the Bill in a position in which it clearly relates to this particular force.
LORD OGMORE: From a legal point of view I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is right. He obviously is, or he would not say so from the Front Bench. From a draftsmanship point of view, too, I can see his argument quite clearly. The only point I want

719
to make is this. If the wording in the Bill is left as:
"(hereafter … referred to as 'the home service force')",
I feel there is a danger that it will be taken by the Army at large, and by the Government Departments concerned, and read as we have read it here; in other words, as if that were the title of the force. I cannot imagine that, without this discussion, at all events, they are any more likely to get their understanding of these particular words any more correct than we have. Therefore, I think that this discussion has been valuable. It has cleared up this point; and now that we have had from the Minister the fact that the Home Service Force will be known as the Territorial Force, and that it will be so described in all official documents and papers, I believe that will go a long way towards meeting our just requirements.
LORD SHACKLETON: At the risk of taking up more of the time of the Committee, I would say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. Clearly, I have not yet succeeded in getting the argument across. If I may first take the point raised last by the noble Lord, I agree that there could be a danger of misunderstanding. But I should like to read the words of the subsection to your Lordships:
"… a force for home service (hereafter in this section referred to as 'the home service force') …".
It is a name which is used for the purpose of the Bill—and this is a legal document; it is a piece of law. It is not intended to be a piece of popular literature; and the popular literature already clearly calls them "the Territorials". The noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, may like to see some of the documents. I have one here which is headed The Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, and in it there are the titles with which we are familiar—the Volunteers, the "Ever-Readies" and the Territorials. This force will unquestionably be called "the Territorials".
We really should be getting into difficulty if at all times we tried to make legislation serve purposes much wider than those for which it is intended. I see that there is a danger, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, indicated; but I can
720
assure him that the Ministry of Defence, at least, understand this Bill and will correctly use the title. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Earl will let these words stand. I see nothing to be gained for the purposes which he wants, and nothing to be gained in the interests of the Territorials. I will look into the particular point which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, made; but, whether it was necessary or not, I can only tell him that the Army Department are already in their published documents referring to them as "the Territorials".
LORD COLYTON: May I just say one word, not having heard the beginning of this debate, unfortunately? I recall the fact that when the Ministry of Defence was reorganised we in this House passed an Amendment to the effect that the Navy Board should be called the Admiralty Board.
LORD SHACKLETON: This point has been raised.
LORD COLYTON: But not long ago, in an answer, the noble Lord himself specifically used the title "Navy Board" instead of "Admiralty Board" on two occasions.
EARL JELLICOE: I do not wish to detain your Lordships' Committee much longer on this particular Amendment, although I think the discussion has been useful. I am grateful to the noble Lord for such assurances as he has given us, but I should be grateful if he could give me at least an off-the-cuff reply to the suggestion which I put to him, that it might be possible, without in any way involving us in the difficulties which he has pointed out, to accept the first Amendment, which is to insert the word "territorial" in line 15, but not the Amendments to insert it elsewhere, where one is talking about the short title or is using the shorthand description of the force.
LORD SHACKLETON: Again, this is a purely drafting point. I really do not see what the noble Earl gains by it, and I cannot, I am afraid, give a favourable reply. He is just trying to claw a little bit back. I can understand that he feels strongly and that he wants to save some of this; but if I take my stand, as I do, that the proposed change would do no

721
good, I cannot agree to put into the Bill something which serves no useful purpose.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.38 p.m.
EARL JELLICOEmoved, in subsection (1), after "for home" to leave out "service" and insert "defence". The noble Earl said: So much for "territorial". I also propose to substitute—and this is Amendment No. 2—for "home service" the words "home defence". What I am getting at here goes a good deal deeper than the question of pure nomenclature. I do not wish to argue at this stage that this force should be other than exclusively concerned with home defence within these islands, although my noble friend Lord Thurlow has an Amendment down, Amendment No. 8, which bears on this point, but I do wish to argue that that liability for service within these shores should be in roles wider than the Government are at present prepared to admit.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will forgive me if I say that I think that he was unnecessarily stubborn about this matter on Second Reading. For him and the Government, as I understand it, the role—the one and only role—for the Territorials will be to assist the civil power in the event of a nuclear attack, although he did go so far as to say that it could provide a basis for expansion if circumstances changed. I must confess that I am still entirely unconvinced by this restrictive, deflationary argument; and I use the word "deflationary" in the sense that this argument deflates quite unnecessarily the role or roles of this new force. Granting assistance to the civil power in the post-nuclear phase, if we have ever to be faced with it, should be the primary role of this force—I am not querying that. But why not be prepared to admit from the start that you cannot foresee all the possible eventualities, and to admit, if you are going to take the trouble to create this force, that it might come in useful in other circumstances?
What are the other circumstances? We envisaged at least two at Second Reading. They have both been caught up, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said then, in the role of this force, but the Government have apparently quite
722
deliberately dropped them: that is, supporting the Regular Army in the United Kingdom. We believe the Regular Army will need support in a number of possible eventualities which are not as remote as the noble Lord sought to argue at Second Reading. It might need support in a period of growing tension before the outbreak of hostilities. We all know there are a vast number of V.Ps in these islands. We all know how thinly spread the Regular Army is at the present time. In certain circumstances it might welcome such support from the Territorials. We also believe the Regular force might possibly need support in these islands in the event of hostilities.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Perhaps he would elaborate on the sort of support he thinks the Territorials will be giving to the Regular Army. Is he envisaging an overseas role for them? And what does he think they would do? I did not quite follow him.
EARL JELLICOE: I was making it clear that I was talking of the role within these shores and I went out of my way to show that. The sort of role I was envisaging was that the Regular forces might be guarding V.P.s, might be thinly spread and would welcome assistance from the Territorials. It seems a possibility. We also believe that the Regular forces might need support in the case of actual hostilities. I am not talking in terms of a mass invasion of these islands, save as the remotest possible contingency. But surely it is quite possible in the event of war—and we are talking about an improbable hypothesis in any case—that we might be faced with destructive attacks by, for example, parachutists aimed at key points. We know perfectly well that this is very much part of modern warfare. Surely in both those contingencies—and they are contingencies strictly limited to situations which could arise within these Islands; though there are other possibilities—the Territorials could usefully support and supplement the Regular force, which might be spread very thinly and would be very overstrained at such a time. Surely this is more than support for the civil power. Surely this is, as my Amendments imply, home defence.

723
Those are the reasons why I seek to amend the descriptive title for this new force. I believe that the change would have—I do not know quite how to put it—a certain cosmetic advantage. "Home defence" sounds much more substantial than "home service". A force for home service, if the noble Baroness, Lady Swan borough, would forgive me, has the ring of "meals-on-wheels" about it. It is not appropriate for this new force—especially if the Government fail to provide them with any wheels. I also believe that this change is more than a play on words, and I do not disguise that home defence, as we see it, embraces the roles which should be those which this new force could discharge and which it should be authorised to discharge. To bring in these words "home defence" as a descriptive title would help ensure that the members of this reserve military formation are treated as real soldiers, and as real soldiers with the possible duty of support of the Regular Army. Those are the main reasons why I seek to substitute in Clause 2 for the words "home service", the words "home defence". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("service") and insert ("defence").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD OGMORE: I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, once again. I think the word "defence" sums up the role of the Territorial Force very much better than the word "service". "Service" is a noble word; but it does not necessarily have anything to do with military matters. As the noble Earl said, we have the Women's Voluntary Service; and a fine job they do. But it is not a military one—not normally. There are many other kinds of service—Civil Service and all sorts of others—and they have nothing to do with military service. To me the Territorial Force basically is a defence force; and I do not see why we cannot call it so. I believe that words are very important in these matters.
The Government say that this force is going to have a very minor role, but they do not know what it is going to be. No Government in history ever has been able to forecast what future operations are going to be like—not one. The only
724
thing you could say about military advisers and the War Office and all the best military advice before a war is that they will be wrong. This is through no fault of their own; they are, after all, dealing with the quite unknown. They are dealing with an enemy and, to start with, they do not know who the enemy are or where they will attack or how they will attack. Those of us who were in the Army before the war know that we spent a large amount of our time crawling about the country in gas-masks. It was assumed that there was going to be gas warfare. If anyone can tell me that he enjoyed crawling about the country in a gas-mask I will give him a medal. It was most uncomfortable. We did not do it for fun. The Army Council did not order the troops to crawl about in gasmasks for fun. They assumed that gas warfare would come into operation from the word "Go". But it did not.
Before the last war, the War Office decided that the Territorial Army had no future whatever except in anti-aircraft measures. But we know that when war came the Territorial divisions fought in every theatre of operation. Battalions of my own regiment fought in France and in other parts of the world. The 50th Division, a Territorial division, had a great history, as did the 51st. If this is so, how can we say that all that these people will do will be x? I do not believe it. I agree with the words of Sir Gerald Templer—and I mentioned this during the Second Reading debate. He had great experience of the Territorial Army. He was with the 53rd Division as a G.S.O. II before the war and knows the Territorial Army very well indeed. And, of course, he was C.G.S. He said:
"The Territorial Army is the country's insurance against the unknown, and no other country in history has been able to take out such a comprehensive policy for such a low premium."
Those words should be inscribed on the portals of the Ministry of Defence, because this is what we are talking about to-day.
What do we find in The Times this morning? Mr. Healey, the Minister of Defence, speaking yesterday in Paris, said:
"The existing NATO Forces are barely adequate to carry out the task with which they are entrusted."

