Lords Sitting of 1 May 1967

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

DRAGON REACTOR PROJECT
2.35 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: 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 they will continue financial support to the Dragon reactor project at Winfrith Heath after the end of this year, and whether they will make a statement.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the signatories of the Dragon Agreement are considering further extension up to the end of March, 1970, and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority have declared their willingness to participate in such an extension.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether, if Euratom see fit not to continue to support this project, Her Majesty's Government will support it on their own?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will have to decide that point when it arises but in the meantime we have asked that there should be an extraordinary meeting of the O.E.C.D., on, I believe, May 16, at which the question of participation will be discussed.

KIDNEY MACHINES
2.36 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans, if any, have been formulated to finance further research into the production of cheaper and more efficient kidney machines.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, financial aid from research and development funds will continue to be provided to encourage development of more efficient, safer and, it is hoped, cheaper apparatus for the intermittent dialysis treatment of patients with renal failure. Work directed to the improvement of techniques will also continue in universities. The equipment required includes the means not only of removing impurities from the blood but also of continuous monitoring of the patient during treatment. Manufacturers will, as hitherto, be supported by development contracts where appropriate, and by the purchase of items of equipment for evaluation. Financial assistance is provided by the Ministry of Health and the National Research Development Corporation specifically for work in this field. A number of manufacturers are themselves financing similar work.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that fairly satisfactory reply. May I ask him two supplementary questions? First, have the Ministry borne in mind the views of Dr. Shaldon, of the Finchley Centre, who advocates more home dialysis in these units? Secondly, have the Ministry given thought to the number of people who would be able to work productively in industry and elsewhere if more facilities were given to research into these machines?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question I would say that consideration has been given to the possibility of the provision of more home treatment units, but the fact is that it is not simply a question of providing equipment; it is necessary also to have trained personnel available for the purpose of monitoring or servicing the equipment.

695
That is where the shortage is at the present time. As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, by which I think he means to ask, "What are the numbers of people who could benefit from this kind of treatment?", I understand that at the moment there are about 120 people on these machines but that usefully the service could be extended to 1,000 patients; and it is hoped—it is the objective—that facilities will be extended to cover that number when not only the machines, not only the equipment, but the trained personnel also are available.

GREECE: MILITARY COUP AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION
2.39 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the attitude of their representatives and of the British delegation at the Council of Europe at Strasbourg to the motion deploring the military coup in Greece and, in particular, in view of the detention without trial of members of the democratic Opposition, including a respected ex-Prime Minister, to the proposal that the Committee of Ministers should pursue the matter through the European Human Rights Convention which has been ratified by the Government of Greece.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted an Order on the subject of Greece on April 26. No recommendations on the subject have been put to or considered by the Committee of Ministers, on which Her Majesty's Government are represented. But Her Majesty's Government have of course noted what was said in the Consultative Assembly, which evidently reflected the widespread concern among Greece's friends and allies over the troubles which she has been undergoing, and the particular concern of European Parliamentarians over the future of Parliamentary democracy in Greece.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him, first, how the representatives of the British Government and the British delegation voted on the resolution; and, secondly, whether he will press for the European Human Rights Convention to be applied to the many hundreds of political prisoners in Greece now, including not only the Left but even the ex-Prime Minister of the Centre?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question is concerned, delegates in the Consultative Assembly vote on their own responsibility. So far as the situation in Greece is concerned, this is developing from day to day, and I think it would be wrong at this stage for us to try to pass any positive or considered judgment on what has happened there, or is happening or might happen in the future. I understand, however, that a Minister of the new Greek Government has said that prominent political detainees will shortly be released, and that the thousands of persons detained for security reasons will have their cases reviewed in the near future.
LORD BROCKWAY: But, my Lords, is not much more at stake than this? Has not a military coup sabotaged a democratic election in Greece? Could my noble friend tell me how the British delegation voted on this resolution (about which he has not informed me), and also whether the Government are going to be satisfied with the absolute outrage against the Human Rights Convention which has been committed in Greece?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the votes of the delegates in the Assembly are concerned, I will let my noble friend have that information. I do not have it at the moment, because, as I say, these delegates vote on their own responsibility. So far as the general situation in Greece is concerned, I believe that it would be wrong, and might be counter-productive, to pass any judgment at this stage. The whole situation in Greece is in a state of flux. We may all have our hopes, our sincere hopes, about what may happen, but I believe that to make positive statements now might be provocative and could exacerbate the situation in Greece instead

697
of allowing it to develop in a way in which I hope—and we all hope—in the end will give satisfaction to us.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, having told us that the individual delegates vote on their own point of view, will the noble Lord confirm that it is also the case that the delegation are chosen from all three Parties in the House and that each delegate is therefore free, apart from any Party alliance, to vote as he or she thinks fit?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords, of course that is so; nevertheless, I shall inform my noble friend how they voted.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could the Minister give us an assurance that, deplorable as it is that people should be kept in prison without trial in Greece, Her Majesty's Government are equally concerned about the situation in other parts of the world, such as in Tanzania and other parts of Africa, where British citizens are kept in prison without trial?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government are always concerned about the human rights of individuals all over the world. We shall endeavour always on these occasions to make our views known.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, could the noble Lord assure us that this affair in Greece is not having any harmful effect on NATO?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think it would be presumptuous of me to give any such assurance. All that I can say at this stage, on my own behalf and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, is that it is naturally a source of great concern to us that a friend and ally of ours should be going through these troubles.

ASBESTOS MATERIALS AND HEALTH HAZARDS
2.46 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To asked Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on
698
the health hazards alleged to be associated with the use, in contemporary building construction, of materials made of, or containing a proportion of, asbestos.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, so far as I am aware, there is no evidence that building materials manufactured from asbestos present a health hazard, either to operatives engaged in construction or to the subsequent occupants of the building, provided that no dust arises from the absestos product. The dust produced from working asbestos materials, for example, sheeting, is dangerous to health. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour is currently revising the Asbestos Industry Regulations for securing better control of the risk to workers using materials containing asbestos.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn to the report of Leeds University which indicates that, so far as the research they have undertaken is concerned, the health hazard occurs not only in respect of dust or to workmen using asbestos, but also in respect of other elements in the material and to those who live and work in buildings in which the material has been used? Whether this allegation is true I do not know; but it is of great concern to those of us who at the moment are responsible for decisions relating to big building construction in this country.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the research going on at Leeds University has not been brought to my attention, but I know from past experience at the Ministry of Defence that this subject is under close study in the field of naval construction. As I said in my Answer, the dust produced from working asbestos material is a danger to health, and research is going on intensively over a wide field to find out exactly what is this danger. I shall make a point of studying the report from the University mentioned.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, having studied this report, he will be good enough to make a further statement, if he thinks it

699
necessary, either to reassure us or, alternatively, to give point to the results of the research?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would raise the question again after I have had time to study the points he mentioned.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could my noble friend let me know when the last Statutory Order designed to protect workers against the inhalation of asbestos dust, or in relation to other factors connected with the use of asbestos, was made?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend today; but as part of the study that I promised the noble Lord, Lord Alport, I will look into this point and inform my noble friend.

BRITISH FORCES ON THE CONTINENT
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice. The question is in these terms: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any statement to make on an agreement reached regarding British Forces on the Continent.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission, my noble friend Lord Chalfont will reply to this Question by way of a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45; read 1a.

SLAUGHTER OF POULTRY BILL
2.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before this Bill is passed may I say a few words of very warm congratulation and thanks to Her Majesty's Government for the way in which they have helped and expedited the passage of this Bill. Everybody knows that it is often a difficult and slow fight to get into legislation these matters which are of importance to those of us who feel strongly about the subject. The way in which the stages of this Bill have been passed has been extremely gratifying to us all.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for what he has said. I am sure the whole House would wish to thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindgren on the expeditious way in which he has managed to get this very important Bill through all its stages in this House. The Bill is very worth while; it has the support of the Government, and I am sure that it will receive the wholehearted support of this House.
On Question, Bill passed.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. The House will not wish me to give any further account of it than we have had at earlier stages, but there are a couple of small points on which I promised to inform the House regarding certain consultations not concluded earlier. These have now been concluded. They concern the circumstances in which two special needs subsidies available under Clause 5 will be payable, and my right honourable friend's discussions with the local authority associations on this clause have now been concluded.
The Minister intends that the subsidy under Clause 5(1) should be payable on

701
approved dwellings provided by local authorities whose housing costs are high in relation to their resources. An authority's housing expenditure will be measured by adding up its rental income and any contribution it makes from its own rateable resources to the housing account in any relevant financial year. If this expenditure is markedly above the annual average for its class of authority when expressed in terms of the gross value of all the houses in its housing revenue account, then a payment will he made under Clause 5(1) on all approved dwellings completed in the following year. The amount of payment will be based on a sliding scale related to the amount by which an authority's expenditure exceeds the average. These arrangements have been accepted by the associations subject in the case of London to further information being obtained from the London boroughs.
As for the subsidy under Clause 5(2), the Minister intends that this should be payable in the context of the kind of scheme in which a major industrial establishment transfers from one part of the country to another, bringing workers with it, or where a major new industrial growth in one area attracts workers from other areas. This subsidy will act as an incentive provision. My right honourable friend has proposed a general formula with a sliding scale and subsidy related to the effect which the new housing would have on the authority's overall housing costs and hence on rents. This has been discussed with the associations and they have agreed that while the proposed scale seems generally satisfactory, it would be better not to lay down a rigid formula at the outset but to test the proposed scale on some actual cases as they arise. This is a new form of subsidy to promote industrial mobility and we shall want to see how it works out in practice.
My Lords, a Bill of this nature inevitably involves a great deal of consultation and discussion with the bodies who are to be involved in its subsequent administration. In some aspects the Bill is complicated and in respect of both Parts of it new ground is being broken. Subsidies to local authorities under Part I are calculated on quite a different basis from those provided in earlier legislation. Part II is an entirely new scheme which has had to be worked out from
702
scratch with no past experience to guide us at all. We have had a great deal of help and co-operation from the local authority associations on Part I and from the local authorities, building societies, insurance companies and the friendly societies in connection with Part II. The Government are grateful for this co-operation. The passing of this Bill does not, of course, solve all the problems; it is only the beginning. The new framework of housing subsidies for local authorities should provide a springboard for further advances in local authority housing, and likewise the provisions in Part II should give an added impetus to the expansion of owner-occupation. To that extent the Bill is only a starting point for greater efforts by all who are concerned in the production of homes in both the private and public sectors. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Kennet.)
2.55 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, during the Committee stage I asked the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about the progress of the negotiations between the Ministry and the local authority associations regarding a settlement of the criteria under which the special subsidies provided for in Clause 5 should be paid. I am very glad to hear that those negotiations have reached a broadly satisfactory conclusion. I raised the question in connection with the use in the Bill of the rather undesirable word "unreasonably", but I pointed out that it the local authorities as well as the Minister were satisfied that the arrangements were reasonable, there was, in my view, no cause for Parliament to concern itself further over that word. I am quite sure that the noble Lord is fully justified in the gratitude he has expressed to the local authority associations and all the other bodies who must have had to be consulted in relation to this Bill. I trust that, for his part, the noble Lord will agree that my noble friends and I have fulfilled the undertaking which we gave on Second Reading to do everything we could to speed the Bill towards the Statute Book.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, as a President of one of the associations, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for

703
the co-operation we have had from him, and also thank him for all that he has just said.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOAD LINES) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that at this stage I do not intend to go again over the arguments we have had during the past few months on this Bill, but I should like to say two things. First I would very sincerely like to thank noble Lords on both sides of the House who have given me their cooperation in putting this Bill through its various stages. There have been remarkably few differences on principle: the House seems to have been prepared to accept the basic principles on which the Bill is based. There have been minor differences, and though these have not always been settled in favour of the minority, nevertheless they were settled amicably and in good spirit.
The other point I would make is to express the hope that the Government will take note of the discussions that have taken place on this Bill and of the support it has received generally. I have been astonished at the lack of opposition to it in public opinion. There has
704
been a tremendous swing in the last few years and I hope that when the Bill goes to another place the Government will give it early time. At a period in our history when the Government has to say "No" to so many things, it would be nice to have them say "Yes". When we go on discussing so many grim and seemingly dull subjects, as seems inevitable in Parliament, it would be nice if the Government would find time for a Bill which is designed to give pleasure, to give fun, to provide wider entertainment—above all, to provide something that would cost the Government nothing.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Willis.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships are glad to see the end of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, is right—the general principle has been widely accepted. There have been one or two disagreements on certain points, and although naturally I think that I was right, your Lordships have taken the view that I was wrong. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on getting this measure through. It will give a great deal of pleasure. I hope that it will get a fair wind in another place, and that it will become law this Session.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, I should be grateful for the indulgence of the House so that I may give two reasons why I personally cannot accept the Bill. I apologise for not having been present at the earlier debates. I was brought up in a strictly Sabbatarian home and I reacted violently against it. I remember an old radical, who had spent many years fighting against the squire, in his old age saying to me sadly, "The old days were bad—the new ones are worse." My first reason for believing that the Bill is not necessary in the common interest is that it will deprive an increasing number of people of the pleasure, to which they are entitled, of a common holiday. It is no good telling me that we could have another day. I am a Bishop and I work on Sundays. I rarely have the enjoyment of pottering about, and I know the difference when we share a common day of leisure. I believe that for a large number of people the fact that there is a day when everybody else is at liberty is immensely