725
Mr. Healey is talking about the non-nuclear as well as the nuclear forces, and he says that they are barely adequate. The Defence Secretary of the United States, Mr. McNamara, said that:
"the threat to Europe from the East was permanent and real."
That is what was said yesterday in Paris by the people who should know.
If these are the circumstances, and I believe them to be, it may be that we shall have an attack on this country. Even the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, pooh-poohed the idea of an attack on this country. I do not pooh-pooh it. I think it likely that we may have a serious airborne attack on this country, and in those circumstances this body of Territorials may well prove to be the very arm that the Regular Army needs to help combat the invader. When Holland and Belgium were invaded by the German airborne troops the defenders would have been most happy to have a force like this to round-up the parachutists. In those circumstances I feel very strongly that the Committee should support the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, unless the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has a very conclusive answer to the strong point which has been made by the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: May I say a few words in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has been saying? I think it is impossible for even the clever boys at the War Office or the Ministry of Defence to have the slightest idea about what the next war may entail. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, truly said, in the Second World War we were crawling about uncomfortably wearing gas masks because that was regarded as being a necessity. To pursue that story a little further back, in the First World War the pundits at the War Office and elsewhere said, "There will be no gas". But there was gas; and many people suffered severely because of their ignorance and error. It is absolutely absurd for the Ministry of Defence, or any Government Department, or anyone else to say that they know what the next war will bring forth. For this reason I strongly support the view that the Territorial Army should be equipped, formed and trained to deal with whatever emergency may occur, and not necessarily only in this country.
LORD ROWALLAN: As one who was caught both in 1914 and in 1939, I am reminded by what noble Lords have said of the completely unexpected for which we were waiting. None of us had the foggiest idea of what would be required, when it would be required, or where it would be required. Nowadays when the fighting seems to take place in small parties under junior N.C.Os, goodness knows what would happen if infiltration should take place into this country by landings from the sea or from the air. Before anyone could tell what was happening, the whole organisation of the country might have been completely disrupted. You must have sufficient trained people on the ground, and it is no use saying that you can do it with the very small forces which are at present available to meet emergencies in this country.
LORD THURLOW: I wish to add one word to what was said by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. When we discussed this question on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned the word "flexibility", and I think it tremendously important that this force, the Territorials, should be as flexible as possible. I am sure the Ministry of Defence will find that a great advantage in the future. If we can enshrine it in the wording of the Bill and make clear the need for flexibility, and that these men may be used for any military purpose, it will not only strengthen and assist the Army Department in future plans, but, I am sure, do a great deal to help the morale of this force, which we are by no means certain is going to be able to get enough recruits.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: If I may say one word in support of my noble friend, I think that the short point about his Amendment is that his wording is operationally correct and that the wording of the Bill is not operationally correct. In other words, the present wording "home service" seems to me entirely to beg the question whether home defence is best carried out or can only be carried out by the A.V.R.III by staying at home. That, to my mind, does not follow at all; that seems to be the wrong way round. The wording in the Bill should facilitate operations rather than that operations should be cramped by any wording in the Bill. Has the noble Lord

727
opposite thought of the possibility that the A.V.R.III might have to defend a rig in the North Sea?
4.56 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: That is a very interesting thought from the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and I congratulate him on it. I am not sure that we do not have to look at the legislation which we passed recently on the subject. As I think was to be anticipated, the Committee has taken the opportunity to have a "mini" Second Reading debate on the purposes of this Bill. A number of points have been made by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, suggested to me, and indeed the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, suggested to me, that they either had not fully absorbed the purpose of the Bill as a whole or had absorbed it and were still trying to claw back something else. I think the noble Lord indicated that the Amendment carried greater significance than the Amendment's words would suggest.
First, let me deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, about flexibility. We should neither increase nor diminish the flexibility by making this change, though. I should have thought, if anything, that we should have diminished it. I was not talking about flexibility in the use of the force as it is constituted at present. I was talking about flexibility within the organisation of the Reserves over a long period. I was politely saying to the noble Lord that, if his lot ever got back, they would be able to build a different sort of service on it—I must apologise for using the word "lot"; I did not wish in any way to be offensive. However, putting it against the immediate needs, we have made very clear—I say this to noble Lords who are saying that there are not enough troops available—that it is the present organisation, the present Territorial Army, admirable though it is, that is not best suited to meet those needs which are considered to be most important.
The major part of this Bill is concerned with creating Reserves such as the "Ever-Readies"—which were set up by the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, brought to this House—and the extension of the volunteers into the
728
Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve II, who will be trained to a higher standard, with better equipment, and more readily available to meet a serious emergency, either in the build-up of a simple NATO alert or in other circumstances. It is in order to put the Territorial Army into a new posture, to enable them to support the Regular Forces, that this Bill is introduced. I must remind your Lordships of this, because it is the underlying purpose of the Bill.
Now we come to this other force which the Government had originally called a Special Force, and which they have now called the Home Service Force. Let me again remind your Lordships that this is purely for use within the Bill, and I do not myself see what is to be gained in altering the expression to "home defence" instead of "home service". For some reason which I do not understand the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, poured scorn on the word "service". He seemed to think it was not a very happy phrase. I can only remind the noble Lord that he went not only on "active defence" but also on "active service".
LORD OGMORE: On the contrary. I paid tribute to the W.V.S. I said that the word was too wide to meet the object of the Bill, because it dealt with a military force, and the word "service" is far too wide.
LORD SHACKLETON: I understood the noble Lord's reference to "meals on wheels"—I beg your Lordships' pardon: it was the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has now identified the culprit correctly. May I associate myself entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said? On the narrow point, I said that this was a sad description for a military force. I am second to none in admiration of the W.V.S. and of many other voluntary organisations.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl is anxious to slip out of this one, but personally I thought that the Royal Naval Air Service did not suffer from that title. I think that there is little merit in this sort of hair-splitting in words. Again I must say that we are here concerned with legislation. From

729
the point of view of drafting, the words "home defence" would add nothing to the legal effect of the Bill. Again I would urge upon your Lordships that words should not be put into the Bill for purely presentational purpose. If the idea of home defence were to be introduced, it would have to be as a formal title or in such a way as to govern the role of the force—for example, a force to be known as the Home Defence Force as part of a provision defining a role. I stress that this would be very unusual and is unnecessary. We do not in legislation elaborate the role of the reserve forces, and this has been done only occasionally when incidental to some call-out liability.
This clause restricts the liability of the force to service in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and subject to this restriction it can legally, when called out, be used in the same way as any other military force. In practice, its use will have to have regard to the level of training and equipment and this, of course, depends upon the policy of the Government and the circumstances which they anticipate.
Much has been made of the inability of the War Office, the Ministry of Defence and others to forecast the particular war in which we might be engaged. Clearly, there is much greater emphasis to-day in our military organisation on deterring war and in meeting a number of contingencies which are all too likely to occur and for which T.A.V.R. I and II are necessary. Some of these have occurred abroad, so that we are confronted with a number of limited war situations.
When we talk about providing a special home force for protection against invasion, I can only say that if we seriously regard this as a contingency then the strategy followed over past years by the previous Government with regard to the defence of this country has been wholly wrong. I know only too well how surprised I was, when I came in as Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force, to see how badly—perhaps that is not the right word: how enormously run down Fighter Command was. We are not equipping ourselves for these particular circumstances and it has been made clear what the role of the Territorials is to be. We gain nothing by changing the word.
730
The introduction of the term "home defence" in a context primarily related to call-out for an imminent national danger, or in great emergency, would create some confusion with other liabilities of this and the other Reserves. Are we going to define their particular role and the roles of the other services who may also be called out in defence of the United Kingdom against an actual or apprehended attack?
I would urge your Lordships not to press this matter further. We achieve nothing by it. I hope that we have reached a measure, if not of agreement, at least of understanding of the role of our reserve forces—although I would not wish in any way to discourage the Opposition from saying what they have in mind, nor will I repeat the accusations they used occasionally to hurl against us when we were in Opposition that we were unpatriotic if we criticised Government measures in military matters.
I hope that the Territorials, and the others, will get off to a good start. I hope very much that they will never be called upon to discharge the role they will have. It has been decided to create this special home service force. Its role will be to support the civil power, which may also be, in certain circumstances, the role of the Regular Army. They may both be in support of the civil power, and it might then be a question of the Territorials working with the Regular forces in support of the civil power. Clearly this force can be used, at its level of equipment, for whatever purpose it is wanted. I hope that your Lordships will accept this as the most flexible and convenient title and will not press further the substitution of the word "defence" for "service".
EARL JELLICOE: We have already discussed this point at length, and I do not wish to carry the discussion any further. It would appear that the Government have a closed mind on the subject. While listening to the noble Lord, I have been trying to think why, and I must confess that I am still not much clearer. I am still entirely unconvinced by the arguments which he has used, and I still feel that "home defence" would be a better and more apt title for this force. Whilst the noble Lord has been able to point out that there may be legal difficulties

731
and some disadvantages in this phraseology, he has not convinced me that it is not a better description for this new force.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.9 p.m.
LORD THURLOWmoved, in subsection (2)(a), after "Man" to insert "without his consent". The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make it possible, and to show that it is possible, for a man in the Territorials to volunteer for service abroad—that K to join the T. and A.V.R.II, if they are called out, with or without further training. This will apply mainly to men who are unable to join the Volunteers—because of the distance of the nearest unit, because of personal reasons, or possibly because the force is up to strength. There are a large number of men in the "teeth" arms, let alone in the administrative troops, who carry out duties requiring no more military training than firing a rifle, and if shortages occur after the call-up of the "Ever-Readies" and the Volunteers I should like to see it made possible for certain Territorials to come to the assistance of the Regular Army. I am thinking of the roles of drivers, cooks and clerks, store men and orderlies in the "teeth" arms, and various specialised jobs in administrative units which are similar to civil occupations. I believe that if the Territorials felt there was a chance of this they would be more eager to join in the future.
Possibly the noble Lord will say that the Bill takes care of this by the words in the clause that
"a member of the home service force shall not—
(a) be required to serve …".
My Amendment rather emphasises, by using the words "without his consent", that there is an opportunity for the Territorials to do so. I do not see its happening very often, but I believe that men in the Territorials would like to feel that under certain conditions it would be possible for them to do this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, after ("Man") insert ("without his consent").—(Lord Thurlow.)
LORD SHACKLETON: I was not quite sure why the noble Lord had put
732
this Amendment down. He has already conceded that it is not necessary. He has explained that it is for presentational purposes, I understand, because, as he points out, the wording of the Bill merely states that a member of the force shall not be required to serve outside the United Kingdom; it does not say that he shall not serve outside the United Kingdom. May I say to the noble Lord in this particular context that I have already mentioned that I would be against putting something in for presentational purposes. I admit that there could be circumstances in which it might be desirable. We admit that we are all in hypothetical circumstances. It might be desired to expand T.A.V.R.II, and in such circumstances I am sure it would be necessary to expand that particular reserve and to transfer people to it. It is not of the nature of this force or its organisation that its units would be called on for this purpose.
There is, of course, provision for a transfer of members of this force to another reserve. I do not doubt that, if the circumstances so required, it would be open for the Secretary of State for Defence to agree to such transfers being made. In other words, it might be said that we have to build up forces, and we will expand them accordingly. There are a certain number of people who we know, whatever role they are fulfilling, would be suitable for filling a particular need, and such transfers can take place.
I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurance that not only is his Amendment unnecessary within the drafting of the Bill, but the wider purpose he has in mind, which I must confess I had not contemplated, and do not contemplate, as a likelihood, is provided for if circumstances arose in which it became necessary. Since some of my replies are given without advice, I am willing to make sure about this, but I am fairly certain that what I have said to your Lordships is correct. If, for any reason, I find that it is not, I will tell the noble Lord.
LORD THURLOW: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. I did not consider that an A.V.R.III Territorial unit ever would be called up, and the assurance he has given has set my mind at rest. I think it will please quite a number of Territorials to have that

733
assurance and to feel that this is catered for in the Bill. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD THURLOW: I am rather nervous at what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will say on this point, because I do not want what he calls a mini-Second Reading debate. However, I want to return to the charge on two matters which are not mentioned in the clause but which are behind it. I received the noble Lord's letter answering the questions that I put to him on Second Reading only half-an-hour before this Committee stage, and I should still like to ask him whether there is any chance of taking a second look at this 80 per cent. limit on recruiting A.V.R.III. I believe that to get the force off to a good start (and then, by all means, restrict it if in a year or two finances are in the mess they are in now) it would be a great encouragement if, for the time being, restriction was not put on.
The other point I want to refer to, which I have only just heard about is that of padres and doctors and why they are excluded. I would remind the noble Lord that although he says (and I fully understand why) that a home force unit will be able to call upon local doctors and the local padres wherever they may be, it is not quite the same thing as having your own chap. It is important with the padres, because they will not just be allotted to camp but will attend drills and get to know the men. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will have another look at this matter. After all, there is no bounty for doctors, padres or any other Territorial, and the cost of posting doctors and padres to units of the Territorials will be infinitesimal.
LORD SOPER: I did not think I should take part in this type of debate, and for a fairly obvious reason. I find myself in an ambivalent position, because I am a professed pacifist and, therefore, would seek to have nothing to do with what I regard as a totally irrelevant and immoral procedure, in any case. But, having said that, I am sure there is another side to this problem which is
734
just as important for me and for my Territorial friends here, and it is that a man, whether he is in khaki or blue or in civilian clothes, is just as precious in the sight of God, and just as much in need of spiritual care, whatever particular nefarious or godly attitude he may take up. Therefore, it seems to me that there should be provision for the spiritual care of these men.
I think there is a further reason for a strengthening of the normal moral attitude we should take, and it is that in all the extraordinary and tumultuous circumstances of nuclear possibilities, nuclear effects and nuclear carnage, there is perhaps a greater responsibility laid on the Territorial to be infused with the right type of spirit and be empowered by the right kind of attitude. Therefore, if he can be so stimulated, there is a reasonable and, I think, imperative case that he should receive such ministrations. For that reason I should like to be assured that such men are being cared for, and, though not in any totalitarian spirit, are being freely offered the kind of ministries which are all the more necessary in the light of the particular adventures in horror and destruction in which they may be involved.
However, it seems to me that in these circumstances it may be the local padre who does not attend drill who may offer a more salutary kind of advice and spiritual help to these men rather than somebody with the rank and commitment of an Army officer as well as the commitment to be a pastor of souls. What I am concerned about is that I, as a pacifist, and my friends who are pacifists, should not be assumed to wash our hands of the responsibility for the care of men who, quite sincerely, though, as we think, mistakenly, may be offering themselves in the service of the country in which they live and for which they care. In that case, I hope that the Minister may be able to tell us of the proper care that is being offered to these men, of the kind of spiritual support and comfort they ought to receive, in what particular fashion that will be offered, and in what particular conditions it will be received.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: I should like to add my voice in general support of the point that has been made

735
by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Lord, Lord Soper, though I would approach it from a slightly different point of view from my noble friend. I believe that the chaplain has made a great contribution to the general esprit de corps of a Territorial unit, and it is of great importance that he should be the right person for the right job. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, has said that it could well be left to the local clergymen, to whatever communion they belong, to minister to the men who are serving in this Force.
I am not myself persuaded that this is the right way to approach the problem. Those of us who are accustomed to hearing the representations of parishioners before their new clergyman has been appointed, are familiar with the phrase, and the request, that he should be "Good with men". Some clergymen are better with men than others, and I think it is particularly important that a specific chosen parson should be appointed as the chaplain to a unit of this kind, especially if he is someone who has served in the Forces, who understands the particular experiences and tensions of the life of those who are serving in it, and who can make his contribution because he is speaking from his own experience. I hope very much, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will re-examine this matter and will agree to the appointment of specific chaplains to units. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has told us, the cost would be infinitesimal, and I believe that the advantages would be very great.
5.24 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, will forgive me if I reply to the points he made to my noble friend. First of all, about numbers. We are very sorry, but the numbers are controlled by money, and I am afraid that the figures that are set out in our proposals must stand, because of the limitations put upon this and other expenditure on the Armed Forces. However, the noble Lord will remember that the Territorials (if I may use the word) are to be allowed to be above strength for the first two years of their existence—
LORD SHACKLETON: The Volunteers.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM:—and that the run-down will, in fact, take place over a period. So there will be a transitional period, from a figure above the final establishment, down to the proposed establishment.
I now turn to the question of padres and doctors. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I make my contribution to the debate on Clause 2. I think many noble Lords have misunderstood the function of this new arm: they seem to regard T.A.V.R.III as the "poor relation" of the soldiers in the front line. They seem to think that the soldier is diminished by the fact that he is equipped with an old rifle which has done service in the past, and with a limited amount of transport; that he has to depend in the future upon requisitioned transport. I believe that the name of the force reflects its role. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, quite rightly in my opinion, stressed that one should give a child the name that indicates the part he is to play in the world. I do not see this force as a force of diminished soldiers. I see these men performing a new and very important function in circumstances which we all hope will never come about, but for which we are preparing.
The circumstances in which they will serve will be in the peculiar "twilight" world which follows the nuclear exchange, which was depicted in that controversial film, The War Game. They will not be a second-line reserve for front-line soldiers; they will be part Home Guard, part riot police, and part Civil Defence workers. In all probability they will have to requisition transport in the circumstances in which they will work. Therefore, their function is to be part of a community, and to play their essential role in keeping the functions of Government going after the nuclear exchange. For this reason, they will be like all other citizens—like the parson, the doctor, the grocer, and everyone else who has been caught up in this tragedy, and will have to work with those who are there at the time.
For this reason, we think it is wrong that, shall we say, special parsons and special doctors should be allocated now to these units. The function of the unit,

737
as I see it, is to make friends, now, to make contact now, with the local parson, the local doctor and leaders of the local community, so that if ever a catastrophe should come their links will be already there. There is nothing in this Bill which prevents this. I understand that in any case there are now unofficial links between the local parson and the local Territorial Army unit. Obviously, these links will be encouraged and followed up. But there is no need to put this into a Statute. It will better be done by having these links made now by these new units as they are formed.
EARL JELLICOE: I hesitated to intrude before on a rather mundane note, but I think this is the right moment. Your Lordships will recall that in our Defence debate last March, in discussing this possible force, the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, said that it was above all important that the Order of Battle of this force must allow it to make military sense. As I see it, it will not make sense unless it is provided with proper communications. That means sufficient trained signallers, and sufficient and adequate sets. It is important, in the "twilight" world—to use the noble Lord's phrase—how the force is cast, and I think it is, above all, important in this Civil Defence role.
There was a time, some years ago, when I had responsibility for Civil Defence matters, and I attended a number of CivilDefence exercises at regional and sub-regional level. If there was one thing above all which was borne in upon me it was the entire dependence of the whole Civil Defence edifice upon the communications—wireless links, teleprinter links, and so on—provided by the Territorial Army signals squadrons. I assume that they, or some of them, will be joining T.A.V.R.II, and I was wondering who and what is going to fill the gap. As I understand it, there is a plan to provide a certain number of signals squadrons or troops to service the communications for the Civil Defence regions, the sub-regions, and the units below that. I gather that they will be part of the Territorial Force, T.A.V.R.III, although trained by T.A.V.R.II. I also gather that it will be possible to raise them without going above the arbitrary
738
ceiling of 23,000, or the arbitrary fixed platform of expenditure of £3 million.
Perhaps I may put three questions to noble Lords opposite about this scheme, which in essence seems admirable to me. First, are they satisfied that this new element of the Territorial Force can be formed? Trained signallers are very rare and valuable birds. If they can be found, I hope that they will not be lost for any artificial reason. I hope, therefore, that the 80 per cent. ceiling will not apply in their case. Secondly, what can the noble Lord tell us about the equipment of these units? Can he tell us, in particular, whether the equipment with which they may be provided will mesh in with the police communications network?—because this seems to me, at least, to be an important point. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, can the noble Lord confirm that the plans for raising this element of the new Territorial Force are in fact firm?
LORD SHACKLETON: If I might just apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, because he did not get his answer sooner, perhaps I may say that I thought we had done rather well to give him as much information as we did. I think perhaps he did not mean to complain.
LORD THURLOW: I certainly did not. As the noble Lord knows, it is unfortunate that this stage of the Bill comes so very close to the Second Reading that there was not really time to get it out, but I am grateful for the speed with which he got it to me.
LORD SHACKLETON: It does have the advantage that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is very well informed of the Government's plans in this matter, and, therefore, since he knows everything I know, I am afraid I have little to add. I would entirely agree with him that communications are absolutely central to this, and to all aspects of military and Civil Defence organisations. I think it is a little early for me to say that I am certain the scheme will work. I can only say that we are extremely confident, and it is approved and as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, it is proposed that T.A.V.R.III unit signallers will in fact train with the T.A.V.R.II, but I cannot say precisely how they will be organised. I should add that, although 80 per cent.

739
is the overall ceiling, if certain units are under strength there is nothing to prevent recruiting above the 80 per cent. limit in others. In other words, it is a general level and not a unit establishment—but I should like to go further into this question later on. Therefore, we are hopeful that we shall get the requisite trained people.
On the question of equipment, since I became Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force I have been depressed to find that even in the Regular Forces not all the signals equipment has been as good or as compatible with other services as I should like it to be. It seems extraordinary, remembering the vital nature of the introduction of V.H.F. during the war in maritime operation communication between aircraft and ships, and of course initially the Territorials will get army radio sets which may or may not be compatible with all the Civil Defence sets. But, after all, this is a matter of organisation and we hope to proceed as quickly as possible. In this matter I doubt whether they will be any worse off than are the Territorials of to-day, but certainly the intention should be that in the long run they will have compatible signals. I think the principles are well accepted, and indeed are vital to the successful development of the Territorials.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Abolition of naval volunteer reserve, certain reserve divisions and class 2 of army reserve, etc.]:
On Question, whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD AMPTHILL: I should like to raise quite a small point. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has explained to us that this Bill is not for presentational purposes; it is for legal purposes; nevertheless, I cannot see why in this clause "Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve" should appear with initial small letters. As the noble Lord knows, I always speak up for the Royal Air Force as well, and "Royal Auxiliary Air Force" also is put in small letters. In Clause 4 we have the Army Reserve Act twice referred to with capital letters. I know that Clause 3 deals merely with the formal end of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and the
740
Royal Auxiliary Air Force, but it does seem a bit rough that they should be written in small letters.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord has had quite a long time to protest about this practice since he came into the House, because in this matter we are following precedents. This is not necessarily an overwhelming argument, but I am sure he will also agree that there is nothing of a depreciatory kind intended by this style.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Call out of reservists for war-like operations
6.—
(2) A member of the volunteer reserve shall not be liable to be called out under subsection (1) of this section unless there is in force an order of Her Majesty, signified under the hand of the Secretary of State, authorising the calling out under this section of members of that reserve.
5.36 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, in subsection (2), after "unless" to insert:
"major military operations are in progress or appear to be imminent and when a serious situation affecting vital national interests has arisen and".
The noble Earl said: In a way this Amendment is linked with the following Amendment standing in my name. They both bear on the liability of the ordinary member of the T.A.V.R.II, a liability which a number of speakers in our Second Reading debate thought might be rather too onerous. This is a not unimportant point, because it may well affect, especially in the lone term, the recruitment of this very important force. And I would point out that we have not dealt so much (and I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord here) with T.A.V.R.I and T.A.V.R.II, as with T.A.V.R.III. That is not because we underestimate their importance, but because, with one or two qualifications, we are in broad agreement with the Government's proposals.
We all recognise the need for a clearly defined commitment, and one which covers the corresponding reserves of the other two Services. I think that many of