705
important, and therefore I oppose legislation which adds to the steadily growing commercial pressure to make capital out of our leisure.
Secondly, I believe that, apart from private duties of worship, there is the need in this highly pressurised society for one day which is leisurely, when you can potter about and do odd things without having to be herded together among an enormous number of people. I know that many people will do this of their own choice, but human nature being what it is a great many people will not do so if circumstances make it possible for them to escape from the responsibility of pursuing on their own initiative things of the mind and the spirit. I believe that the emphasis which the Bill places on commercialised entertainment is not in the best interests of the community, and therefore I cannot possibly support it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, surely the reverend Prelate's argument is a little illogical. He pleads for people to do things on their own initiative. This Bill does not deny to anybody the right to do anything he wishes. It does not compel people to go to any entertainment whatsoever. They will be completely free to do anything they wish.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lady for her intervention. I thought that I had made it clear that the Bill does not force anybody to do anything which they do not wish to do. The point is that if by the custom of society it is possible to have a vast range of commercial pleasures, it makes it more difficult for many ordinary people to exercise their initiative, because they do not do it anyway.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, is it not the case that many people will have to do what they would rather not do, because if they do not agree to work on Sundays it might be impossible for them to keep their work on other days?
LORD STRATHCARRON: My Lords, as they will probably be receiving double time, they will perhaps be pleased to work on Sunday.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I did not realise that we should reopen this debate.
706
and I do not intend to follow along that line. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Willis.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MARINE &c. BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) BILL
3.7 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 Sorensen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Prohibition of acts connected with broadcasting from certain ships and aircraft, and from marine structures outside United Kingdom
3.—(1) If a broadcast is made—
(a) from a ship other than one registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands while the ship is on the high seas; or
any of the persons mentioned in subsection (3) below who operates, or participates in the operation of, the apparatus by means of which the broadcast is made shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "broadcast", to insert:
"which is intended for general reception in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands or any other country or territory which may be prescribed,".
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. I think that it would be convenient to your Lordships if I spoke at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6. It must be questionable whether the United Kingdom Parliament can take quite such wide powers as at present exist in Clause 3(1). The effect of this clause is that any British citizen or subject may be prosecuted in the United Kingdom for broadcasting on the high seas anywhere in the world.

707
To take a somewhat fanciful hypothetical case, a Fijiian who broadcasts from a Japanese ship in the Pacific to Tahiti, when the broadcast is not illegal in Fiji, Japan or Tahiti, may be prosecuted in Edinburgh. But, of course, much less extreme cases could be envisaged.
The Postmaster General, in dealing with this point on Report stage in another place, relied on the Treaty Article I, and there is no doubt that we ought to do everything that we properly can to implement the Agreement. The fact remains that the high seas are not within our jurisdiction, nor normally are our subjects on or over the high seas, unless in British ships or planes. I think that we should be careful before we attempt to extend our jurisdiction.
The scheme for the Bill is basically to deal with broadcasts from territorial waters in British ships and planes by means of prohibiting the supply of services, and in that way to stop broadcasting from the high seas. We can go further to prevent our subjects from broadcasting to the United Kingdom even from the high seas, and our Amendment does so. It gives the Postmaster General power to add other countries to the list of areas to which British subjects cannot broadcast from the high seas. This can be done by Order, subject to Affirmative Resolution. We envisage other countries being added, as and when they pass laws similar to this Bill. I know that wireless waves know no boundaries, but it should be fairly simple to see what is the intended country of reception for broadcasts from any station, chiefly by language. The advantage of this method is that it encourages foreign countries to pass their own laws if they dislike broadcasts to them organised by Britons.
The four other Amendments are consequential. The theory is that they do not make it an offence to do acts in subsection (3) where these are done by Britons on the high seas, unless these acts relate to broadcasts which are illegal under subsections (1), (2) and (3), as we have amended them. Whether or not we have signed the Treaty, we do not think we should allow the Government to extend our jurisdiction without making a strong legal case and quoting precedent. In fact, the Treaty can be effective only when implemented by all the signatories; and
708
if they all have a law in the same terms as Clauses 3 and 4, with our Amendments, I think the effect will be entirely satisfactory. If not, why not? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, after ("broadcast") insert the said words.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD SORENSEN: First of all I would say that I appreciate very much that the basic intention of the Bill has received the support of all Parties. I say that because some misconception exists in part of the public mind. There is the assumption in some quarters that this Bill is designed to prohibit all kinds of commercial broadcasting and, indeed, the broadcasting extensively of "pop" music. That is not so. We may disagree in the Committee on certain minor matters, but the basic purpose of the Bill receives general support.
I appreciate also that the Amendments moved by the noble Lord are designed to assist the passage of the Bill—they are not wrecking Amendments—and everyone in the Committee respects the intention of the noble Lord as expressed in his remarks. But I have to say that these Amendments would make the operation of Clause 3, which deals with broadcasting stations on the high seas, entirely dependent on proving where the broadcasters themselves intended their broadcasts to be received. That would make the position of the prosecution impossibly difficult. If the Amendments were made, it would also not be possible for this country to ratify and implement the European Agreement, because our legislation would be too restrictive and would not fulfil the minimum requirements of that Agreement. I heard the noble Lord say that he hoped and anticipated that more general agreement among other Governments would assist in this direction, and I will bear that point in mind.
One is therefore forced to the conclusion that either these Amendments are misconceived or they will not work. If a broadcast contains no intention of where the broadcaster intends it to be received, it may be possible for the courts to draw their own conclusions. But if the culpability of the broadcaster were made dependent on what his intentions were, he would have a wonderful scope for evasion. He would so word his broadcast by certain expressions, such as

709
"Hello Sweden", "Hello Canada", "Hello Tristan da Cunha" or "Hello Tibet", or any other invitation, in order to disguise his intention, and would thus make a mockery of the law. In other words, it would be a deliberate attempt to evade the intention of the Bill or, as ultimately we hope, the Act.
To push this one stage further, take, for example, the offence formed by Clause 4(3)(a), that of furnishing or agreeing to furnish a ship. The prosecution would have to prove that the provider of the ship knew not only that it was to be used for broadcasting, but also that the people engaged in broadcasting had intended their broadcasts to be received in certain specific geographical areas. That would be an impossible position in which to place any prosecution.
The Bill is deliberately drafted so as to catch all broadcasting operating on the high seas. Broadcasting on the high seas is forbidden by International Law. The culpability of the offenders does not depend upon where they intend their broadcasts to be received, or on such matters as whether, for example, a Swedish ship happens to be in a position where its authorised wireless communications suffer interference from the pirates. This does not mean that this country is ignoring those provisions of the European Agreement which limit its extent to certain categories of stations. As a matter of policy we are legislating against all high seas broadcasts. But if we were asked by another country to take action against a station which was causing offence to it, we should have regard, in particular, to whether that country had itself accepted the obligation of the Agreement and whether the offending station was in one of the categories of stations against which the parties to the European Agreement undertake to protect each other.
There is the further point that, although we are bound to fulfil the minimum obligations which we have accepted by entering into this Agreement, the Council of Europe envisage that signatories may elect to legislate in wider terms by providing, in Article IV that nothing in the Agreement shall be deemed to prevent a contracting party from doing so. In those circumstances, I trust that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DENHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the full explanation that he has given. We shall obviously have to study his remarks with some care to see how far they meet our case. I do not intend to press the Amendment any further at this stage, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): There is a Manuscript Amendment, at page 2, line 24, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
LORD STRANGE: I have to apologise to the Committee. There has been a slight mistake, and it is all my fault. It so happens that the Amendment should be to Clause 5. It is not the fault of my secretary, but I think I have traced it down to this: that I have a collection of antique typewriters, and it may have been typed on the high-stepping Oliver of 1907, because that substitutes a three for a five. I apologise to your Lordships for this error.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I understand that the noble Lord does not wish to move either of the Manuscript Amendments on the Supplementary List, and wishes to replace them by a Manuscript Amendment to Clause 5.
LORD STRANGE: That is correct.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Prohibition of acts relating to matter broadcast from ships, aircraft, &c.
(3) The acts, and, where relevant, the intent and circumstances, referred to in subsection (1) above are the following namely:
(b) making a literary, dramatic or musical work with intent that a broadcast of the work may be made as aforesaid;
(c) making an artistic work with intent that the work may be included in a television broadcast made as aforesaid;
(f) publishing any advertisement relating to a station from which broadcasts are made as aforesaid or are to be so made or the times at which any broadcasts are to be so made.
LORD STRANGE LORD STRANGE moved a Manuscript Amendment to leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (3). The noble Lord

711
said: This is the Amendment I had intended to move, and I again apologise to your Lordships. It seems to me from these two paragraphs that if one writes a work of art, or a book, or a sermon, or a newscast, as they call it, or a "blurb" for an advertisement, and it is broadcast from one of these pirate radio stations, one is a criminal and liable to criminal punishment. I believe strongly that this is against the freedom and rights of the individual to say what he wants when he wants to. We have fought two hard wars to try to preserve these rights, and it is wrong for us to curtail a writer, who must be free, provided he is not doing anything immoral or unpleasant or causing serious trouble by his writing. I do not think it right that a man who wishes to write a sermon to be broadcast on these radio stations should be penalised and made a criminal for doing so.
I feel very strongly about this. Her Majesty's Government subscribed to the European Commission on Freedom for the Individual. I consider that they are contravening their membership of this Commission by introducing such a clause in the Bill, and I believe that the European Commission will speak very strongly to them—as strongly as a Commission can speak to a Government. It is entirely wrong and against the freedom of the individual, and there must be many writers, even writers to The Times or any other paper, who agree with me.
I shall not press the Amendment, because I have made the mistake I have already referred to—or, rather, the Oliver typewriter has—and because I feel it would be unfair to Her Majesty's Government to do so. They have not had time to do any homework on it. But I shall certainly move it again on the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).—(Lord Strange.)
LORD STRANGE: I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved, in subsection (3)(f), to leave out all words after the second "made". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, too, on
712
behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. This subsection seems to have caused a great deal of difficulty, and we think it is the Postmaster General's own fault that this difficulty has arisen. His speeches in Committee suggest that publications dealing with pirate stations and containing matter which is normally not thought to be an advertisement are still intended to be caught. Whether or not prosecutions are to be brought only by the Director of Public Prosecutions, we strongly object to creating a new criminal offence not specifically defined.
I understand that in no Act is there an adequate definition of "advertisement" for these purposes. We have concocted one, which we hope is specific enough for proof of an offence but equally covers the wider principle which Her Majesty's Government wish to have covered. It is, as near as we can make it, a form of words which fulfils the Postmaster General's words on Report (in col. 340 of the Commons Hansard). If we do not amend this clause, the point about benefiting the station cannot be discerned simply from the word "advertisement" and it will require Case Law, with great uncertainty meanwhile, to establish the limits of this offence. The drafting must therefore be bad.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, leave out from ("made") to end of line 35.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD SORENSEN: I want to express warm appreciation of the constructive efforts of the noble Lord in this matter. May I, in advance, assure him that this matter has given great concern to the Postmaster General. He is not quite satisfied that the wording so kindly proposed by the noble Lord is the appropriate one, but if the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment for a while and allow us to ponder on it, at a later stage, on Report, we may come to an agreement precisely on the issue which the noble Lord has raised.
LORD DENHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and with very great pleasure I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.25 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"( ) selling or offering or exposing for sale any article or substance knowing the same to have been advertised by means of a broadcast made as aforesaid within the period of three months preceding the date of such sale or offer or exposure for sale."
The noble Lord said: I must make my apologies to the Committee for not being in my place when my previous Amendment was called. I did not expect the business to be dealt with so early, and I had other business. The two Amendments are linked. As your Lordships will see, they are very simple Amendments, although perhaps expressed in rather technical language. The first Amendment, which I suppose I should not now refer to, is intended merely to cover the possibility that a British company might be controlled by a company in France, Belgium, or somewhere else, and might not be responsible for what the parent company did.
The Amendment which I am now moving is in effect a corollary to that. If the advertising has been done by a company which is outside British control, British operators selling the product should not be penalised unless the sale has been done within three months of the advertisement of the particular product. The intention of the two Amendments was entirely that of closing what appeared to be certain loopholes in the Bill. It is really a matter for the Government to determine whether these loopholes exist and whether these Amendments are necessary, and I offer this Amendment entirely subject to the Government's attitude to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Archibald.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that I must reply to the Amendment which he has just been moving, and not to the previous Amendment, though in fact, as he rightly said, the principle is allied. Her Majesty's Government appreciate the purpose of the noble Lord; namely, that the Amendment is an attempt to strengthen the Bill, and it is taken in that spirit. Unfortunately, however, I have to ask the noble Lord to withdraw
714
this Amendment because its effect would be rather far-reaching.
Many of the advertisements put out by the pirate radio stations are for products which are in very common use: for example, a particular brand of cigarette. This Amendment would mean that if the advertising agents of a tobacco company placed an advertisement for one of their products with a pirate radio station, every tobacconist throughout the country would be committing an offence by selling that brand. No doubt there would be many cases where the shopkeeper was not aware even that the product had been advertised. Also, he would in some cases have large stocks of the advertised product which had suddenly become worthless, and it would be a great temptation to disregard the law and continue to sell the products. It would be difficult to convince the public and magistrates that selling a product, in itself a perfectly harmless thing, was something that merited legal proceedings and the penalties set out in this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will accept this explanation given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Although I am ashamed to confess that I am a heavy smoker myself, I cannot find any tears for the tobacconists for whom the noble Lady has made such an eloquent plea. I should not very much care if they did come undone as a result of some restriction. Nevertheless, I accept her argument, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Penalties and legal proceedings]:
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM: moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "Proceedings for an offence under this Act" and insert:
"In the case of an offence under this Act which is not committed—