741
us would agree that there is also the need to define liability for service overseas of a lesser degree of acuteness than that found in Clause 5;that is to say, imminent national danger. I must confess that I am not very happy about the precise wording of the corresponding provision of subsection (1) of Clause 6:
"when warlike operations are in preparation or progress."
That could mean a great deal or very little, and for my part I cannot recall any time since 1945 when it would not have been applicable; and therefore the whole of T.A.V.R.II would be liable for call-out if the Government so decided.
In my view, it would be a great deal better if, so far as T.A.V.R.II were concerned, the Clause 6 commitment could be as defined in the White Paper itself. Paragraph 21 of the White Paper reads:
"But army volunteer reservists and their employers may be assured that there is no intention to call them out under this liability unless"—
and these are the words of the Amendment:
"major military operations are in progress or appear to be imminent and when a serious situation affecting vital national interests has arisen."
I cannot see the objection to using that phraseology, or something akin to it. It would greatly reassure both the potential employer and the potential volunteer, whether or not he is self-employed; and it would be all the more important, in my view that some such Amendment should be incorporated in the Bill if the Government were to refuse, as they did in another place, the immediately following Amendment standing in my name. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 2, after ("unless") insert the said words.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I understand that the wording which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, wishes to insert into the Bill, and which is taken from paragraph 21 of the White Paper, was agreed between the Government and the Territorial Association Council in the discussions which took place after publication of the Government's proposals. It was in fact a political pledge. But what the noble Earl is trying to do is to turn a political pledge into a statutory one,
742
and this brings very severe difficulties with it. The main problem that arises is that if the Amendment were accepted, or even if it were replaced by one in more precise legal language, it would mean that the legal liabilities of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserves would be different from, and less than, those of the Army Reserve.
We could conceive of a situation where within the "Ever-Readies", in the form we foresee it in the future, there would be men serving side by side with different legal liabilities, and I am certain that your Lordships would find this is an intolerable situation. The "Ever-Readies" exist and I believe that some of them are serving now with distinction in, for instance, the Radfan. When this Bill becomes law they will have added to them certain individuals chosen from T. and A.V.R. II, and if this Amendment were carried it would mean that those individuals who have come into T. and A.V.R. I would have a different liability from the Special Army Volunteer Reserve. It is for this reason that we are resisting this Amendment.
It can, of course, be argued that one may not trust the Government of the day to keep the pledge given to the Territorial Army Association during the early negotiations. But I doubt that this will be so. This Government, certainly—and I am sure the same would apply to future Governments—will stand by paragraph 21 of the White Paper. The words chosen then were never intended to be words suitable for an Act of Parliament. But we have ample precedent, it seems to me, for cases like this. Sir Winston Churchill gave a pledge that the Army General Reserve would be called out only in the "gravest war emergency". This political pledge was never reflected in legislation, but obviously it will be honoured by any Government. Similar circumstances exist in relation to the call-out of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve for warlike operations. The Government has given a pledge and will stand by it, but we do not believe that it should be embodied in legislation.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his careful reply. I think—I am not certain—there may be something in what he says and I should like to have the chance of looking at it

743
in print. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Duration of service of certain reservists called out on permanent service.
10.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) of this section and section 15 of this Act, a man of the volunteer reserve or the royal auxiliary air force who is called out on permanent service shall be liable to serve until Her Majesty no longer requires his services or until the expiration of his term of service in that reserve or force, whichever first occurs.
5.45 p.m.
EARL JELLICOEmoved, in subsection (1), after "serve" to insert "for a period of six months or". The noble Earl said: As I said earlier, this Amendment is linked with the Amendment we have just discussed, and the noble Lord encouraged me at Second Reading by saying this was a point into which we could go at greater length on Committee stage. I am not certain I am so encouraged at the thought of that at this moment. As at present drafted, it is my understanding that the T. and A.V.R. I and II reservists called out under the Clause 6 liability will not be required to serve more than twelve months in respect of any one engagement. We believe that that period may be too long and may very well, by raising doubts in the minds of both employers and Volunteers, seriously inhibit recruitment to the Volunteers.
I should like to take one example; that is the case of a T. and A.V.R.II reservist re-engaging. I understand—but I may be wrong—that re-engagement periods are usually for one year. That reservist might already have been committed under the Clause 6 liability to service overseas; he may well have served more than one period overseas, and by re-engaging he would be making himself liable for such service for the whole of his re-engagement period. I should not have thought that, save in rather exceptional cases, you would get that man back. I believe this all the more strongly, and I am inclined to press this Amendment all the more strongly, because the Government, it may well be for good reasons, are not able to define more
744
narrowly the Clause 6 liability. I think that in the public's mind, unless we make this distinction, unless we limit the liability for the T. and A.V.R. reservist to six months, an invidious distinction will be drawn between his liability for service overseas and that of the T. and A.V.R. I and the S.A.V.R. reservist. I know their roles are different, their conditions are different, the bounty is different, and the liability of the T. and A.V.R. I reservist is greater. Nevertheless, I think that in the public's mind there might very well be confusion, and this might very well have a restricting effect on recruitment to the T. and A.V.R. II.
I am not here thinking principally in terms of the short-term position. I hope very much, and I think there is reason to believe, that the Government will meet with very considerable success in attracting recruits initially to most of these forces, and I am very gratified at the special drive now being made in this respect under the ægis of the Minister of Defence, for the Army. What I am much more worried about is the long haul, and whether as time goes on and the rather onerous liabilities become borne in on the T. and A.V.R.II reservist, recruitment will tend to fall off.
I recognise that there may be quite important military objections to this shorter period, although I should have thought, bearing in mind the speed of the noble Lords' transport forces and their increasing size, some of these difficulties may very well be overcome. I should like to make it clear that, although this Amendment contains the words "six months", I myself would not wish to be committed to a specific period. I am inclined to think twelve months may be too long, and I should be very glad for any explanation which the noble Lord can give me in justification of this longer period; and I should be particularly grateful if he could tell us that the Government have not yet entirely closed their mind to the possibility of a somewhat shorter period—not necessarily the six months I am pressing for in this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 44, after ("serve") insert ("for a period of six months or").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
5.50 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think the points raised by the noble Earl are most

745
helpful in regard to this question at this time. The period of service is, to my limited intelligence, one of the most difficult matters to grasp, to find out who serves for how long and in what circumstances. I think the point made by the noble Earl is fairly clear-cut. He fears that the appearance of the time period of twelve months in the Bill might have an inhibiting effect on recruitment. This, of course, is twelve months' service in an emergency; and the situation which is foreseen in the Bill is one in regard to which I think the country as a whole would naturally be feeling considerable concern: that a threat of war was imminent, that warlike operations were taking place that were making an increasingly heavy drain on our manpower. It is for this reason that I do not believe, in a situation such as this, with public opinion as it would be at that time, that either the individual or the employer will feel that the twelve months' period was intolerable. I think most people at that time would be prepared to make sacrifices for the national good.
Putting it fairly bluntly, it is the view of the Government that a six months' period is operationally unacceptable, for the reasons that the noble Earl has indicated. It is not only a question of flying men backwards and forwards between two points; it is a problem of kitting them out, getting them properly documented and, when they are there, integrating them into their units, presumably with some brushing-up in their training and briefing if they are to be functional. To bring them back at the end of six months would mean that the time of effective service would be limited. In the judgment of Her Majesty's Government six months is too short, and twelve months is about right.
I should, however, like to deal with the additional point, which I think was made earlier by one noble Lord, on the question of the confusion between the six months' liability for the "Ever-Readies", and the twelve months' liability for the Volunteers. I should like to clarify that point. The "Ever-Ready" has his own liability. He has also, and at the same time, an ordinary Volunteer liability. If an "Ever-Ready" has been called out on his "Ever-Ready" liability, as he might be, and his unit is subsequently called out under Clause 6, which is the warlike
746
operations clause, then, on completing his six months' service, the "Ever-Ready" would continue to be held for the same length of period as a Volunteer under Clause 6; so basically the liability of the two services is the same.
EARL JELLICOE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I should like to make it clear that the purpose of my Amendment was not to educate your Lordships but rather to persuade noble Lords opposite to accept this Amendment as reasonable. I shall not detain your Lordships long on this point. The noble Lord said that twelve months would seem to him about right, and six months is too short a time. I am quite willing to accept the military judgment of the experts on what is rather a technical point, but I hope that the Government have not closed their minds to some intermediate period, say one of nine months. I should have thought that that would give ample room for manœuvring, more especially if these reservists are to be called out as individuals rather than in units.
I know it has been argued by the Government in another place that it is more likely that they would be called out as units. I have found that argument difficult to follow, because categories of reservists would be called out before them, and it seems to me at least that if the situation had become so grave that it was necessary to call out any large number of T.A.V.R.II reservists, then we should be in a Clause 5 position and not in a Clause 6 situation, which my Amendment really bites on. Nevertheless, I should like to consider the arguments advanced by the noble Lord. In withdrawing my Amendment I would again express the hope that the Government would agree to look at whether some intermediate period might not meet the case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Training of army, air force and volunteer reservists]:
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD THURLOW: I want to raise one or two points in regard to this clause which deals with training. I

747
should like to raise the question of the large number of redundant warrant officers and non-commissioned officers, Regular soldiers who are seconded to the Territorial Army for training purposes, who will be affected by this new organisation. Will not this new organisation cause a tremendous block in promotion in the Regular Army when these N.C.O.s are sent back to their units, all roughly at the same time? What does the Army Department intend to do about it? We do not want the new organisation to have a detrimental effect on the morale of the Regular Army. Has the Government considered the effect on Regular recruiting? These warrant officers and N.C.O.s now with the Territorial Army are spread the length and breadth of the British Isles, and they have a most important role in Regular recruiting. If you cut down the units you are cutting down the recruiters. I belong to a regiment which has the largest area in Britain for one regiment, with an average of one man per square mile throughout its length and breadth. I am nervous as to the resultant effect of the disappearance of this Regular staff from the present drill halls, many of which are going to be closed. I am sure it will have a serious effect in some of the country districts.
May I also, on this clause dealing with training, say a word about transport? The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has written to me, but I feel it is most inadequate for the Territorials to have one jeep per company. There are a large number of Army vehicles perhaps not in the first flush of youth spread about in car parks throughout the country. I am sure it would be to the advantage of Volunteers and of the Territorials to train with these, to try to keep them going as long as possible and to learn something about the inside of the vehicle which would stand them in good stead if they were called out for their role in the event of an emergency.
I should also like to return to the charge in relation to rifles. In the debate on Second Reading I asked for more modern self-loading rifles. I think I was told that a few would be available in camp. I should like to see available in camp rather more than just a few. I understand that the ·303 ammunition used with the old-type rifle is now running out.
748
You cannot just use up old stocks indefinitely; they have to be thrown away, or they become dangerous and unfit for use. I should like to know whether a new production line for out-of-date ammunition will be set up. Surely that would be an appalling waste. Presumably our production lines of self-loading rifles is roaring full-steam ahead now and the ammunition, which is ·300, is being produced in large quantities. I should have thought that in the end it would be an economy to issue the new rifles—may be not just yet, but in time as stocks arrive. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give me any information on that point.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: May I, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, express the strong hope that these units will be equipped, so far as possible, with modern signalling equipment, and in particular with wireless sets? If they are to fulfil a useful role in a post-nuclear phase, indeed if they are to fulfil any useful role at all, communications are of the utmost importance. I do not expect the noble Lord to reply immediately on this point, but I very much hope that the best equipment available will be afforded to those units for training purposes.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am brought to my feet only by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, a few moments ago about the possible operational role of A.V.R.III. I think he was giving us his personal opinion, but whether that is so or not it was to my mind the clearest statement of the operational role of A.V.R.III that I have ever heard from any quarter. Without perhaps agreeing with every single thing he said, I welcome his remarks very much. It paves the way to knowing what training they should do, what equipment they should have and gives an idea of the sort of programme to be worked out which will be understood by everybody, provided that the security fans do not come in to prevent the truth being told. It makes me think that a proper declaration of the operational role and everything that follows from it is very much nearer than I was led to suppose during the Second Reading debate. I hope that I am right; and, if I am, then I think we can see our way to dealing with the problem of equipment.

749
I thought that I was accused rather falsely by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on the Second Reading debate for having said something which I did not say and pressing for a lot of equipment now. I am doing no such thing. I never intended to press for any equipment until I knew what the operational role was and what A.V.R.III were to be trained for. Then my idea was, as has happened many times in the past, that they should make up their mind what they want and get it bit by bit.
6.3 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I will try to answer the various points one by one. The question of redundancy of the Regular soldiers in Territorial units is in fact covered by the White Paper. The White Paper says:
"The reorganisation of the reserves will create redundancy in certain ranks in the Regular Army, though not necessarily in the present Regular permanent staff of the Territorial Army. Those who cannot be absorbed in the Regular Army will be given fair compensation and a further statement will be made about this."
The state of play in regard to this is that special arrangements are being made to cover any gaps in recruiting organisations left by Territorial Army permanent staff being reduced in numbers. Not all permanent staff will be redundant; most will be absorbed. Arrangements for redundancy are, however, under consideration. Whether or not at a later stage of the Bill a more exact indication can be given, and whether we can advance on the further statement mentioned in the White Paper, I cannot promise, but if we can do so I will see that it is done, because this is an important point.
In regard to equipment, the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, was in fact mentioned by my noble friend. We are all agreed that this is of the first importance. On the question of transport and rifles, I think we should like to do better than we are doing, but we are doing the best we can within a £3 million limit. However, let us hope that this is not going to be something that disappears tomorrow—this is a continuing operation. Let us hope that our financial stringencies become rather less and that we can afford to be more generous. The point about the production of 303 ammunition is important, and I am certain that we shall not start new manufacturing opera-
750
tions which are uneconomic if in fact the issue of 300 ammunition with modern rifles is the cheaper way of doing the job.
My own interpretation of the White Paper is, I think, not far from the truth. It talks specifically about the post-nuclear period. Frankly, perhaps I have spoken a little more bluntly than is usual on this subject, but I was answering a point made by someone who is an honest pacifist, and I thought that it would be wrong even to deceive myself in trying to picture these people in their old traditional role.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Establishment, alteration and winding-up, etc., of associations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: This is the last time I shall trouble your Lordships on the Bill. I want merely to make two points concerned with the territorial associations and the implementation of this clause. The first point is that certainly in the rural counties it is very much better to have separate associations even if they have to be served by a joint secretariat. If you have joint associations, it means that at once you weaken the link between the Territorial Army and local government, which was particularly devised by Lord Haldane as one of the main props of the Territorial Army in the various localities.
The clause as it stands provides for this, but I am making the point because I know quite well that the Ministry of Defence have been in consultation with the Territorial Associations Council. They have sent up a package proposal. I believe that it deals with the point I have mentioned, though I am not absolutely certain. What I do know is that some of the proposals as they affect Western Command are not acceptable as they stand to those on the spot. I will not go into details, but all I ask is that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Defence shall not feel obliged to accept the Territorial Associations Council proposals as a package deal, but should have regard to any different proposal, whatever it may be, which may come up from Western Command. I will put it no higher than that.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: This is a very special point which I am afraid I cannot answer, but I will undertake to

751
ensure that the noble Viscount's views are transferred to my honourable and right honourable friends and see that justice is done in this matter.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
6.10 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOMmoved, at the beginning of paragraph 3, to insert "Section 30(2) and". The noble Lord said: This Amendment has come in at a late stage, I believe as a result of a close scrutiny of this Bill by the Welsh Office. This shows how interest is spreading on this subject. It is an interesting historical point. As your Lordships know, the Lord Lieutenants of Counties, going back to the reign of Elizabeth I, are primary responsible for military organisations within their counties. This was their original function. To their original function was added certain duties by the Militia Act 1882, when they were instructed to appoint twenty Deputy Lieutenants, all of whom had to be gentlemen with a long military service. I believe that in 1882 they all had to serve in Her Majesty's Forces for at least ten years. They were primarily military men. The continued existence of Deputy Lieutenants is still necessary, but various problems arise, due to the strange circumstances.
First of all, the qualifications required are often other than those which are military. We want individuals with experience, perhaps, of civil administration and Civil Defence; and people whose experience in life is wider than, or different from, purely military experience. For this reason, Clause 20(1)(b) (ii) says, in connection with the service they have rendered:
"such other service as, in the opinion of a Secretary of State, makes him suitable for appointment as a deputy lieutenant."
In fact, the majority of Deputy Lieutenants will be people with military service, but we want to strengthen their body by including among them administrators and people with different skills and experience.
The second problem we are facing is that the figure of 20 was applied to every county in the United Kingdom—
752
however large, however small; however sparsely populated—and in certain parts of the country it might be extremely difficult to find as many as 20 really suitable Deputy Lieutenants, while in other parts of the country—for instance, Greater London—20 would be quite insufficient. For your Lordships' information, there has been arranged administratively a formula for the establishment of a maximum number of Deputy Lieutenants permitted in each county. This is on a population basis. For up to 150,000 the establishment is 20. Above this, the number rises with the population. In fact, there are about 18 counties where the number of Deputy Lieutenants is under 10. In those counties—indeed, in all those where the number is under 20—it must be assumed, in view of the provision of the 1882 Act, that the Lieutenant is unable to find more qualified persons than he has appointed. Our purpose, therefore, is to enable particularly suitable individuals to be appointed in spite of lack of military qualifications, and to do this we have to repeal Section 30(2) of the 1882 Act. That is the purpose of these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 21, at beginning insert ("Section 30(2) and").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD THURLOW: We entirely agree with the principle behind this Amendment. I believe that on the Second Reading we welcomed this change, and I have nothing further to say.
LORD OGMORE: May I say, as the Welsh Office has been mentioned, how pleased I am to know that they are "on the ball". I have wondered what three Ministers managed to do with themselves in the Welsh Office: now I know. I must say that I am rather surprised to hear the description from the noble Lord—in rather vague terms, of course—of the duties of a Deputy Lieutenant. I always imagined that a Deputy Lieutenant was there merely to open a flower show, or whatever it may be, when the Lord Lieutenant could not be present. But I should have thought that very few counties needed the service of more than 20 Deputy Lieutenants. I know of one county where, before the war, the Lord Lieutenant was a solicitor, and his firm used to charge all the Deputy Lieutenants 25 guineas a time for making out the certificate of office. One

753
can quite see what the position of a Deputy Lieutenant was there. He was a very useful man to a firm of solicitors. But I must admit that I have always been rather vague as to the normal functions and duties of a Deputy Lieutenant, and I shall now have a much greater regard for the position of the Deputy Lieutenant, after the compliments which have been paid to him by the noble Lord to-day.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord will realise that we are not thinking of 1882; we are thinking of 1984. So the role is rather different. I think that in that particular county the Deputy Lieutenants could have been called "the Devil's Own."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 41, leave lines 41 and 42 and insert ("Section 30(2)").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

BRUCELLOSIS
6.17 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to take steps to eradicate brucellosis, having regard to the fact that brucellosis in man has been recognised for 35 years, and to the success achieved in eradication in many other countries. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, over the years various conscientious farmers and doctors have asked me what was the attitude of the Government of the day towards the eradication of brucellosis. Of course, I have had such confidence in the health services of our country, being confident always that action would follow the research and the recommendations which it had called forth, that I thought there was no need to agitate on this score. I have sometimes mentioned it over the years, either to an official or to some Minister in the other place, and I have
754
always received reassurance. But last year I grew a little impatient, and I wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture drawing attention to the need for the eradication of brucellosis and asking him what he proposed to do about it. The Minister of Agriculture—a charming, honest, sincere man—answered me absolutely bluntly, and said that he thought nothing could be done about it at the moment because the cost was prohibitive. I have no doubt that, when he said that, he was thinking in terms of £40 million or £50 million, and I am very conscious, as I stand here to-day, of the difficulties with which we are faced in the world of finance. But I hope that what I say will be constructive, and will prove to the House that an amount like £40 million or £50 million is not necessary to start this important work.
Last week a Question was put down on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, and he received from my noble friend an Answer which was very similar to that which I received from the Minister some months ago. By a coincidence, the leading article of the British Medical Journal of July 9—a day or two after that Question was put down in the House—bore the title "Brucellosis Fiasco", and it was the opening paragraph of that article which prompted me to put down an Unstarred Question to-day. May I quote it? The first paragraph of this article in the "B.M.J.", which is regarded as a very important reminder to the medical profession, said:
"Britain is among the rapidly dwindling number of countries which have not eradicated or even begun to eradicate brucellosis, the major remaining zoonosis here".
May I just say, in parenthesis, that zoonoses are diseases which are transmissible from animals to men? The article went on:
"Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland have long been clear of the disease. Western Germany and Bulgaria are virtually clear. The United States, Canada, and Switzerland are making rapid progress. Northern Ireland expects to be clear in two or three years and Eire is following the Northern Ireland lead."
My Lords, Eire is in advance of us in the field of public health! I cannot help recalling that that was a country which dismissed its Minister of Health not many years ago because he wanted to introduce maternity and child-welfare clinics; yet in this field Eire is obviously