(a) in the United Kingdom; or

(b) in external waters; or

(c) in a ship or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands,

proceedings".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble

715
friend Lord Colville of Culross. Subsection (3) enables an offence under this Bill to be prosecuted anywhere in the United Kingdom, regardless of where it was committed. The precedent, we understand, is the Continental Shelf Act 1964. This is, however, no real precedent. Under this Bill, offences may be committed in three sorts of places, and I will deal with them separately.
First, they may be committed on the land of the United Kingdom. There seems to us to be no reason why the ordinary jurisdiction of Her Majesty's sheriffs in the superior courts should not be used. Why is there any greater difficulty in providing a venue for offences under this Bill than for, say, a complicated commercial fraud? Secondly, offences may be committed in territorial waters. So far as we can see, the jurisdiction here is technically in the Admiralty, but under the Admiralty Offences Act 1844, the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878, and the Administration of Justice Act 1964, Schedule 1, paragraph 5, there is machinery for the ordinary courts to deal with offences in England and Scotland. The Act of 1878 applies to Scotland, but we are not sure what else applies.
I think there is a technical flaw in the Amendment on this point, in that we can find no jurisdiction to deal with summary offences, as opposed to indictable, offences in territorial waters. We should be grateful if Her Majesty's Government would explain the situation and consider whether they ought to have some general legislation in regard to summary offences, rather than make special provision under this Bill. Meanwhile, since all offences under the Bill may be dealt with on indictment (that is under Clause 6(1)(b), the existing jurisdiction, should be annulled. Thirdly, there are offences committed on the high seas. This Amendment leaves offences committed here to be dealt with as under the Bill at present, and to this extent the Continental Shelf Act is a good precedent and we do not object to following it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, leave out ("Proceedings for an offence under this Act") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Denham.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think Members of your Lordships' House will recall that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, made this point on Second Reading. He said then that we have a complicated system of law and he referred to the various Acts, to some of which the noble Lord has just referred. The noble Viscount mentioned the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878. the Merchant Shipping Act and the Magistrates' Courts Act. He described the position that we should all like to see when he was referring to these particular Acts, but I would venture to say that the state of the law relating to territorial waters, and to other waters around our shores, was found on examination to be vague, and the draftsmen of the Bill had a difficult task in producing wording which would ensure that all waters around our shores were effectively covered, without at the same time casting doubt on the interpretation, for the purposes of other Acts, of such expressions as "in the United Kingdom" and "in territorial waters adjacent to the United Kingdom".
I can give your Lordships an assurance that an offence under this Bill committed on land in Peebles (and we chose to refer to Peebles, because it was assumed that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, would move this Amendment and would probably make some reference to Scotland) would not be prosecuted outside Scotland. I picked on Peebles as an example because it is unmistakably inland in Scotland. If I were to give the same assurance about an offence committed in Edinburgh I should have to choose my words rather carefully. An offence committed in an office in Prince's Street, Edinburgh, would not be prosecuted outside Scotland. Indeed, it is most unlikely that an offence committed anywhere in Edinburgh would be prosecuted outside Scotland, but when I say "anywhere in Edinburgh" I am referring to an area the boundaries of which I do not know precisely.
All this may seem to be mere pedantry. but the Government have been firmly advised that any well-meant attempt to adapt Clause 6(3) to reflect the intention that Scottish cases shall be dealt with in Scotland, English cases in England, and so on, would result in wording which. if

717
it had any legal effect at all, would merely open up loopholes for the pirates to exploit. What the Government seek to do in the present clause is to present something which is unobjectionable but which is nevertheless an effective safeguard against the possibility that any prosecution which was clearly appropriate to one part of the kingdom might be brought in another part. The legal authorities in England and Wales, in Scotland, and in Northern Ireland are entirely content, having regard to the existence of Clause 6(5), that Clause 6(3) cannot be used to divert into one part of the kingdom proceedings which are clearly appropriate to another part. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will accept this and will withdraw the amendment.
LORD DENHAM: I am again most grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. I shall have to study it and consult with my noble friend about it, but for the moment I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Short title and commencement]:
3.35 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:
"(2) This Act shall not come into operation before the expiry of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed, but subject thereto it shall come into operation on a day to be appointed by Her Majesty in Council."
The noble Lord said: In the Daily Mail on Friday last there was a news item which stated that the Amendment which I am now moving would, if carried, destroy the purpose of the Bill. But I can assure your Lordships that this is not a wrecking Amendment: on the contrary, it is designed to strengthen the Bill and to make it work. Without it, the Bill would not achieve its purpose.
As I told your Lordships on Second Reading, Her Majesty's Government could, and should, have introduced this Bill as soon as the European Agreement was signed on January 22, 1965—over two years ago. Had they done so then, the Bill would have achieved its object
718
of sinking the pirate ships without trace. But they did not do so, and, whatever their reasons for the period of inaction, they have by their delay allowed a situation to develop under which this Bill, by itself, will not now be effective. Let me explain my reasons for saying this.
The first pirate ship to come on the air was Radio Caroline, which started broadcasting in May, 1964. This was followed quickly by Radio Atlanta, and both ships were anchored outside the three-mile limit off Frinton. Shortly afterwards, a gentleman who up to then had sung "pop" (rather unsuccessfully), under the name of "Screaming Lord Sutch", occupied a disused Fort on Shivering Sands and started broadcasting from there. In September, Mr. Sutch (one must assume that the noble and screaming Lord renounced his title at the time that it was fashionable to do so), as he stood in the 1964 General Election, handed over his station to another company, and Radio Sutch became Radio City.
Radio Caroline then merged with Radio Atlanta. As a result of this agreement, Radio Caroline became Caroline North and moved round the coast to a new anchorage off the Isle of Man, and Radio Atlanta became Caroline South, and remained off Frinton, where it was joined in December, 1964, by another ship, controlled by a new company, which started broadcasting as Radio London. The net result of this piratical general post was that when the European Agreement was signed, on January 22, 1965, there were three ships and one fort broadcasting: Caroline North, off the Isle of Man; Caroline South and Radio London, off Frinton; and Radio City, on Shivering Sands. None of the other pirates had yet started.
Throughout 1964 my noble and right honourable friends who then spoke for the Government said they would bring in legislation to stop pirate radio when the European Treaty had been signed, and it was assumed that the Labour Government would do the same. Already the pirates had built up a considerable audience. Radio Caroline claimed that their listeners had by then reached about 8 million Radio London, which had been going only a month, between 2 and 3 million. But, so far as the listeners were concerned, this Bill, if introduced

719
then, might have been unpopular but would have been expected. People enjoyed "pop" while it was being broadcast, but they knew then that it was only a matter of time before the Government would stop unlicensed broadcasting.
So far as the pirate broadcasters themselves were concerned, they were not then in anything like as strong a position as they are now. They had taken a gamble, and it had paid off. Radio Caroline would, I think, have shown a profit over the whole venture; Radio London would probably have achieved a working profit by that time, but would not have shown a profit over their capital investment, I am not sure about Radio City, but they have now ceased broadcasting after being prosecuted in February this year. This Bill would have put all the pirates out of business had it been passed then. Now, two years later, there is a very different state of affairs. According to public opinion polls the number of listeners to pirate radio stations has swelled to 20 million, and over the months of Government inaction they began to assume that nothing would be done, and they came to look on "pop" programmes as a permanent part of their lives. There are over twice as many pirate stations, and the individual pirate companies themselves have built up their strength by vastly increasing their audience and consequently their advertising revenue.
As I said on Second Reading, two questions arise from the state of affairs that has been allowed to develop. Have Her Majesty's Government a responsibility to fill the void left in the lives of their listeners by the planned demise of the pirate ships with a satisfactory alternative; and, secondly, if they do not fill that void will someone else do it for them? That Her Majesty's Government recognise their responsibility is shown by their plans for a new B.B.C. programme to be broadcast in the autumn on 247 metres. But is there any need for the time lag between this Bill coming into effect (if your Lordships do not amend it, it may well receive the Royal Assent before the Spring Recess and therefore become effective by mid-June) and the start of the new Radio 247 in the autumn, and will the new B.B.C.
720
programme, when it does come, be what this particular public want?
In his Second Reading speech in another place on February 15, the Postmaster General said:
"My colleagues and I are in no doubt that there is a wide demand for continuous light music and that it would be right to meet this demand. If there is a considerable demand of this kind it should be met."
So far, so good. But the right honourable gentleman went on:
"I do not think that it is a demand for non-stop 'pop'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 15/2/67, col. 638.]
My Lords, three out of the four main pirates play non-stop "pop". Most of the minor pirates play non-stop "pop". At the time that the European Treaty and this Bill were conceived, the only pirates then in existence all played nothing but non-stop "pop". If there were not this demand the listeners would not listen, the advertisers would therefore not advertise, being a pirate would cease to be financially attractive, and there would be no need for this Bill.
My first reason, therefore, for asking your Lordships to accept this Amendment is to enable the Postmaster General to delay the operation of the Act until he has provided his alternative programme, and to impress on him the fact that his present ideas as to what constitutes an alternative programme are founded on a misconception. This is an important reason for the Amendment, but it is not the main one. Were it to be so, I should be inclined to listen to the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, on Second Reading, when she suggested that we should pass this Bill first and debate the question of an adequate alternative later.
But there is another, more pressing, reason for this Amendment. In the Second Reading debate I told your Lordships of the current talk and rumours as to what would happen when the provision of this Bill came into effect. They fell roughly into two categories. First, that other organisations are planning to take advantage of the possible demise of the pirates and, by providing the programmes their present listeners want, to cash in on the advertising revenue. Secondly, that the present pirate companies, or more accurately the foreign interests behind the present pirates, are seeking. and probably

721
finding, ways to get round this Bill and continue broadcasting. I mentioned Radio Andorra on Second Reading. I understand that they have begun broadcasting to this country on an experimental basis once or twice a month. if they are successful others will follow, and indeed the present pirates may well take to the land and evade this Bill completely. If they did this, they could still keep their offices in London, their English staff, their English companies, advertise English goods, and broadcast on the same wavelengths. But I understand that they still feel, after taking legal advice, that they can keep their ships, manned by foreign crews, supplied from abroad, financed by foreign advertisers and organised from offices abroad.
I have talked to several of the pirates about this. Somewhat naturally, they will not tell me how they plan to evade the provisions of the Bill. But they have convinced me that, whether or not they will be successful in evading it, they themselves are confident that they will succeed. Contracts with foreign companies for advertising after the Bill has been passed have already been signed. My guess is that both methods of evading this Bill will be tried, and that it is no longer a question of whether unlicensed broadcasting will survive, but of who will win the inevitable battle for listeners and revenue.
On March 7, when this Bill was before a Standing Committee in another place, the Postmaster General gave four justifications for it. He said (col. 104):
"One is the honouring of international obligations. The second is that pirate radio interferes with the legitimate broadcasting of our European neighbours. The third is that it interferes with ship to shore radio, and the fourth is that it ignores the interests of copyright holders."
The Bill as it stands will honour the international Agreements; but if, as seems very probable, the pirates are able to continue in one form or another, the Bill will do nothing to stop interference with European broadcasting, interference with ship to shore radio, nor the ignoring of the interests of copyright holders. One objective out of four will have been achieved. Cannot we do a little better than that? But even this one objective means nothing without the other three. The Copenhagen Agreement and the European Agreement are not an end in themselves but only a means to an end.
722
If we comply with the letter of these agreements but do not achieve the purpose behind them, which is the stopping of anarchy on the air, we can hardly be said to be fulfilling our international obligations.
If this Bill had been passed early in 1965 it would have been effective by itself. Now it will not be. The new factors that have grown up during these past two years are a vast audience who have grown accustomed to a certain type of programme, and a large number of advertisers who have discovered the advantages of a certain medium. These two hang very much together. If the pirates lose the audience, they will lose the advertising. If they lose the advertising, they will no longer be able to, or indeed wish to, keep their listeners.
There are, therefore, two alternatives before the Government now if they want to stop unlicensed broadcasting altogether, as they have a duty to do. The first is to attract listeners away from the pirates. This will be hard, as the listening public have grown accustomed and attached, not only to the sort of programmes that the pirates present, but also to the method of presentation and the personalities of the disc jockeys behind that presentation. To win the audience away from a programme that they like, you must not only provide that audience with what they want when they want it, but you must do it better than it is being done at the moment. The second alternative is to attract the advertisers away from the pirates. This is very much easier, because not only would a commercial programme authorised by the Government, and land-based in this country, be able to offer very much better financial terms, but also advertisers would prefer to use a medium that is free from the taint of evading the law.
Her Majesty's Government have chosen the 'first and more difficult alternative. But apart from the difficulties I have already mentioned, they have burdened themselves with some quite unnecessary obstacles to success. The first is to allow a time lag between this Bill coming into effect and the start of the alternative programme, Radio 247. When the provisions of the Bill start biting, the pirates admit that they are in for a sticky six months. An immediate substitute programme might prove just too much for