755
far ahead of us, because it has already commenced work.
I must confess that, on reading this article—and I shall want to make a further quotation from it later—my confidence in the Health Service (which, as a Service, is, I believe, unequalled in the world) was rudely shakened, for it has been clearly recognised for 35 years that brucellosis is transmissible to human beings. Last week, when I put a supplementary question to my noble friend on this matter, he mentioned that there were only approximately 100 cases a year in this country.
LORD CHAMPION: Confirmed cases.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Yes. But I would remind him that this is not a notifiable disease, so all the figures we use can be only estimates. But I want to assure the House that every fact and figure I quote has been taken from the British Medical Journal, and I can assure the House that before the British Medical Journal quotes facts and figures it has to be quite sure they are accurate; otherwise those responsible will be "shot at" by Government Departments—quite rightly—and by all those interested in the matter. The figure which my noble friend gave me last week is not borne out by the British Medical Journal. The estimate of the incidence of this disease varies, it says, from about 100 to over 1,000 cases a year. And according to the Journal, also, a recent estimate by J. D. Allan, which is so far unpublished, based on a series of cases in children, would give a total of 2,000 cases a year for England and Wales.
My Lords, as the disease can be transmitted to humans through milk which has not been heat-treated, it is disturbing to discover that 73 million gallons of milk consumed in England and Wales between April, 1964, and March, 1965, had not been heat-treated. May I say here, by the way, that one cannot, of course, rely entirely on pasteurisation, because if an individual is in contact with an infected animal he can have the disease transmitted to him in a direct fashion. Now though this milk is only 5 per cent. of the total consumed, it is, I think the House will agree, a large amount capable of transmitting this disease.
756
Moreover, as I have just mentioned to my noble friend—and he has agreed—our information is incomplete, because the disease may not be diagnosed at all. The temperature, the fever with which it is associated, may be low. Doctors are rarely taught anything about brucellosis in the medical schools—at least, that was so in the old days; they probably are now—and the doctor may easily miss it. It presents an undulant fever. Indeed, instead of brucellosis it is sometimes called undulant fever, but the undulant fever does not occur often enough to justify this name as a general one for a human disease. If the diagnosis is missed, a second opinion may be called in, and in that way the diagnosis may be rather late. The disease also has a tendency to chronicity, and is uncertain in its response to antibiotics.
I am pleased to see that certain noble Lords who have a tremendous amount of experience in the farming world have put their names down to speak on this Question. I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Collison here, and those other noble Lords who I understand are closely in touch with their own herds, so that they are able to speak from experience. While I am concerned with the human aspect, farmers unquestionably deplore the waste in farming. This disease in cattle reduces the yield of milk, and causes abortion, stillbirth and infertility; and it may obviously also prevent the export of cattle, particularly pedigree bulls.
My Lords, there have been investigations of all kinds. Investigations by the Ministry of Agriculture indicate that 2 per cent. of animals are infected, and 25 to 30 per cent. of herds—a total of 66,000 infected animals. I am not standing here as a kind of "crank" who feels that something should be done when those who are closely in contact with this disease are indifferent. Not at all. The progressive section of the farming industry, the British Medical Association and many other bodies would welcome an eradication scheme.
Now we come to the question of finance. I am well aware that everything, it appears, hinges on finance, and that it is rather difficult to speak about it at this time, having regard to the financial crisis that has recently been presented

757
to us. However, I also find it very difficult, as a doctor, to accept that, while we are conscious that a disease may be contracted by human beings, we have to dismiss the thought because it might cost us a few million pounds to eradicate the cause. We have never adopted that attitude in the past, and Britain has always been in the forefront of preventive ness. Indeed, our whole Health Service is based on the preventive approach.
Now although, when I received the letter from the Minister of Agriculture, he did not give me a figure, but merely said that the expense was prohibitive, the Ministry estimated that the overall cost of eradication would be £40 million to £50 million. In this respect the experience of Northern Ireland is very interesting. In the article to which I have referred, the British Medical Journal gives some details about the cost of eradicating brucellosis in Northern Ireland. It says:
"With a cattle population of one million compensation for slaughtered animals amounted to £2 million, of which £1 million was recovered from sales of slaughtered animals. To this cost was added £1½ million for administration, giving a total of £2½ million (or 50s. per animal). On this basis the cost of dealing with Britain's three and a half million dairy animals would be £8¾ million. Some addition should be made to this sum, as some areas in Britain are heavily infected compared with Northern Ireland, and furthermore the use of S19 vaccination in adult cattle will complicate the reactor status. A reasonable estimate is that some £10 million might be needed to clear the British dairy herd. Extension of eradication to beef cattle would add to these costs. There is a good case, however, for beginning with dairy cattle, since this is the source of the human disease, both in the 'contact' and 'milk infection' groups".
I agree that my noble friend mentioned the sum of £10 million last week; and even he, perhaps, might be a little apprehensive about the reaction of the Treasury.
May I put this case to him? Eradication need not be applied all over the country simultaneously; regional schemes could be introduced, especially in areas known to have a low rate of infection. I had the great honour to introduce the Clean Milk Bill and I shall never forget that I turned to the Speaker and said, "This is my finest hour." At that time our hospitals were full of children infected with bovine tuberculosis. We then adopted the regional approach. We
758
divided Britain into regions and said that we would tackle each region and in ten years' time we would have cleared the country. The answer is to be seen in our hospitals. The orthopedic hospitals of the country were full of children lying in bed for years with infected spines, infected hips and the rest. Now they are empty. We could not do it in one bite. We divided the hospitals into regions and tackled each one. I suggest that we approach this subject in the same way and we shall have solved both problems. We shall eradicate the disease finally and also we shall be able to do it much more cheaply.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I did not quite understand the noble Lady. She said she would divide the hospitals into regions.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should have said "divide the country into regions". That was a Freudian slip. I think actually we divided the country into ten regions—and I shall always remember that the South-West was the most difficult one; perhaps that will interest the noble Lord. As I have said, tuberculosis attestation was dealt with in that way.
It might be expected, to be practical, that there would be involved a national expenditure of around £3 million to £4 million a year. I say this to my noble friend, hoping that he will carry it to the Treasury. This compares well with the loss estimated to be sustained by dairy farmers on account of brucellosis, which is £1 million a year. The British Veterinary Association published proposals for eradication over a year ago, and still, I am afraid, we are awaiting a circular from the Ministry of Health which they had promised us. Although outbreaks of human brucellosis continue to be reported arising from milk and from contact, I understand that raw milk, potentially infected, can still be sold from vending machines. This is absolutely deplorable. I think action should be taken in this case. Really, it is a kind of criminal confidence trick where a woman goes to a vending machine because she is told that milk is essential for her child and may get milk which might infect her child with brucellosis because it is untreated. I ask the noble Lord to look into that.

759
Since the Report of the Oxford Working Group in 1962 there has been a growing volume of comment in the medical, veterinary, farming and general Press on the need to eliminate this disease and on the failure to take action. This is a serious reflection on all of us. I do not want to specify any Government, individual or Ministry as blameworthy. Perhaps we are all to blame. Perhaps I should have prodded much more than I have, particularly in view of the fact that the disease to which the application of preventive knowledge has been delayed is 35 years old. I should like an inquiry to be made, but I do not want to press for this. If we get reform, then let us accept that and not then try to find those who perhaps have been responsible for the delay. But I would say this: the farmers here are, I feel, the most progressive in the country, otherwise they would not be here at this debate. But there may still be farmers of the reactionary type similar to those encountered when we tried to eradicate tuberculosis from milk, who may have done everything in their power to prevent progress in this field.
6.35 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lady for raising this question. It is one in which I have been interested for many years. In fact, I may claim to have produced the first attested herd scheme adopted by the National Veterinary and Medical Associations. During recent years the use of the S.19 strain of brucella has almost eradicated from most herds the active work of the disease. The S.19 has enabled cattle to resist a very large degree of infection and the clinical symptoms have disappeared. I believe most people would agree that the danger of infected milk has disappeared with the disappearance of the clinical symptoms. I know it is a very difficult problem to get the "boffins" interested in this subject. For some time past the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers has been trying to institute a scheme among their members which would help provide a pool of free cattle without the use of S.19. They have done everything they could. They were willing to pay for it.
760
It was not a case of finance. But they could not get the disease research institutes interested in it to the extent even of carrying out tests on this limited number of herds. It is inconceivable to most of us that these places should be run on Government lines and by the Government and yet should be unwilling to provide facilities for those who wish for them and are anxious to pay for them. This is not a question of backward farmers but of backward boffins and of a backward Ministry of Agriculture.
The obvious way is to divide the country into the areas—which are quite easily identified by tests of the milk coming into dairies and dep´ts—where the incidence of the disease is low, and gradually in these places providing a pool of disease-free animals to which people can come from outside to replace the cattle they have to destroy or to dispose of in any other way. There is no difficulty about this whatsoever, except in providing facilities for those who wish to avail themselves of them and providing the opportunity which they are wanting to have and which is denied them.
There is no question at all that within the next few years animals from non-disease-free areas will be excluded from export. As the noble Lady said, most progressive countries have already eliminated the disease. When I was in Tasmania they had reached the last stage not only in the elimination of brucellosis but of vibriosis and other diseases of cattle. I urge the Ministry of Agriculture most strongly to enter into arrangements with the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers, as they now are, and with other bodies of a similar nature, to carry out an investigation, first of all of the incidence of the disease in various areas, so that we may have something to go on; and, secondly, the best means to tackle the problem. It would not cost tens of millions. It might cost a few million; but it would be to the benefit of the health of the people of the country and to the benefit of the farmers in providing and preserving their export markets, and consequently, of course, to the benefit of our balance of payments. My Lords, I hope that the Ministry will listen to the plea of the noble Lady and that now we shall really get down to the business instead of just talking.
6.40 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lady Summer skill for introducing this Question. I approach it from two major angles: first, the loss to British farming and the limitations on our possibilities for export in future; and, secondly, from the point of view of the infection which agricultural workers suffer from this disease. I should like to deal with these two points. I have with me a report submitted by Mr. John Pass field, the senior veterinary surgeon to the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers. In dealing with the economics of the disease he says this:
"There are few diseases more devastating to the livestock farmer than contagious abortion."
If I may add a personal note, I have been on a farm where we had this abortion and we had to take all precautions, burning the offal and so on. It was a disgusting and depressing business, but that perhaps is by the way.
Mr. Pass field says:
"In addition to the monetary value of the lost calf, there is serious interference with planned milk production, young replacements and stock improvement programmes. Since the disease is constantly accompanied by infertility, considerable veterinary expense may be incurred in prolonged and sometimes unsatisfactory treatment Heifer replacements are inevitably exposed to infection after their introduction. It is estimated that in an average outlay, infected animals yield 20 per cent. less milk, and many cows which abort are of little value during that lactation. In beef herds, the loss of the calf is all-important and equally entails a prolonged period of infertility which may seriously upset the normal short calving period of such stock."
Mr. Pass field tells us that it has been estimated—this was in 1962—that the annual overall loss to United Kingdom stockbreeders is in the region of £16 million. Surely, this is something which needs the very careful consideration of the Government. We know that the disease can be eradicated. We have been told that perhaps the cost will be excessive. We were given a figure of £50 million, and if it were £50 million, in my view it would not he an excessive figure. But I think that figure has already been questioned, and I agree that the figure of £10 million is probably nearer the mark. In any case, the question of cost ought again to be looked at carefully.
762
My Lords, we should try to do something about this disease because of the effect it has on people. Again, in dealing with the question of incidence, I also agree that one cannot be sure how many cases one finds each year. Estimates have varied between 100 and 2,000. Mr. Pass field estimated that the actual figure was about 32 cases per million of the population which amounts to 1,300 annually and only a small portion of those cases are recognised by the doctors. I am a great admirer of the National Health Service. At the same time, I am convinced that in many cases this disease is not diagnosed. Through my own legal department I have been given information which indicates clearly that often this disease is diagnosed as influenza, fibrositis and other conditions. This may not seem terribly important; though medically I think it is. I am not qualified to judge about that. But it is important to the worker, because he has to prove, as things are now, that he contracted this disease as the result of working with a herd where the disease existed.
Members of my union and the T.U.C. have been making representations to the Minister of Pensions and to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We asked of the Minister of Pensions that the disease should be prescribed so that our people could be assured of getting benefit if they fell victims to it. We also suggested that the disease in cattle should be notified so that further measures could be taken towards eradication. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took the view that it would be impracticable to make the disease notifiable in view of the fact that many affected animals remain undetected, and little could be achieved if an occasional notification was dealt with without dealing with other infected stock in the near vicinity.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions told us she felt it would not be possible to prescribe this disease because of certain difficulties, but she felt that the position of the worker was fully covered by accident-preventing measures, and that if we could show that the disease had been contracted because a man or woman was working with infected stock we could claim accident benefit. But one must recognise the enormous difficulty of doing