723
them. But the delay from June until the Autumn will enable the pirates to get over the worst of their new difficulties, and be in a far stronger position to fight the new B.B.C. programme.
The second obstacle is that Her Majesty's Government have not solved the difficult problem of needle time with the Musicians' Union. If Radio 247 is limited to 20 per cent., or even 40 per cent., of gramophone records, they are going to be in no position to compete against a pirate programme that suffers from no limits at all. The third is their own failure to realise the sort of programme that is now enjoyed and will be wanted by the listeners they are trying to attract. The new Radio 247 is to be a balanced programme, with "something for everybody"—a sort of aural nursery dinner. "You eat up your nice Palm Court Orchestra, and if you are a good boy you shall have some 'pop' to finish up with". That sort of attitude is all very well for a monopoly, but for a programme that is fighting for listeners it is doomed to failure. Ideally there should be at least two new programmes, one for "pop" and one for what is called "sweet" music. But "pop" is wanted by at least two-thirds of the pirate audiences, probably more, and if there is only to be one new programme, it must be "pop". It may seem unfair to devote a whole programme to the devotees of only one type of music, but not only is the "pop" audience a vast one, but also they probably listen to their wirelesses for longer hours than any other section of listeners. And as the object of this new programme is solely to defeat the pirates, and to compensate their listeners, this can only be done with "pop".
This Amendment will enable the Postmaster General to delay the operation of the Bill until he is in a position to achieve its objectives. He may need until the autumn to make Radio 247 into a really competitive programme. He may be able to bring it in sooner. In that case, he can bring this Bill into effect sooner. He may need even more time. In that case, under this Amendment, he can take it. He can also use the intervening time to look into the possibilities of commercial radio. If his new programme is unsuccessful, he will have to fall back on
724
that. I hold no brief for the pirates—I do not want to see them continue a day longer than necessary—but with this Amendment I am asking your Lordships to put flexibility into the Bill, and if the Postmaster General does not have this flexibility or, if, having got it, he does not make use of it, his aims, the aims of the European Agreement and the aims of this Bill are beaten before they start. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD SORENSEN: I do not intend to reply to the noble Lord's Amendment just now, but, for the purpose of hearing a Statement made, on behalf of the Government I beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

BRITISH FORCES ON THE CONTINENT
3.52 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"No, sir. The final round of Tripartite Talks was held in London on Thursday and Friday of last week and the principals have transmitted their proposals to their Governments. A Statement will be made to the House at the earliest opportunity and I would ask the right honourable gentleman to await it."
That is the end of the Statement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I most warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for that illuminating Statement. Could he give us any indication of what "the earliest opportunity" will be at which he will make a Statement? Will it be very soon, or soon, or fairly soon?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I must apologise that my Statement was not sufficiently illuminating. As to whether the Statement will be soon, fairly soon,

725
very soon, or a little later, I must ask the noble Lord to await the Statement, and then I shall have great pleasure in repeating it in this House.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord let us know whether it is likely to be before Whitsun?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not entirely my own master in this affair. I must await the Statement to which my right honourable friend has referred. I really cannot say whether the Statement will be made before Whitsun, but I should expect that it might be.

MARINE &c. BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) BILL
3.55 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope that the Government will carefully consider this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, because I think it merits much consideration and I would support it from this side of the House. After all, this is a non-Party matter. The noble Lord opposite has made a good case for postponing the Bill, and I hope that the Government will go into it rather more carefully before it becomes law. As the noble Lord has pointed out, the suppression of these radio pirates will leave a considerable void. I entirely agree with him when he says that Radio 247 will by no means fill that void.
The noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, said earlier that many members of the public seem to be under a misconception in thinking that the Government are trying to suppress popular radio. One knows that the Government have no such intention. But I would say to the Government that I think it would be as well if they were to consider more carefully what popular radio is. I suggest that if they took some time to listen to popular radio and then compared it with the kind of programmes put out by the B.B.C. they would see a marked difference. It is clear that popular radio appeals largely to the younger generation—as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, so rightly said, to nearly 20 million. The B.B.C. Light Programme or Radio 247 will by no means fill that void. As has been said,
726
it will be a so-called mixed programme. No doubt there will be some popular programmes. There will be "Palm Court", "Old Time Dancing", popular classics, Tchaikovsky—that sort of thing; and that is all people are going to get. The further alternative of local sound radio which the Government White Paper put forward, for operation under the auspices of the B.B.C., is to be supported by subventions from the local art gallery, the university, local bodies and so on. As I pointed out on Second Reading, that is a non-starter from the word "Go".
From all these points of view, I think that the Government should consider far more carefully what they are going to do to fill this void. May I give a comparison from a period before the war, when I was young and when many members of the Government were no doubt listening more to popular music than they do now? It is as if you forbade people to listen to Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington and put in their place Henry Hall. That is the kind of thing you are doing when you suppress the popular music programmes as transmitted by the pirates. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider this matter and will accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD STRANGE: In supporting the Amendment, I would say that when the noble Lord says it is popular he can see just how popular it is—that is, just now. I would say, as I said before, that this Bill is entirely unnecessary, and what is going to come in the fight ahead is entirely unnecessary. All the Government have to do is to fulfil their promise to the legal Manx Radio Station, to give them increased powers. The pirates agree, the Manx want it and the Government have already promised it. When they do that, the whole argument comes to an end. I hope to speak in another thrilling instalment on this subject if I get another chance.
3.59 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: Both the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, have referred to what has been described as a "void" left in listening time. This strikes a tragic note, as if the whole ten million people who would be listening have suddenly been jilted or are suffering a grievous loss. After all, what is it they

727
are losing? I understand it is likely that in the late summer this alternative service will be available. So, on the one hand, between the passing of the Bill and its coming into law, and, on the other hand, the availability of the new service, about six weeks will elapse. In that time we have to assume that, somehow or other, ten million young people, or those who think they are young, or who pretend they are young, or behave as if they are young, are going to feel a desolation in their hearts that they never felt before. I wonder how they got on before pirate ships started. Were they walking about the world miserable and dejected, in anticipation one day of the joy that would suddenly come to them to fill their lives and fill the void? Surely that is going a little too far.
Moreover, I would remind the noble Lord that on June 2, 1964, the then Postmaster General, Mr. Bevins, stated that the Government were very concerned at the pirate ships, and he went on to say that the Government therefore proposed to await the conclusion of the Convention and then to consider legislation on the lines proposed by that Convention. That meant that they themselves, although deeply concerned, as I am sure are all noble Lords in this House, about the advent of marine anarchy and piracy, nevertheless felt that they would have to wait a while before legislation could be proposed. In the event of the return of a Conservative Government at that time it was highly likely that they would have taken as long as the present Government have taken before actually introducing legislation. I would emphasise the fact that there were what was called "Radio Caroline"—a very ambiguous term, and I must confess that a great deal of this terminology transcends my own very, limited spirits—and others operating during the time of the Conservative Government. What the Labour Government did was to continue from where they left off; and in view of the very narrow majority of the Labour Government for some months, and also the pressure for much more urgent legislation, one can understand why we had to wait until some more general agreement or consensus of opinion existed, not only in this country but in other countries as well. Therefore I do not think the noble Lord is over-just in
728
chiding the Labour Government for delaying so long.
On the other hand, I would also ask again: what is the gap during which this dreadful, tragic void will exist among these alleged millions of listeners? It is a matter of some six or seven weeks. if there is a delay in the provision of this alternative service, or indeed if during this six, seven or eight weeks there is this terrible void, is he saying that we should connive at illegality? I cannot think that noble Lords, respecting as they do law and order, will justify taking that line. Members of this House, whether we are Members as Life Peers who have brought life to the House or whether as hereditary Peers, are conscious of the attempt constantly made to preserve the dignity of this House. Why? Because we want to preserve the dignity of law. if that be so, it seems to me, however regrettable it may be that there is this sad and lamentable gap during which the quantity of pabulum supplied to large numbers of people would not be available, nevertheless we must insist on respect for the law.
I am sure that many noble Lords here, including the noble Lord, Lord Denham, would agree with me that the intention of these pirates is not art altruistic one. They did not acquire these structures or ships and then broadcast for some noble, altruistic or patriotic purpose. That was not their intention at all. They are not concerned about freedom and liberty and such noble sentiments. They are concerned with profit, and therefore their motives are mercenary. Mercenary motives undoubtedly operate in the minds of all of us to a greater or less degree, but it seems to me to be their exclusive note.
Noble Lords might like to read some of the letters that have poured into this Assembly in the last few days. Some 500 letters have been addressed to noble Lords in this House, most of them in courteous language, protesting against the possibility of the suppression of the pirates. If noble Lords would care to read these, they can do so, and I will add a dozen addressed personally to me. The rest have been sent to your Lordships collectively. On that basis we could say we have had two apiece, and get through them that way. These letters are from a small fraction of the ten million who are supposed to listen. If, in spite of all

729
the attempts which have been made by interested parties who evoke a response from their listeners into sending letters to this House, only 500 in fact been received, it would seem to me evident that the great majority of listeners are not so concerned after all. Again, I would say, let them strengthen themselves with fortitude, for it is only a question of a few weeks.
Meanwhile, the point of the Bill is not so much concerned with commercial broadcasting; the simple point is whether we should connive at continued attempts unscrupulously to avoid the law. Again I would ask the Committee to appreciate that it is not only we ourselves as a nation or a Government who are concerned, but there are many other Governments, a dozen or more in all, which have intimated their sense of dismay that their own broadcasts are constantly being interfered with, that they cannot transmit as they would wish to do because of the interference, by design or otherwise, on the part of these illegal, unscrupulous piratical broadcasts. Surely, for the sake of international amity, for the sake of encouraging the development of International Law in this respect into something more comprehensive than it is, it is necessary that we ourselves should do something in this direction.
It may be that some of the forebodings of the noble Lord will be fulfilled and justified—I do not know; nor does he. His borebodings have been expressed, and it may be that these ingenious gentlemen will find loopholes. This is constantly the effort of those who are not over-scrupulous about the public weal, and no doubt they will do their best. But we will wait and see. Nevertheless, it is our hope that this Bill will go some way towards suppressing the pirates. Difficulties may arise. We can then take other steps, and it will encourage other nations which are waiting upon us to follow suit until we have much more comprehensive international regulations than is the case at present.
On the other hand, it may well be that there are points raised by the noble Lord which we have not considered as we should consider them. I hope most earnestly that he will not divide the Committee on this matter. If necessary, we will consider the matter yet again, though the Postmaster General has made
730
it very clear that he would take early action. He has been pressed to take early action. Nevertheless, if it is any comfort to the noble Lord and any inducement to him not to press this Amendment to a Division, I can assure him that the matter can be reconsidered between now and the next stage of the Bill, although I say in advance that this is not to commit the Government in any way whatever, but simply to assure him that we are most anxious that this Bill shall be supported by all Parties in the House. It is a matter of deep concern to ourselves and the whole world.
May I utter one final plea? We are all most anxious, whatever our own personal tastes may be, to give to any section of the public what it feels it wants, even if it does not need it. There are those, for instance, who are provided with opportunities for seeing all-in wrestling. I have watched it once or twice myself and have realised how strong is the atavistic tendency among a large section of our community. Nevertheless, all-in wrestling is there for those who like it. So there is no attempt to try to impose puritanical or other ideas on the rest of the community. But surely one has not all the time to be dictated to by the tastes of one small section of the community.
"Pop" music may be beneficial; it may be a nourishment to the soul as well as the mind to large numbers of people. But surely we are not going to be intimidated or dominated merely by that section, for they seem to put on one side all other matters. We are led to assume by some of the letters we have received that questions of war and peace, of social services, of education, are all of no concern and must stand aside when it is a matter of the provision of "pop" music. If we ever come to the stage where we have to be subjugated to the transient tastes of one section of the community, it will be a bad day for this country. But this is all by the way. I say again that I hope the noble Lord will not press the point. I give the assurance that it will be considered, but at the same time we can give no guarantee that we shall depart from the decision which we have already made.
4.10 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: Before we part with this Amendment, I feel compelled to say a few words after

731
the speech to which we have just listened. The noble Lord (and he and I have known each other for many years) attempted to dispose of the arguments of my noble friend, and of his noble friends behind him, in what I thought was a rather facetious manner. We had, of course, the usual bit about the profit motive—that we understand. But then, of course, we had another hit about this terrible void—
LORD SORENSEN: May I say, again, that I made no attack at all on the profit motive? I accepted that it is a factor which operates all our lives; and I said so quite deliberately.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: Noble Lords will remember what the noble Lord said. I think I can leave it at that. But he went on to say that there would be this terrible void left. He asked what these people did before these programmes existed, and said that they never felt a void. Let me put this to him. If somebody came along and said: "We are going to abolish television in this country", would he say, "I shouldn't mind, because before we had television we never knew what it was like"? It is exactly the same argument, and the minute one puts it one sees that it is quite absurd.
I do not want to detain your Lordships. The noble Lord says that the matter will be considered again between now and Report stage. I have no doubt that it will be; but after listening to the case that he put up and hearing what he himself evidently feels, I have no great hopes that the Government will change their minds. From the speech to which we have just listened it seems to be pretty obvious that the Government have made up their minds about this matter. Therefore I would urge my noble friend to press this Amendment to a Division now. In view of the opinions which have been expressed and, as I say, the manner in which the Government's decision was defended, I feel that we should have a decision on this matter. Speaking purely as a Party politician, I would almost say, "Let the Bill go through", but I think we must consider it on rather different motives from that.
LORD CARRINGTON: May I just say one word? In exactly like manner to my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury,
732
I should not have dreamed of intervening but for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, which, if I may say so without causing offence, was one of the most superior things I have ever heard in my life. It was just that, "The man on the Government Front Bench knows best".
I rise only to ask two questions. First, the noble Lord seemed to me to base his entire case on the fact that there was to be a gap of only a few weeks; and he said that everybody must be brave and gird up his loins and not worry too much, because in a few weeks it would be all right. All my noble friend is asking is that the date when the Bill comes into operation should be postponed for a few weeks. if the gap is to be for only a few weeks what is wrong with postponing it? We have had this position for some time, and the Government have put up with it for two and a half years or more. What is so important about a few weeks? The other point is that the noble Lord said he would take back the Amendment and reconsider it. He made no commitment, and we understand that he cannot make any commitment. So what exactly is the value of that offer? The noble Lord has heard my noble friend's arguments—he heard them on Second Reading—and presumably both he and his advisers and other Ministers in the Government have considered them. Does he really mean that he has been so impressed by the additional things my noble friend has said to-day that he is going to tell his right honourable friend that he feels the matter should be considered again; or is that just an empty phrase in order to avoid a Division?
LORD SORENSEN: There are two points I should like to make. First of all, I ask the noble Lord to absolve me from any sense of superiority in this matter. I am no more superior in this matter than any noble Lords who desire to support this Bill in purpose. If they are supporting this Bill in purpose, then they are as anxious as I am to suppress the pirates; and therefore to that extent they are superior, and at least as superior as I am. I appreciate—and I have said so more than once—that there are a variety of tastes in the public mind. One recognises that. The last thing I want to do is to try to impose my taste on others. The issue which I put again to the noble

733
Lord, Lord Carrington, is that either we connive at the continuation of what is admitted to be an illegality, or we take some action. Does the noble Lord really wish, as a Member of this House, to connive at the continuation of an illegality for some six weeks? Perhaps he would consider that, as much as I said I would reconsider the points which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, raised.
Secondly, I said that we would think over this matter again, simply because I am most anxious that we should respect all points of view in this House. I have said that I can give no guarantee; nor can I. I am but the representative of the Postmaster General in a very minor capacity. It is not within my capacity to say that I can guarantee this, that or the other. All I can say on my own responsibility is that I will get this matter considered. I can give no guarantee, and my desire is simply to show a willingness to consider so far as we can everything that is said in this House, so that from all quarters we can wholeheartedly support the intention of this Bill. That is my only intention. In those circumstances, noble Lords must decide to do what they think best, and we must do the same.
LORD CONESFORD: I am very much puzzled by all this, because I am so out of it all and so unbelievably "square" that of the 500 letters that have come to Members of the House I have not received one. I have never heard any of these programmes and know little about the subject, but I have looked at the Amendment. That is the only matter on which I am at all competent to speak. The Amendment, whether it is good or bad, does only one thing: it gives an additional power to Her Majesty's Government. That is all it does. If we do not have the Amendment, the Act will in any event not come into operation for one month. The Amendment says that after that it will come into operation whenever the Government decide to advise Her Majesty to make an Order in Council. Whatever your Lordships may think about it, the Government ought not to be so terrified at having an additional power. I really cannot understand it. I do not feel any enormous enthusiasm for the Amendment, but how anybody can feel any enthusiasm against the Amendment passes my understanding.
LORD DENHAM: I should like to thank my noble friends, and other noble Lords, who have supported me on this Amendment—even those who have supported me half-heartedly. My noble friends who have agreed with me have suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, made a very bad case against the Amendment. I agree with them. He has made an extremely bad case against it, but in saying that I hope he will take it for the compliment that is implied, because to have made any sort of case against this Amendment is extremely clever. The Government have no case against it.
The noble Lord talked at great length about "pop". He does not like "pop". Well, he may not, but quite a number of people do. He may think that people should be able to wait for the Government's substitute. We think that the effectiveness of this Bill should wait. But what the noble Lord has not begun to explain to the Committee, and what I think they ought to know, is why there has been no hurry at all for over two years for this legislation to be put on the Statute Book, yet there is now this desperate rush so that it cannot possibly wait even a few more weeks.
The noble Lord spoke of the dignity of the law, and he thinks that by leaving the Bill as it is we will support the dignity of the law. If you are making a law that is easily evadable, purely by the timing of the Bill which brings it in, is it more dignified to support the Bill as it is and not achieve the object, or to support my Amendment and strengthen the law, and give the Postmaster General a chance of achieving the object of the Bill. I am afraid that I cannot withdraw this Amendment, and I must ask your Lordships to support me in the Lobby.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to reconsider this. It was not so apparent to the Government what the object of this Amendment was going to be. The noble Lord made a long speech—not, of course, a minute too long, but a long, carefully prepared, written speech. It is not unreasonable, I should have thought—particularly when, as I say, the Amendment is not of itself self-explanatory—that the Government should have an opportunity of considering what the noble Lord has said.
LORD DENHAM: I had rather hoped that Her Majesty's Government might have taken some account of my Second Reading speech, in which I explained the kind of Amendment that I was intending to move. Her Majesty's Government have had (I am not quite sure what it is) ten days, possibly, to consider the form of the Amendment I was going to move. Admittedly I have put it down in a slightly different form of words. I have made it subject to an Order in Council rather than to an order of the Postmaster General, because I understood that the Postmaster General's jurisdiction was rather more limited than the jurisdiction of the Bill, and I was therefore advised
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SORENSEN: Your Lordships have just carried an Amendment to this
to word the Amendment in this way. But I cannot see why, if Her Majesty's Government are now going to consider my Amendment, they could not have been considering it all this time. What disadvantage is it going to be to them it they take the opinion of the Committee now to help them to make up their minds on whether this Amendment is a good one?
4.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 12) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Effingham, E.

Lovat, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Albemarle, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Arran, E.

Falkland, V.

Mersey, V.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Milverton, L.

Audley, Bs.

Glasgow, E.

Monsell, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Blackford, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Reay, L.

Carrington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redesdale, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hacking, L.

St. Helens, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Hereford, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sinha, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strange, L.

Daventry, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ilford, L.

Teynham, L.

Derwent, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thurlow, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Ironside, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Vivian, L.

Dudley, L.

Jessel, L.

Willingdon, M.

Ebbisham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Popplewell. L.

Airedale, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Hilton of Upton. L. [Teller.]

Rowley, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Hunt, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick. L.

Latham, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Brockway, L.

Listowel, E.

Sorensen, L.

Brown, L.

Longford. E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stocks, Bs.

Burden, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Chalfont, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strang, L.

Champion, L.

Moyle, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L

Chorley, L.

Peddie, L.

Walston, L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Williamson, L.

Crook, L.

Piercy, L.

clause. So that there shall be no dubiety in the minds of those who are operating pirate radio stations, I think it is right to inform your Lordships' Committee, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that it will be their intention, if the Bill

737
is enacted in this form, to advise Her Majesty to make an Order bringing the Act into operation on the day after the expiry of one month from the date on which the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
LORD DENHAM: I think this really is treating the Committee with contempt. Her Majesty's Government offered to go away and consider my speech. The fact that they have now said this shows that they had no intention whatsoever of carrying out that undertaking. I have never heard anything so—what is the Parliamentary expression for it? Words fail me.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): I am glad that words have failed the noble Lord, because he was clearly talking in a very wild fashion. My noble friend Lord Sorensen made a most conciliatory offer—and what did the noble Lords do? They began accusing him of being superior. They turned down the most conciliatory offer he could possibly make; and, now that they have forced an issue, the Government are making it plain that they do not intend to delay longer than is necessary. That is their decision. May I just say that I hope the noble Lord will not use the word "contempt" just because he happens to find that he has not succeeded in being quite so clever as he thought he was going to be.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Shame!
LORD DERWENT: Unfortunately, my noble Leader was not in the House. I am sure that the noble Earl the Leader of the House when he thinks it over, will regret almost every word that he has just spoken.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I just say that noble Lords cannot throw words like contempt" about without being treated quite roughly in return.
LORD DERWENT: But usually, in this House, with good manners.
LORD AIREDALE: Will the noble Earl the Leader of the House, when we return to this Bill at the next stage, make a carefully prepared statement to the House explaining just why it was that the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, felt able to advise the Committee that there was a possibility of this Amendment being accepted, in view of what the noble Lord
738
said just now about the coming into force of the Bill?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I will certainly consider anything which falls from any noble Lord in this House, but I should not like noble Lords to imagine that the Government are going to alter their attitude.
Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.

ANTARCTIC TREATY BILL
4.33 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH:My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have been invited to pilot the Antarctic Treaty Bill through this House following its passage without amendment in another place. I should like to pay a personal tribute to Sir Clive Bossom who has so skilfully carried this Bill through to its present stage. I have been informed that the last occasion a Bill was sponsored from the Episcopal Benches in your Lordships' House was in 1927. The title of that Bill was the Liquor (Popular Control) Bill. This Bill is of a rather different character, and I hope that it will be more successful than the one to which I have alluded.
My own interest in the Antarctic Treaty Bill arises from having had the opportunity to live and travel in the Antarctic through three summers and two winters as a member of the British Graham's Land Expedition of 1934 to 1937, under the leadership of Mr. John Rymill. Subsequently, in the years immediately after the war, as Director of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, I was in touch with a number of expeditions engaged in Antarctic exploration and research which have steadily increased our knowledge of this remote and magnificent continent. I should therefore, in that sense, declare an interest and I hope it will not be thought inappropriate to sponsor from these Benches legislation which is designed to enable international co-operation in scientific discovery for peaceful purposes and to protect wild life.

739
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is back from Aden and has his name down to speak, not only by reason of his father's notable contribution to Antarctic discovery but also by reason of his own experience and his own part in Polar exploration in the Arctic. There is great interest in this subject, and the list of speakers ensures that the Bill will be considered from the governmental, legal, scientific, conservationist and world Government point of view. I am grateful to those who will contribute to our consideration of this Bill from these various points of view.
The main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to measures for the conservation of Antarctic flora and fauna upon which all the Antarctic Treaty Governments— twelve in number—agreed at a Consultative Meeting held in Brussels in 1964. So far, four other Governments have approved these measures: Argentina, Norway, South Africa and the Soviet Union. If this Bill is passed, and so gives effect to these measures for the United Kingdom, it is to be hoped that the remaining signatory nations will soon follow suit. When that happens, the wild life of the whole Antarctic continent will be subject to a set of principles and rules which embody the most advanced thinking in conservation.
Before considering the terms of the Bill I think it may be helpful if I say something of the background which led, in the first place, to the Antarctic Treaty signed on December 1, 1959, and then to the Bill now under consideration. When I was in the Antarctic thirty years ago, I was combining geological and glaciological work and the role of chaplain. My parish might have been said to cover 5½ million square miles. At all events, we were the only human beings on the continent—sixteen men for the first fifteen months, and (after our sailing ship left for a refit) nine men in the last year. Now, thirty years later, the population has grown and there are thirty-one permanent stations operated by ten nations within the Treaty Area. The number of men involved has risen to more than 3,000 during the Antarctic summer, with a winter population of about 700.
740
There have been several reasons for this increased activity in Antarctica. During the war, and for a number of years after, it looked as if the Antarctic might become a source of serious international conflict. Before the war five nations, Australia, Britain, France, New Zealand and Norway, had each made mutually recognised territorial claims to sectors of the continent. During the war Argentina and Chile had also laid claims to sectors which overlapped, not only with each other, but also with that claimed by Britain. None of these territorial claims was recognised in the United States or by the Soviet Union. Both these countries had become actively interested in the Antarctic and wanted a new deal. The form in which claims were made, and the protests of infringements of alleged rights were registered, reflected inter-governmental friction of quite a serious kind, though in the Antarctic itself they sometimes had a somewhat Gilbertian character: a formal protest could soon be followed by drinks all round.
Despite these mounting political problems, my Lords—and perhaps to some extent because of them—exploration and research were going on. This country has throughout taken an active part, notably in the work of the Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey, now known as the British Antarctic Survey, and in that remarkable journey across the continent led by Sir Vivian Fuchs. But one expedition was significant for its international character with aims which were purely scientific, the Norwegian-British-Swedish Antarctic Expedition to Queen Maud Land of 1949–52, which was inspired by the Swedish glaciologist, Professor Hans Ahlmann.
Leading scientists throughout the world were coming to realise that the Antarctic held the key to many scientific problems, some of them of global magnitude. This was specially true in the field of geophysics, and a large and important part of the programme of the International Geophysical Year, in which no fewer than 66 nations were involved, took place at a number of stations in the Antarctic in 1957–58. This operation, the International Geophysical Year, undoubtedly gave an impetus to the view that nations could do so much more in scientific