763
this. It is not good enough to get a doctor to say that a man or woman is suffering from brucellosis. We have to prove that the stock with which the man or woman was working also was infected, and this is extraordinarily difficult. In one case we tried to persuade a veterinary surgeon to say in writing that brucellosis was present, and he actually pleaded professional etiquette and refused to do so.
There are a small number of cases each year which we are able to prove and where accident benefit is payable, but we are convinced that there are many more cases in agriculture where no compensation is paid. We cannot do anything about them, and therefore we join with those who are asking for measures to secure eradication. I seriously press the Government to give this matter their very close attention, believing as I do that we ought to fall in with those countries which have achieved this very desirable result, and believing that the cost would not be as great as has been estimated if this was done on a reasonable basis; and, in any case, because I believe the outcome is very desirable and well worth while.
6.48 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, this subject has been so well covered by the noble Lady and the two noble Lords who followed her that only a very short intervention is required from me. I understand that brucellosis costs the country something like £5 million a year in animal and human sickness. But, my Lords, as the noble Lady so rightly said, what really disturbs us is the sickness of humans caused through brucellosis.
Much research work has already been done concerning brucellosis. It may interest your Lordships to know that at present in North-East Scotland the Aberdeen District Milk Marketing Board, in conjunction with the North of Scotland College of Agriculture, has started a pilot scheme to try to determine the extent of brucellosis among cattle in North-East Scotland. It now appears that much is known about brucellosis and its effect on humans. What I think is possibly not entirely realised is that brucellosis in cattle accounts for only about 15 per cent. of the number of abortions. Veterinary surgeons know very little about 85 per
764
cent. of abortions in cattle. These abortions are causing great losses, not only to farmers but also to the country. I think that this is where there is scope for more research into abortion in general in cattle.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, so rightly said, now is the time for action from the Government. Obviously, a very big sum will be required. The first step might be a period of compulsory vaccination, and this might be followed by the setting up of disease-free areas. As the noble Lady said, much research work has been done in this country concerning brucellosis, and other countries have benefited by this research. She instanced Northern Ireland. They started their scheme in 1963, and already half their herds, representing over a quarter of a million cattle, have been declared free of brucellosis; and it is hoped that the whole country will be free by 1970.
It is easy to blame the Government for not acting sooner. In all fairness, one can only say that every Government is to some extent guilty of that. I think that we must take a constructive view of this problem. I would ask the Government to get moving with a scheme as soon as possible. If there is to be a period of compulsory vaccination, or a period before a country-wide scheme is introduced, let us use the interval to find out more about abortion in cattle, so that other causes of abortion do not fog the issue of brucellosis. In the end, the whole nation will benefit.
6.52 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, from the four speeches to which we have just listened one might think that the Government had never heard of brucellosis; that this was a discovery of the last few weeks. The noble Lady who introduced this debate said that the failure to take action was a serious reflection on those who had the responsibility, and she referred to them as being guilty of delay and of preventing progress. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, and I are both former Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Agriculture, and I should like to defend him, as well as myself, in a few words. I am glad that the noble Lord accepts my offer.
He will remember as well as I do the seriousness with which brucellosis was taken; but, of course, brucellosis has to

765
be considered together with all the other hazards to animal health and human health that come via animal infections. It is wrong (I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will bear me out when he comes to reply) to say that brucellosis was ever considered in a lighthearted way, or as some animal disease which was only of secondary importance. On the contrary, it was considered of very great importance. There are other diseases such as mastitis, which has not so far been mentioned this afternoon, which are probably responsible for a greater loss in milk production than brucellosis. But since brucellosis can also constitute a hazard to human health, it naturally occupies a somewhat special class.
During the years when the noble Lord and other noble Lords (I think the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, is also one of those I am defending at this time) were sharing this responsibility, for the neglect of which we are now being charged, we were dealing first and foremost with the eradication of tuberculosis, which was a colossal operation. Of necessity, it was going to take a great many years, and it needed virtually all the veterinary resources we could deploy. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will again agree that if we had divided or dispersed those resources over various campaigns, we should not have been successful in any one of them.
In the days I can remember vividly, the question was, how soon we could start on the eradication of brucellosis—that is, how near were we to the end of the tuberculosis operation, and how soon could begin to divert resources to tackling other diseases? We were limited not just by money, which has been mentioned by every speaker this afternoon, but also by the number of skilled veterinary surgeons and their auxiliaries available, and by the facilities. Furthermore, when a campaign of this sort is being launched a considerable public relations operation is inevitably involved, because it needs the co-operation of all farmers, not just of some, or the whole operation can be outflanked. I remember that when we came very near the end of our tuberculosis operation there was the question of whether brucellosis should come next or whether the claims of swine fever should take the
766
prior place. I think that since then greater effort has been put into eradication of swine fever. Probably brucellosis is next on the list, but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will tell us whether or not that is so.
I only wanted to make the point that this problem has not been overlooked. It is a question of using resources in the best way to achieve the results we want. It is all too easy, if these resources are dispersed, dabbling first in this disease and then in that, to achieve nothing in the end. Perhaps it is going to be said that we were wrong in choosing to eradicate swine fever, and that it should not have been allowed to occupy the greater part of our veterinary resources in the last few years: but I hope the noble Lord will say that brucellosis is going to be next on the list and that during recent years far more preparations for that campaign have been made than the speeches this afternoon might lead an audience to suppose.
6.55 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will excuse my speaking as a chalk jockey. I am not entirely speaking "through my hat"—though of course I would not be wearing one in your Lordships' House. I have farmed for over thirty years and have had a dairy herd of over 300 head, so I have come in contact with most of the difficulties and diseases that farming entails. When I was young and farming we did not worry about fancy names, and this disease was known as Maltese fever. We knew that in Malta people caught fever from their goats. Now the bacillus has been identified and the disease has a new name, but I still think of it as Maltese fever. I went through all the trials of eliminating tuberculosis, contagious abortion and mastitis, and I must say that, with help from the Government, we eventually had a large herd free from all these very troublesome complaints. I hope that in future the problem of this disease will be taken up seriously.
Nothing has been said this afternoon about the effect of the disease, Maltese fever, on human beings, which is the whole point of the exercise. In the case of Maltese fever there is a fever temperature, a feeling of unpleasantness, followed by periods of great depression and aches

767
and pains. I have often experienced these in old age and told my wife that I have Maltese fever—but she will not believe me. There does not seem to be any real way of diagnosing Maltese fever as it should be diagnosed. I support the noble Baroness in the hope that this work will go forward as soon as possible.
6.59 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I was surprised when the noble Baroness, Lady Summer skill, put this Question down on the Order Paper. When she began to quote, I thought for one moment that she was going to quote from the Farmers Weekly, which seemed to be out of character, but it was not a surprise when I found that she was referring to the Medical Journal. The points which she has brought out are most useful.
Clearly this is a disease which we should wish to see eradicated as soon as possible. But I myself am not absolutely convinced that it is of such severity and its incidence is so great as the noble Lady has made out, and consequently I am not convinced that its seriousness is so great. As the noble Lady has pointed out, it is an undulant fever which, when it is transmitted to man, is not necessarily a particularly bad disease, though in certain circumstances its consequences could go further. I should wish to be persuaded that the slaughter and compensation method which the noble Baroness suggested as the best method of eradicating this disease would, in fact, be the best method. Slaughter and compensation can be extremely expensive, and it can have dire consequences, as many noble Lords will remember happened over the fowl pest problem, where slaughter and compensation went to enormous heights. That was a disease that was transmissible to man. I remember informing your Lordship son one occasion that my farm manager had fowl pest, and I suggested to him that he should be slaughtered and compensated. It was a suggestion that was not very attractive to him.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Collison, said, that this disease messes up your herd. It throws out all sorts of vermin; the calf becomes useless, and it takes many years to get a cycle of milk production right again. I should have thought that there was a strong argument
768
for the use of Strain 19 vaccine, and possibly for its compulsory use, as the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, said, as at least a starter which could be considered by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, if the whole hog of slaughter and compensation proves to be expensive. But I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food have not been backward over this, as will be appreciated by those who have seen the Ministry at work at Weybridge, and seen the teams of scientists and veterinary surgeons operating on one disease and then another, rather like a military campaign. It would be unfair and unjust to describe that as backward. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give some encouragement by saying that a more universal use of Strain 19 vaccine is being brought about.
7.2 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are extremely grateful to my noble friend for her constructive approach to this problem. which is one that all who have spoken here to-day recognise. I am sure that her interest in all health matters, and particularly in relation to tuberculosis, which she mentioned, is something for which the whole country is grateful. I remember reading of her interventions in the pre-war years, and the eventual effect on the health of our children is something which is almost incalculable. We are, indeed, grateful to her for her work in that connection.
To-day my noble friend has raised something which is of importance to the dairy industry and, as the noble Lord, Lord Collison, said, to human beings, who can be infected by the disease not only through drinking milk which has not been properly heat treated but also by having to handle the cows which abort. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, defended on behalf of the Union of Parliamentary Secretaries the work that is going on in the Ministry and the work which various Parliamentary Secretaries have been associated with from time to time in this connection. I am grateful to him for this.
In my first major contribution from the Box in the other place as a Junior Minister, speaking of the inter-war years and my personal farm experience, I said this:
"It was really a hard grind with no margins at all, and when suddenly the sort of thing that could happen in those days came upon