741
research if they co-operated; and in particular it prepared the ground for the Antarctic Treaty signed by all the twelve nations which had particular Antarctic interests in 1959. The preamble to this Treaty says that:
"It is in the interests of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue for ever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes."
The second Article of the Treaty, which your Lordships will find imprinted as Schedule 1 to the Bill, ensures that the whole continent shall be free for scientific investigation without regard to nationality.
Since that Treaty has come into force steady progress has been made on both political and scientific matters of common interest to the nations concerned. One of the most urgent of these questions is, of course, that of wild-life conservation. Your Lordships will be familiar with Alan Moorhead's recent book, Fatal Impact, with its dramatic description of what followed in the years after the voyages in the Pacific and in the Southern Seas of that great and humane English explorer, Captain James Cook. On the Antarctic seals Cook had said they were:
"all so tame or rather so stupid as to suffer us to come so near as to knock them down with a stick."
Within sixty years there was carnage on these seal beaches, with hundreds of sealing vessels involved; and in one season two vessels with 60 men on board demolished 45,000 fur seals. My Lords, that sort of thing could happen again. The Antarctic may not long be immune from the ravages of commercial exploitation, and this Bill offers an opportunity of legislating to control the otherwise inevitable and possibly devastating pressures which will be brought to bear on Antarctic life before they occur. I am convinced that we are wise to anticipate these dangers by introducing this legislation now.
The Antarctic is the least spolt continent in the world. The limited but increasing amount of human activity in the Antarctic could, if not regulated, all too easily upset the balance of Nature, because many species are susceptible to extermination. Furthermore, various of the species congregate for breeding, sometimes in vast numbers, which means that they would be especially vulnerable to
742
introduced parasites and diseases. Many of the species of seal and all the species of penguin do not recognise man as a potential enemy. They are so utterly trusting that they lay themselves open to wilful exploitation. For instance, the Adélie penguin, one of the species which breeds further South, is an inquisitive bird. It does not run away from you: it follows you around.
I can recall, my Lords, a day when I was geologising on a small island below high-tide mark, which was the only place where the rocks were exposed, when I became aware that I was being observed. I looked up and there were 60 or 70 Adélie penguins peering over the ice foot. I spent the day hammering the rocks, and every time I looked up there were my "faithful flock". Their curiosity was constant but evidently unsatisfied. Not only are the birds themselves vulnerable by virtue of their tameness, but they lay their eggs in exposed positions. The same is true of the petrels, the skuas, the terns, and many of their eggs make quite delicious eating. It is not fanciful to imagine the time when these could be put on the market, either as rarities or as delicacies. The main purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to give protection to these creatures.
Clause 1 sets out the heart of the matter in that it prohibits without a permit the killing, injuring, molesting or taking of native birds or mammals. This provision is designed primarily for the protection of the six species of seal—crabeaters, Weddells, the leopard seal, the Ross seal, the elephant seal and the fur seal; and four species of penguin, the emperor, the Adélie, chinstrap and Gentoo, as well as ten species of birds which fly and which nest in the Antarctic, particularly the shags, petrels, gulls, terns and skuas. Similarly, it prohibits the gathering of any native plant within a special protected area or driving any vehicle in any such area.
The Secretary of State would be able to issue permits under Clause 3 to allow animals and birds to be taken so as to provide specimens for scientific research, for zoos and for museums, as well as to provide food for men and dogs where necessary. He would also have authority to delegate his powers over the issue of permits to the Director of the British Antarctic Survey and also to the leaders

743
of British Antarctic survey stations, and of other British expeditions. The British Antarctic Survey, known formerly as the Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey, has been working in the Antarctic for 23 years. In that time it has undertaken a wide and substantial programme of scientific research including biology, and one of their stations, Signy Island, in the South Orkneys, is equipped with a first-class biological laboratory where some twenty scientific projects are being worked on. As part of the survey policy of linking their work with interested departments in the Universities, the writing up of this biological work is carried out by a special unit in Queen Mary College at London University. There are similar units for geology at Birmingham University, for geophysics in Edinburgh University, and for glaciology in the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge.
A month ago the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced in another place in answer to a question that ministerial responsibility for the British Antarctic Survey had been moved from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I feel that it is a wise decision to consider the scientific work we do in the Antarctic in the context of the civil scientific effort of the country as a whole. This move also bears testimony to the way in which the Survey has developed under the experienced leadership of Sir Vivian Fuchs, and I should like to pay tribute to him and to the staff of the Survey, both past and present, for the outstanding results they have achieved.
The Bill provides in Clause 7 for Orders in Council being made to designate specially protected species and specially protected areas. The first lists of such species and areas as are now to be designated are given in Annexes A and B. These Annexes were recommended by the fourth consultative meeting representing the Treaty Governments, held in Santiago last November, on the advice of the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research. Annexe A lists two species as specially protected, both of them seals—the fur seal and the Ross seal. Annex B gives 15 specially protected areas on the continent and off-lying islands.
744
The reasons why these areas are so designated are of some interest. In two cases it is a question of protecting unique plant communities, for as your Lordships will be aware there is relatively little plant life in the whole of the Antarctic—there are a few species of grasses, mosses and lichens, and what there is is for the most part near the coast or on islands, the greater part of the continent being covered by permanent snow and ice. One area is designated to protect an Emperor penguin colony, two more because they are breeding centres of the fur seal, and three others to protect representative habitats for scientific study.
One important power is also provided with a view to making the protection of certain species effective; namely, the power to extend their protection to the whole area, including the high seas south of the Sixtieth Parallel of latitude. I refer to Clause 7(3). This is a necessary safeguard to protect species like the crab-eater seal, which breeds on the pack ice far from the shore, and which is extremely tame. I ought to make it clear, however, that the agreed measures referred to in this Bill do not include whales, and this deliberately, because whales are the subject of separate international agreements between a different group of nations from those involved in the Antarctic Treaty.
I should draw attention—and this I will do briefly—to one further purpose of this Bill; that is, to give effect to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article VIII of the Treaty by making British observers and exchange scientists subject to United Kingdom law and jurisdiction. The Treaty provides the right for any of the signatory nations to appoint observers to inspect the Antarctic stations of other Treaty Governments. This, of course, is an important right. It is designed to ensure that the intentions of the Treaty on peaceful purposes, the prohibition of nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive waste are strictly complied with. Moreover, British scientists may be exchanged from time to time with foreign scientists. Supposing a British observer commits an offence at, say, a French Antarctic station, he would be immune from French jurisdiction under the Treaty but when he returned home he could be prosecuted under our law for the offence by this clause. I am sure

745
that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who I am delighted to see is going to take part in this debate, will refer to this aspect of the Bill; so I will say no more about it.
I hope that from what I have said your Lordships will appreciate the need for this Bill. I can well remember the arguments we had in the Antarctic about whether the fur seal would ever recover from the slaughter of the nineteenth century, and I am glad to be in the position of sponsoring a Bill in your Lordships' House designed to ensure, with the support of similar measures on the part of other signatories of the Antarctic Treaty, that the fur seal will never again be subject to near-extermination.
Perhaps this Bill may have some interest by reason of the fascination—and it is a very real one—which the Antarctic Continent by its very nature exercises over people's minds. But apart from this, and more particularly, the Bill arises from a notable and growing collaboration between explorers and scientists of many nations, whose partnership is being fostered, and indeed enabled, by the first significant Treaty between the East and West since the end of the Second World War—namely, the Antarctic Treaty. This in itself is an encouraging step in international relations. And now, pursuant to this Treaty, this Bill, if it is approved by your Lordships, will constitute one further practical step in our share of the responsibility for the proper safeguarding of the natural life and resources in Antarctica. I feel sure that the basic objectives of the Bill will commend themselves to your Lordships, and I hope that, after due debate, the Bill may be given a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
4.57 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLET0N): My Lords, it is a very great satisfaction to me that I should have returned to this country to be able to welcome this Bill on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. It is nearly twenty years since I first started, with friends, to advocate the importance of bringing the Antarctic under some form of international control. I should have liked control to be extended to international
746
sovereignty, if that does not seem to be too much of a contradiction in terms. In those days, those who objected to such a course raised a number of arguments, including the argument that it was liable to involve the Soviet Union in a part of the world where at that time they had no presence.
It was inevitable that all the major countries should take an interest in the Antarctic, and so far from being a source of friction, as the right reverend Prelate made clear, it has been the occasion for satisfactory and encouraging collaboration. The right reverend Prelate is himself a distinguished geologist, who has explored both in the Antarctic and the Arctic. As Director of the Scott Polar Research Institute for many years, he has as great a knowledge as anybody in the world of this subject. The Scott Polar Research Institute is possibly the greatest centre in the world for Polar studies and it has made a striking contribution to the happy state to which we have now come. Not so many years ago—indeed, it may have been when the right reverend Prelate was in the Antarctic—shots were actually exchanged in anger, and in those days conflicts on the sovereignty of the Antarctic, particularly between Argentina and Chile, seriously threatened international good relations. It is striking to-day that the issue of sovereignty has literally been put into cold storage, under the Antarctic Treaty, That Treaty is already in force, but this Bill gives effect to certain agreements made under the Treaty, and therefore is very welcome.
I am afraid that I shall not be able to stay for the whole of this debate, but there are two or three points to which I should like to draw attention and which might be of concern to your Lordships. Your Lordships will have noticed that under Clause 2,
"it shall be a defence to prove that the act in question" —
that is, the taking of an animal—
"was done or attempted in a case of extreme emergency involving possible loss of human life …"
This is a somewhat tight requirement, although it can well be got round by unscrupulous people. I remember when in the Antarctic the musk ox was protected—a very mild and rare animal which had never been known to attack a human being, but also a very edible animal—and there was an extraordinary outbreak of

747
ferocity on the part of the musk ox and a number were killed in "self-defence". But the requirements and the obligations under this Bill are so strict that I do not anticipate any evasion of the Act for this purpose.
I would therefore draw particular attention to subsection (6) of Clause 3 which requires that anybody who exercises under a permit the right to take animals should provide a report to the Secretary of State. This means that we shall know the extent to which the collectors and anyone else exercise rights under their permits for scientific purposes, and it will ensure that this is not abused. I am sure, in fact, that it will not be abused.
The other point—and here I embark with some anxiety on Clause 5 in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce—is the application of the criminal law to observers and exchange scientists. On the last occasion when we debated the Antarctic I remember that I had an exchange on a point of international law with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, as to which I subsequently found, having been rather dashed, that I was right and he was wrong. The point, as I understand it—and it will be interesting to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce on this subject—is that part of British municipal law does apply to British nationals within that area of the Antarctic where we have legislation under British Antarctic legislation. This refers, in particular, to what used to be called the Falkland Islands Dependency (I am not sure if it is still called that), which covers an area of the Antarctic over which we claim to exercise sovereignty. The position of sovereignty of countries who made claims in these areas is at the moment frozen. We keep our claims, and we do not seek to pursue them. There is no doubt that the appropriate law applies to British subjects in these "British" areas. But outside, and particularly in an area where there is possibly no jurisdiction at all, it is arguable whether there are not offences that could be permitted. I understand that for the offence of murder you can he brought hack and tried in this country as if the murder had been committed here. I am sorry to say that I cannot remember whether it is rape or bigamy—
LORD WILBERFORCE: Bigamy.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is bigamy, which can be safely committed in certain areas of the Antarctic. But this clause will ensure that this will not be possible, at least if you are an observer or an exchange scientist, because British criminal law will still apply.
To turn to a serious point, it is important that jurisdiction should be established; and, in a sense, it provides a certain protection for British exchange scientists and observers similar to that provided, for instance, under the visiting forces arrangements. This Bill therefore contains matters of real substance, and it is one which I am sure will be welcomed by noble Lords, both for its purpose of preserving wild life and, furthermore, as an indication of satisfactory international co-operation in this area, which certainly bodes well for similar cooperation in other areas, possibly not on the earth's surface. Therefore the Government are happy to welcome the Bill, and I congratulate the right reverend Prelate for the very knowledgeable—as one would expect—and pleasant way in which he introduced it.
5.6 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his clear explanation of what this Bill does. I am particularly grateful, because it means that my remarks need not be long. I am certain that all your Lordships and, one might say, almost all civilised people will welcome the purpose of this Bill. It is really quite an occasion to-day. We have the right reverend Prelate, who is an expert on Antarctica, who introduced the Bill, and we have just listened to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is not only an explorer himself but the son of (I do not say this in any derogatory sense) an even more famous explorer. It is not often, even in your Lordships' House, that we have a Bill of this kind spoken to by two such experts. I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, these days rather wishes he was in the Antarctic instead of where he is apt to be: at any rate, it would be cooler.
It has always seemed to me that man has behaved in a particularly revolting way in the Antarctic as regards animal life and fauna. It was, as the right

749
reverend Prelate said, virtually an uninhabited area, unlike the Arctic, where many parts of the region have always been inhabited. Man has done his best, or his worst, to destroy some species of animals. As a rule, he has had some sort of excuse: either that the wild animals were interfering with cultivation which he needed for his own living, or, if he was going to raise cattle, the wild animals were a danger to the cattle. But there has been no excuse for the massacres that have occurred in the Antarctic. One reason was to get rich quick. But, as usually happens, even without this Treaty, this is not now a very satisfactory method of gaining one's livelihood in the Antarctic, because these people have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs—not entirely, but they were on their way to doing so. What makes it even worse is that, so far as man is concerned, those wild animals are such harmless animals. The human race has behaved very badly in that area.
But things have got better in recent years, partly because certain species have become rarer, but also because the nations have started to get together. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, there is an urgency about this Bill and this Treaty, because civilisation, although slowly, is starting to move into the area and civilisation, just by being there, could, unless care was taken, do almost as much damage as, for instance, the sealers hunting the fur seals. So this is a most important Bill and Treaty. It is an important Treaty, too, because countries which, in theory, have been enemies, have decided not to seek sovereignty but to work together. So, my Lords, I am going to ask the noble Baroness who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government only one or two questions to which I should like an answer, and I know that your Lordships will support the Bill. I am a little surprised, I must say, to see only one member of the Liberal Party on the Liberal Benches, because in reading the Treaty I noticed that one of the Protected Areas was the Byers Peninsula. However, perhaps that slipped their notice.
The questions I want to ask the noble Baroness are simply these. The right reverend Prelate said, I think, that four other nations have passed legislation. Can the noble Baroness tell us the stage the other signatories have reached in their
750
legislation? Secondly, are the penalties under the legislation of the other countries which have so far passed legislation equivalent to the kind of penalties that our nationals will suffer if they misbehave? I think there is a feeling that they should be at any rate more or less as rigorous, although they need not be the same. My final question is this. Is anything being done, either at the United Nations or as between countries separately, to persuade other nations which are not signatories to this Treaty to join the Treaty and to sign it in the near future? I know that the countries which signed were those which are at present involved in the Antarctic, but there are one or two quite major countries which are not signatories, and which have not so far been very much involved. They might, however, well be if the seal population, for instance, increases very rapidly owing to the protective methods we are now taking. Further damage to the breeding of seals, and so on, might be caused in the future. Subject to those questions, I hope that your Lordships will support this Bill and give it a Second Reading.
5.12 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I am very happy to add a few words in support of this Bill from the legal angle, in order to emphasise, if I may, the very great interest which lawyers generally, and international lawyers in particular, have in this type of legislation and in this subject. Conservation is not of course a new problem, in any sense. It arises from the fact—it is a legal fact of life, if you like—that the high seas are considered free. All those things that are in the high seas or in the air or on icebound continents are what the law calls res communis; anybody may take them. But, even so, these things are not inexhaustible, and if not protected they are exposed to what the noble Lord has just described as the predatory instincts of man. So we have had a long series of treaties, conventions, and agreements, starting from the North Seas Fisheries Convention of 1882 and going down to the Geneva Convention on Fisheries and Conservation in 1958, and dealing with such varied subjects as fur seals, halibut, sockeye salmon and, of course, whales. So the problem is also very much in the thoughts of international lawyers.

751
It is interesting to notice the progress which is marked by this particular Agreement in our scale of values. Let us take the Geneva Convention of 1958—only nine years ago. That defines "service" as:
"an aggregate of the measures rendering possible the optimum sustainable yield from those resources so as to secure a maximum supply of food and other marine products".
It goes on to refer to the necessity for securing in the first place a supply of food for human consumption. It is interesting to compare with that what one finds in the Agreed Measures in Article VI (which appears in Schedule 2 to the Bill), which says:
"Such permits shall be drawn in terms… only for the following purposes:
(a) to provide indispensable food for men or dogs in the Treaty Area in limited quantities…".
Then it goes on to refer to scientific study and cultural purposes, and later on, in paragraph 4, it talks about maintaining:
"the balance of the natural ecological systems existing within the Treaty Area"
and the necessity of maintaining them; and in Article VIII:
"in order to preserve their unique natural ecological system."
So this Agreement does mark by way of progress, from the rather materialistic considerations of the Geneva Convention, a realisation that ecological values must rank with, or perhaps even above, material values of food and industry—a realisation which one could sometimes wish was present nearer home than the Antarctic.
The right reverend Prelate, in introducing the Bill, referred to the collaboration which this shows between explorers and scientists. I should like to add that it marks also collaboration between law and science in our producing a more civilised world. Lawyers all over the world are doing a great deal of work in these outlying marginal fields, such as the depths of the sea or the environment of man and the atmosphere, and other parts which are not subject to sovereignty of nations, and, of course, progressively in relation to outer space, in order to regulate these areas and bring them within what is a reasonable control.
I think it would be appropriate to recognise in that connection the work of
752
international bodies like the International Law Commission and the International Law Association, and, in this country, the British Institute of International Law and the David Davis Foundation, which have done a great deal of seminar work and propaganda work in getting lawyers interested in this type of subject. That has had the result, which is a happy one, that this country is taking the lead in giving legal effect to this particular type of measure and in giving effect to these treaty obligations.
I was asked to say something about the jurisdictional aspect, but there is not a great deal that it is necessary to say, because, as one would expect, the right reverend Prelate got the matter completely right in what he said. The Bill proceeds on the perfectly sound basis of founding jurisdiction on nationality. We find that in Clause 1 of the Bill. Then there are the provisions to which the right reverend Prelate referred for bringing observers under the jurisdiction of the State to which they belong.
There are some interesting provisions, if noble Lords want to pursue this aspect of the matter, in the Treaty itself. It seems to me very well designed, because there are always problems of jurisdiction where one is dealing with persons who are outside national territory—people in aircraft, people in spacecraft, and so on—and it is not always easy to see how they should he brought within the jurisdiction of States. But if one looks at Article VIII of the Treaty, one sees that, first of all, that sets the principle of nationality: that the observers and staff are brought under the jurisdiction of the State to which they belong. Then, recognising that there may be certain gaps or difficulties, it says that the Contracting Parties are to consult together with a view to reaching acceptable solutions before an arrangement has been made under Article IX. Article IX 1(e) puts Contracting Parties under the obligation to consult together in order to concert measures to deal with:
"questions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction in Antarctica".
So one has this position. The basic principle is nationality. There may be difficulties or gaps or overlaps, but there is a flexible system which the Treaty Parties are under an obligation to operate: to consult together and to agree either a general measure or ad hoc measures in

753
order to produce an ordered state of affairs.
As regards the crime situation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred, I am afraid that on account of a premature intervention on my part he got the crimes the wrong way round. For "bigamy" he should have said "rape", and for "rape" he should have said "bigamy". However, I do not think that will give rise to any great difficulty. Legally, if I may say so, the Bill seems to be well constructed and to provide an adequate and practical measure of enforcement, and it only remains for me generally, and not only as a lawyer but as one greatly sympathetic to these objectives, to add my voice in hearty support of the Bill.
5.21 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words in support of this Bill. A few hours ago I was in some doubt as to whether I should be able to do so, as I was waiting on what seemed to be the coldest station platform in England. It seemed at any rate appropriate that I should be anticipating speaking on the Antarctic Treaty Bill, but with the passage of time I began to doubt whether I should be here to take part in the debate at all. However, eventually the train arrived, and it was only an hour and a half late. Therefore I am here in time to listen to, and to take part in, the debate but unfortunately—and I very much regret it—I was unable to hear the right reverend Prelate make his opening speech. I shall therefore be brief.
Last week I was speaking on the subject of international collaboration in a rather different context. This is most certainly a good example of international co-operation. I think we have reason to be thankful that the Antarctic is not—and I hope never will be—a battle ground for power politics. It seems fitting that there should be co-operation in the realm of scientific research and the preservation of the flora and fauna of the Antarctic. I welcome the Bill, and I also welcome the preamble to the Treaty, which reads:
"It is in the interests of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue for ever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord."
I think it is not original on my part to say that I hope that will prove to be a
754
precedent for the international control of the peaceful exploration and use of outer space. Certainly this Bill is a step in the right direction, and there are only two questions I wish to ask.
One question has already been raised; namely, how do we bind other countries in the future who are not parties to the Treaty? And, a slightly different question, how do we deal with a possible dispute between a signatory and nations which are not signatories to the Treaty? It may be that there is an answer in the Bill, but I have not found it. I wish this Bill well, I hope it will have a speedy passage, and I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on introducing it.
5.24 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I think it is a matter for congratulation in this House that when we find ourselves debating what can be regarded as rather a remote subject, we have a Bill introduced, welcomed and replied to on behalf of the Government by two of the most distinguished Polar explorers in this country. I, too, welcome the road that Britain has taken—the interesting innovation that science seems to bring nations together more easily than politics. The four countries which have already taken administrative action in this matter were mentioned by the right reverend Prelate—Russia, South Africa, Norway and the Argentine. They are not four countries one would ever get together in any political lobby at any moment in the foreseeable future.
In welcoming this Bill I should like to say a few brief words in regard to some confusion which may exist, not in your Lordships' House, but in the public mind, as between the Arctic, where I have spent some of the happiest times of my life, and the Antarctic, where I have never had the opportunity to go as yet. For 300 years, since Henry Hudson discovered Hudson's Bay, this country has become reasonably familiar with people travelling to and from the Arctic, with the animals that live in the Arctic, and the men who live in the Arctic—in fact everything in the Arctic. There came an heroic age when Antarctic exploration started. It was only in the closing years of the last century that the Antarctic and what it contained was ever heard of in Britain. Therefore, to those who are inclined to mix up the

755
problems of the two, I will risk saying a brief word.
In the Arctic, man is part of the fauna. There he has always been. He is a predator—by far the most dangerous predator, because he is the craftiest. Because of that the fauna of the Arctic has a resilience to being hunted and killed which, so far as I can make out, the fauna of the Antarctic lacks entirely. Although there are certain animals which, while they are not tame in the sense of confiding, are extremely vulnerable, like the musk ox, the caribou and ptarmigan. Yet as a whole they have managed to live together, man and that which he hunts, for a good many centuries.
Then men came from outside with totally different weapons. The whalers came. Rather more than a century ago the harpoon gun was invented and fitted on to steam-driven whalers. By the end of the 1914–18 war the whales had virtually disappeared altogether. The hunters came and hunted the sea otter off Alaska, an animal with a tremendously valuable pelt which is extremely vulnerable because it cannot put to sea in a gale. The whales and the sea otters were virtually obliterated in the first half of this century.
Then the Eskimos managed to acquire rifles, instead of hunting with bows and arrows. Her Majesty the Queen has no more cheerful subjects than the Eskimo. I have spent some of the happiest hours of my life in Eskimo company, and I have travelled the best part of 3,000 miles with a dog team with one Eskimo in particular. I shall mention him in a moment. The Eskimo is a man who has one dimension less in his life than we have, in the sense that it is possible to say that time and space are the same thing with him. Utterly oblivious of the past, utterly indifferent to the future, always abundantly cheerful, what he is doing and where he is doing it is one and the same thing. He is therefore the worst conserver of wild life, because he never looks into the future at all. With the rifles the Eskimos managed to acquire they virtually annihilated the caribou and made tremendous inroads on the herds of walrus and herds of seals.
Now the Eskimo is ceasing to be a hunter. He is taking up a more sedentary form of life and, sure enough, with
756
the tremendous resilience that the Arctic fauna has, it is coming back. The Eskimo with whom I used to travel was in his thirties at the time—just before the war—and he told me that as a child the caribou used to come down beside the coast where he lived, and he used to shoot them with a bow and arrow from behind a rock. Twenty years later we had to go 200 miles to find one. Four years ago I was back in that part of the world and the caribou had ceased to be hunted. Their numbers had proliferated and they were back, almost as they had been in my friend's childhood.
I mention that to show the resilience which I believe is lacking in the Antarctic. The Antarctic is very little known. It has all been seen from the air, but that is a tremendous difference from being explored. People forget its enormous size—the size of the United States of America and Europe put together. It is an enormous mountainous mass—so mountainous that Chile based her claim to Antarctic territory on the proposition that the Antarctic is in fact a continuation of the Andes. It is a place with 90 per cent of the world's ice, but in spite of all that it manages to have a pretty rich and varied fauna. It is in a sense, as I understand it, an enclave, but not entirely so, because about half the 80 varieties of birds migrate, and the whales seek the northern and warmer waters from time to time. But to a great extent they are locked into the Antarctic and are, as the right reverend Prelate has said, absolutely tame and absolutely defenceless. Before the heroic age of Antarctic exploration no man went there; there were only one or two expeditions. Now, as the right reverend Prelate has said, in the Antarctic to-day the population of men is 700 at the least, and something around 3,000 at the most.
To shield the fauna from man's disruptive incursions is the purpose of the Bill which I think we can all support most warmly. I am told by a leading scientist that we have in fact made our presence felt ahead of us, in the sense that of the poison sprays and the like which are getting into the system of birds in this country, traces have been found in the birds in the Antarctic. We have a pretty considerable responsibility in this matter. The fauna of the Antarctic seem to have been a unique problem, in the