769
one—the catastrophe of a cow slipping her calf and the realisation that contagious abortion was upon us. Perhaps the most pleasing thing that I have heard of during recent years is the fact that Strain 19 vaccine is providing the cure or rather the prevention of contagious abortion, and I think it right to pay tribute to those research workers and scientists who have produced this tremendous boon to the agricultural industry. The fear of contagious abortion has been removed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Commons, col. 1352, 18/7/51.]
At that time I hoped that it had. But clearly it has not been completely removed. Not all the calves are vaccinated, and to-day we have to look at the need afresh. This has been going on for some time within the Ministry and not just recently as a result of the campaign which seems to have bubbled up over recent years. But everything that is said in this connection by everybody helps to probe Ministers and Departments into taking decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, was, I thought, a little unfair when he rather suggested that the boffins (as he called them) were not interested in this matter. I hope that as my speech develops I shall be able to show that the boffins, both on the research side and those others within the industry whom the noble Lord might call boffins, have been interested in this subject over a period. Indeed, something I am going shortly to announce will be as the result of the work of boffins of all types, whether administrative or research. The Government have been giving careful consideration to all aspects of the question whether to introduce a scheme to eradicate brucellosis in cattle, and this afternoon my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has announced a scheme in reply to a Written Question in the other place. Your Lordships would not believe how glad I was when I heard that he was going to make this announcement this afternoon, because this will at least protect me from the wrath of the noble Baroness.
What has happened is this. In answer to a Written Question this afternoon—and the Question asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food:
"how soon he intends to introduce the pig health scheme announced by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the 2nd February last; and when he proposes to make a start on eradicating brucellosis"—
the part of the reply of my right honourable friend which is germane to the debate this evening is:
770
"We have also decided to introduce a scheme aiming to eradicate brucellosis over a period of some years. This will not only serve the interests of human and animal health, but will also improve agricultural productivity and enable us to maintain and increase exports of livestock.
"The first essential is to build up a register of brucella-free herds on a voluntary basis to provide a reservoir of disease-free replacements. The second stage, which can only be introduced when the voluntary response is large enough, will consist of a plan of eradication, area by area, in which all animals reacting to diagnostic tests will be slaughtered, with payment of compensation. Various aspects of the plan have yet to be discussed with the National Farmers' Unions and other interests concerned, but we intend to make a start as soon as possible."
Perhaps I ought to expand a little on the reply which my right honourable friend has given to the Written Question in another place. Nobody has ever questioned that brucellosis is a serious disease for animals and a most unpleasant one for man, but it is by no means as serious or important as bovine tuberculosis in the field of human health and wellbeing or, as a result of calfhood vaccination, in the economics of the livestock industry. The disease rarely results in death in man, and it is rarely, if ever, transferred from person to person, although it is probable that the incidence in human beings is greater than the 125 cases which are confirmed each year. The noble Baroness referred to my statement that there were 125 cases each year, but I qualified that by the word "confirmed" when I answered the Question, because a number of figures have been quoted in this connection. I have seen varying figures suggested, but none higher than 3,000 or 4,000 or so. This disease cannot be compared with tuberculosis as a fundamental and major health problem.
Here perhaps I might say something to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, or in amplification of what he said. Clearly, when considering the eradication of disease in animals we have first of all to take the diseases which are the most important, and I would agree that tuberculosis certainly is. But if we are thinking of other diseases as well, we dare not embark upon eradicating them all at once, or the country would be left without a sufficient herd from which to restock the farms and, indeed, to supply the milk. This is part of the problem which has taken up some of the time.

771
We cannot do all these things at once; we must do them when we feel that a sufficient herd will be available in the country to carry on and to ensure that we have sufficient milk.
So far as the livestock industry is concerned, the free calf vaccination service offers a substantial measure of help by extending earlier calf vaccination schemes which have done so much to maintain a low level of clinical infection in the national herd, thus mitigating the losses inproduction of milk and meat and the economic consequences of the disease. In present circumstances, we have had therefore to consider most carefully whether we could afford an eradication scheme. From the Brucellosis Survey of 1960–61 we know that something like 2 per cent. of our dairy cows were infected and these were distributed among 25 to 30 per cent. of dairy herds. To eradicate the disease, these are really the animals we have to eliminate. But vaccination of adult cattle with Strain 19 vaccine—and this has been done on a considerable scale, as I am sure the noble Earl will know—causes the animals to react positively to a blood test. The available tests do not differentiate between infected animals and vaccinal reactors. This means that in an immediate eradication programme we have to deal with many animals that react to the diagnostic tests but are not really infected.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? He referred to animals vaccinated as adults. Of course, the usual practice is to vaccinate them as calves. Does the same thing apply?
LORD CHAMPION: I believe the practice which is recommended by the veterinary profession is that vaccination should always take place before the 240th day of life. But there is, and has been, a fair amount of vaccination of adults, and these adults will continue to react to the test that I am talking about. This is one of the difficulties about immediate eradication, even if the country could afford it. I agree with some of the figures that have been mentioned this afternoon, that immediate eradication might cost the country something between £35 million and £50 million.
772
I mention this figure as one which has just been given to me by the Ministry.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, of the number of animals vaccinated as calves, a very small percentage indeed show any vaccinal reaction after a year old—it disappears very quickly. The later vaccinations, of course, do last longer.
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords. I thought that was what I was saying. If they are vaccinated as calves, then this difficulty does not arise so much. It is when they are vaccinated with Strain 19 as adult beasts that they will react, and continue to react for a long time. This is one of the difficulties.
This means that in an immediate eradication programme we should have to deal with many animals which react to the diagnostic tests but are not infected. I think I said that before. This is one way in which we should differ-from some other countries. Survey results suggest that some 14 per cent. of female cattle of breeding age would react to the tests which we should use in an eradication scheme. An immediate country-wide slaughter policy covering such a number of cattle would be a waste of national resources and impracticable because of the need for brucella-free replacements for reactors, quite irrespective of the cost, which would be considerable. This was the point I was making in support of something the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said. It is necessary to have a reservoir from which to draw animals which are brucella-free.
The noble Baroness, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, recommended to us the scheme which we adopted. I hope they will get some comfort from this, despite the announcement made by my right honourable friend this afternoon. This was the problem which had to be faced. I think the problem has been resolved, or will be resolved, as a result of the announcement we have made this afternoon. We will start with a voluntary register of brucella-free herds. This will cost the country some money for tests, and some for compensation, though we hope that the latter figure will be comparatively small, as we shall try to find out and register the herds that

773
are already free from infection. When there is in any area a preponderance of registered brucella-free herds, we shall be ready to move on to a compulsory eradication in that area.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to ask a question germane to that point? I think I am right in saying that at present there is nothing in law to prevent the owner of a cow which is either known or believed to be infected with brucella from selling it in the open market. Could the noble Lord, at the same time as he is instituting this voluntary scheme, put some check on this, or make it difficult for beasts to be sold at public auction where there is any possible suspicion that they may be infected? That, surely, is one of the great difficulties of the present situation which has not yet been mentioned.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this will have to be worked out. I read the Answer which my right honourable friend gave. All the aspects of the plan will have to be discussed with the National Farmers' Union and other interests concerned. This is something which, of course, they will be considering. But if I had a brucella-free herd, I should be very careful to ensure that I bought beasts that were brucella-free, because most of the trouble in these herds is the fact, and has been the fact in the past, that if you have a herd in which there is contagious abortion—
LORD INGLEWOOD: I have had it, and I know about it and what it costs.
LORD CHAMPION: If you give it a reasonable time in which to die out within that herd, it will do so. But the danger always is that you may buy a cow that is heavily infected, and immediately the whole process starts up again within the herd. Therefore, these people who come into the voluntary scheme will have to be very careful about the replacements which they might buy because of the fact that they might introduce this disease. This is part of the situation that will have to be worked out.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord has not understood me. It is obvious that when one buys cattle into a herd one tries to buy disease-free cattle. One of the great difficulties of the present
774
situation—and it brings in this hazard to human health—is that it is no offence to sell a cow in the open market which is known to be infected with brucella.
LORD CHAMPION: As was the case with the tuberculosis scheme, when we come to deal with the clearance of an area this must be looked at to ensure that cattle are not brought into the area which are heavily infected, or infected at all, with contagious abortion, otherwise the whole of the money and effort that has been expended up to that time to create the condition we want to secure have been wasted. The noble Lord, who knows so much about this, I am sure recognises that what I am saying here is right. When we have moved on to compulsory eradication in the area, from that point onwards there will be a considerable further cost, but we expect that by that time many of the cattle that would react to tests because of adult vaccination will have been culled in the normal course of husbandry, and we shall take steps to ensure that in future adult vaccination with Strain 19 vaccine will be kept to a minimum.
The cost involved in this gradual approach to the problem would be a quarter, or less, of the cost involved in an immediate slaughter programme. I do not think the actual figures mean much. They are based on necessarily arbitrary assumptions as to applications for the voluntary register and figures for compensation and fees, not yet negotiated with the bodies concerned and inevitably subject to change in the course of time.
The point which my noble friend Lord Collison made—and we respect his knowledge in this particular field—is one which clearly, in so far as it relates to the Minister of Pensions, I cannot answer here this evening. We recognise the difficulty of getting an illness accepted as an accident arising out of a man's occupation, but I am sure that the noble Lord's position as the head of a great trade union will enable him to pursue this matter with the Ministry of Pensions and eventually, I hope, enable him to find an answer to this problem. My Lords, I do hope that, almost as a result of an accident, I have been able to give the noble Lady a satisfactory answer this afternoon and have been able to please the House. It does not often fall to a Minister to do that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for what he has said, and tell him that his announcement gives us all great pleasure.

WELSH OFFICE PROVISIONAL ORDER (WESTERN VALLEYS) MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.