757
sense that they have their own particular continental characteristics.
One penguin, I was informed by a well known scientist, taken from its colony to a colony 3,000 or 4,000 miles away on the other side of the continent, managed to return in the course of one Antarctic winter to its original colony. So the fauna appear to have a curiously stratified society, about which as time goes on we shall know more. When we put into effect what is an international Treaty to do what every one of us would wish to do, there is little latitude for originality.
But this Bill is admirably drafted. The right reverend Prelate in introducing it, so skilfully and charmingly, said that this is probably the last unspoiled continent. Let us do the best we can to keep it so.
5.32 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I want to welcome this Bill and to thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing it, particularly in view of the authority which he brings to it himself, and to follow my noble friend Lord Shackleton and all he stands for in terms of his father. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, I am an Arctic man myself, but we are very broadminded, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, said, what has happened in the Arctic over the centuries is a reminder to us that at least in looking at the other frozen continent or area we should, in those terms and in the terms of this Bill, safeguard what is still intact.
This is an occasion for a fanfare of muted trumpets. It may seem a very modest Bill, certainly a very romantic Bill in the sense of the area we are dealing with; but I would suggest to your Lordships that this is in fact an historic Bill. It is an endorsement of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, and in its expression and embodiment into our law, and in the extension of your Lordships' jurisdiction to 60 degrees South, it represents a very big advance in the approach to the rule of law in global terms. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has stressed this. He stressed what I also would stress: beyond the co-operation of the scientists and explorers, the co-operation of the lawyers, the recognition that here, out of one of the greatest experiments of our time, which was in fact the International
758
Geophysical Year, in this fantastic cooperation of the scientists of the world, in every part of the world, and notably in the Antarctic, comes this Treaty, this combination of influence of the scientists, and through the scientists of the lawyers, on public opinion.
We now have something which is profoundly significant. It is not a renunciation of sovereignty. The Treaty very tactfully, if I may say so, and very successfully, avoids raising issues of sacrifice of sovereignty. The existence of the overlapping claims of Chile, Argentine and Britain in terms of the Falkland Islands or Graham's Land is quietly overlooked, and I think this is as it should be. In the working out of the Bill we are now discussing, in the application of that in the conservation of the continent itself, we shall get a working relationship which will override politics. It has been agreed under this Treaty that:
"No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty… or create any rights of sovereignty. No new claim, or enlargement …"
and so on. This is tremendously important because, as has been pointed out, there are real possibilities of very considerable substantial commercial exploitation of Antarctica.
I should say that the most imminent one—though not one that need necessarily give us serious concern—will certainly be the development of aviation. This is the grand circle route which is going very drastically to alter the flying routes of our planet. But over and above that—and I think many noble Lords will recognise it—the Antarctic Continent has in fact very substantial resources. The resources are still buried under perhaps 10,000 ft. of ice, but they are certainly exploitable. My noble friend Lord Shackleton's father in 1908 discovered coal seams 8 ft. thick at the top of the Beardmore Glacier. There have been more coal seams found in Antarctica, showing that this area was an area of tropical primæval forest.
I do not think any of us here, or any scientist, seriously thinks that in fact the world has tipped or that the equator was once at the South Pole. What it does mean is that the continent itself has moved. I think those who follow the present discussions on the Wegener

759
theory on continental drift, which is now being very substantially borne out by scientific evidence, will recognise that what we are considering to-day is even more romantic than the right reverend Prelate has put it—the lost Continent of Gondwanaland. The area fits back in the jigsaw puzzle to make the one complete land mass which the Wegener theory assumes existed and then broke up. There has always been one part missing in what is now the Indian Ocean, and very beautifully Antarctica fits in; and once you have fitted it in you realise the tremendous possibilities. This is the bridge of the Rand and Broken Hill; this is the pipes of diamond. There is evidence, apparently, of the existence of petroleum which would link up again with the Persian Gulf.
It is a very attractive picture, and I am afraid that in commercial terms it might prove over-attractive. But at least in this new Treaty, which we are helping to implement through this Bill, we have something which is a contradiction of what was the political predatoriness of the nineteenth century. One could consider 1855, the Conference of Berlin, carving up the Continent of Africa. Here in our terms is the combination of politically and ideologically separate countries taking part in deciding that Antarctica shall not be carved up. I think this is a tremendous advance in our approach to the rule of law in the world and a fine example.
I would follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in stressing also that this is now the beginning of a whole series of such treaties. Out of the International Geophysical Year which gave us the Antarctic Treaty we also have now the Treaty on Outer Space, which embodies pretty well the same principle, so far as space is concerned, as the one we are discussing to-day. I want to go further. I believe that, with the inspiration of the Antarctic Treaty, with the inspiration of the recently agreed Treaty on Outer Space, we should now go into a Treaty on Inner Space. Such a treaty would provide control of the deep seas, not just the high seas but the deep seas, with the incredible wealth, which belongs to no one, which lies beyond the Continental Shelf, and which many
760
believe will provide unlimited minerals, not just oil under the North Sea but almost prefabricated ores, in the shape of the nodules, thousands of millions of tons of which we now know exist in the great depths of the oceans.
This is a problem for mankind. This is not a national problem. No one is going to expand the Continental Shelf claims to the ultimate depth of the sea if any thinking people can stop him. It is here that great activity is going on in inner space, as it has been called, in contrast to outer space. I have here a list of some 30 underwater vehicles of various kinds which are now available for the exploration of the deep, and the extension of the example which was set by Cousteau only a few years ago. In deriving from this Treaty this Bill which we are now discussing, with its admirable intentions, we are also exemplifying a new attitude to the responsibilities of mankind.
5.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to support this Bill by declaring an interest as President of the Fauna Preservation Society, of which Mr. Peter Scott is our chairman. As your Lordships know, over many years our Society has helped to foster and encourage conservation over parts of the world, precisely the object of the right reverend Prelate's Bill, to which, therefore, our Society gives wholehearted welcome. The Agreed Measures in the Bill for the vast Antarctica are essential, and I hope will become the envy of experts. So far, measures in other parts of the world have come too late, but this continent may remain an example of how conservation can come in time. Therefore, besides our thanks to those who have prepared the Bill in another place and here, I think we should add our thanks to the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research at Cambridge, who started their work many years ago, to the Joint Research Department of the Foreign Office and the Central Office of Information, all of whom have been helpful to those interested in the safe passage of the Bill. I am sure they will agree that all the work that they have done has been in a worthy cause.

761
As regards Dr. Roberts of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge, I should like in closing to quote a few of his words from our Journal Oryx. He says:
"Meanwhile, let us do our best to preserve for our successors some of the most interesting and exciting biological spectacles to be found anywhere on earth: the great seal and penguin colonies; the soaring of the wandering albatross; the fantastic evening flight of uncountable millions of "
birds, and:
"…a small Colobanthus flowering in isolated desolation—those who have been fortunate enough to witness these things will never forget the joy they evoked"
5.44 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that every one of your Lordships will join with me in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich on the admirable way in which he introduced this Bill to-day. I must say that I personally was charmed by his story of the penguins, and one would wish that the observers we appoint to these far corners of the world were as peaceful in their habits as are these gentle birds. We are indeed fortunate in having as sponsor of the Bill one who has had such a close connection with the Antarctic, both as a field scientist and as an administrator in the years when he was Director of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge. We are also deeply grateful to the many noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on this occasion, distinguished not only in their own fields of operation but in the contributions that they make to the debates in this House.
The questions put to Her Majesty's Government are not many in number, and I shall attempt to reply to them. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, inquired as to the stage reached in regard to the other signatories. Four nations have already given effect to the Agreed Measures: the Soviet Union, the Argentine, South Africa and Norway. France has just passed a decree, and Belgium has begun to legislate. Her Majesty's Government are in touch with Australia, New Zealand and the United States, who are preparing legislation. On the second question, concerning penalities, the Russians and the French do not specify penalties. The Argentine personnel, apart from their scientists, are subject to military
762
law. The South African penalties are, again, not known to us. But I should like to assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government will bring the question of parity of treatment of offenders to the notice of the next consultative meeting under the Antarctic Treaty which is to be held in Paris in 1968.
The noble Lord's final question was whether anything is being done to persuade other nations to sign the Treat), and approve the Agreed Measures. So far, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Denmark have acceded to the Treaty. No pressure is being brought to bear on other countries. But if I may remind noble Lords, under Article X of the Agreed Measures, set out on page 19 in the Bill, each of the contracting parties:
"undertakes to exert appropriate efforts, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, to the end that no one engages in any activity in the Treaty area contrary to the principles or purposes of these Agreed Measures".
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked how we deal with a dispute between a party to the Treaty and a non-party. If a nonparty acts in a manner inconsistent with the Treaty, it would be open to the parties, individually or collectively, to bring pressure to bear on the non-party. This is provided for in Article X of the Treaty. In practice, a meeting of the parties might also be called under Article IX of the Treaty. Of course, Her Majesty's Government have a close interest in the Antarctic Treaty, which was rightly described, when it was signed seven years ago, and has been described this evening by so many noble Lords, as a remarkable example of international co-operation recognising, as it does, that:
"it is in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord."
This Treaty, which effectively prohibits the importation of any arms for military purposes, has close and continuing relevance to our efforts to make progress in the fields of arms control and disarmament. It is, I think, instructive to look at what has happened under the Treaty in the light of the debate in your Lordships' House in 1960, before the United Kingdom's Instrument of Ratification was deposited. The subject was introduced at that time by my noble friend Lord Shackleton. At this point I should say that other business in a less peaceful part

763
of the world has regrettably prevented him from accepting this Bill on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, although I am delighted that it was possible for him to take part in to-day's debate.
In 1960, your Lordships were concerned with a Treaty which was not then in force, but which held out hopes for scientific co-operation between the nations working in the Antarctic. In the six years since the entry into force of the Treaty, these hopes have been largely fulfilled. Political differences have receded into the background, due largely to Article IV of the Treaty which, as explained by the right reverend Prelate, "froze" the situation as it affected territorial claims. On the positive side, the exchange of scientists between different nations' stations contributes significantly to the increase in mutual trust and co-operation. Over the last ten years of scientific work in Antarctica, an impressive body of scientific results has been built up through the international exchange of data and through internationally planned research projects. Under the aegis of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings and the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research, exploration has now reached the point where, with minor exceptions the whole continent has now been seen, at least from the air, and much of it has been mapped. We can now expect a shift in emphasis from exploration towards long-term detailed scientific studies, particularly in the fields of geophysics and Antarctic biology.
I should like also to refer briefly to our experience under those provisions of the Treaty which are specifically concerned with ensuring the peaceful use of the Antarctic continent. The principal provisions are Article I, which provides that
"Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only"
and goes on to prohibit the establishment of military bases, and Article V, which prohibits nuclear explosions. The Antarctic Treaty is of the greatest significance and is especially topical now because those provisions are backed up by a working system of inspection enabling each party to verify that the prohibitions are being respected. Under Article VII of the Treaty any Treaty Power may appoint observers to visit and inspect the Antarctic stations established by any other Treaty Government. Under the same
764
Article all Treaty Governments exchange information on their planned operations for the coming year. Information is also required on ships, aircraft, vehicles, armaments, small firearms, military personel, and scientific equipment. Such information amounts to a reasonably complete inventory of all the items which could conceivably conceal a military operation which would be contrary to Article I of the Treaty. The information is in the hands of the observer when he is making his inspection and may be checked by him, on the ground, for accuracy and completeness.
Your Lordships will be aware of the difficulties concerning inspection that have arisen in international discussions on disarmament. We have here in the Antarctic a working system which has already been used by the United States, Argentina and ourselves. The United States exercised her rights in 1963 and again in 1967, and inspections have included Argentine, Australian, Chilean, French, Japanese, Soviet, South African and United Kingdom stations. We have also exercised our rights twice to inspect United States stations. Our inspectors have been Lieut. Commander Erskine, R.N., who inspected the America stations at McMurdo Sound, Byrd and at the South Pole in December, 1963. In February, 1966, Captain Sandford, R.N. and other officers of H.M.S. "Protector" inspected the American station at Anvers Island on the West side of the Antarctic peninsula. Argentina has also inspected a United States station. None of these inspections has shown any activities contrary to the spirit and purposes of the Antarctic Treaty. It was not, of course, expected that they would, but they have provided experience of the practical possibilities of inspection which is applicable to wider and more urgent problems.
This is a valuable provision in the Treaty and it has formed the precedent for similar provisions for inspection of stations in outer space in the Space Treaty recently signed in Washington, Moscow and London. In the future, inspection is likely to become more usual as a means of policing international agreements, and I hope that other Antarctic Treaty Powers will make use of the opportunities offered to them under the Antarctic Treaty to gain experience in this field.

765
Another way in which the Treaty is operating smoothly is shown by the friendly relations that have developed at the four Consultative Meetings which have been held so far. It was at the Third Consultative Meeting, held in Brussels in 1964, that the text of the Agreed Measures (forming, Schedule 2 to the Bill) was drawn up. The Fourth Consultative Meeting at Santiago last November, recommended, in the light of scientific advice given to Governments, that the special protection envisaged under the Agreed Measures should be extended to the two species and fifteen areas set out in the Annex to Schedule 2 to the Bill.
I should like to thank your Lordships for the valuable points that have been made in this debate about the Treaty and the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora. I should say at once that the provisions of the Agreed Measures are fully supported by Her Majesty's Government and that we support the passage into law of this Bill designed to give effect to them.
5.54 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, there is little I need say, in replying, other than to express an indebtedness to all your Lordships who have made contributions to this debate. I am grateful that in every case this Bill has been supported and that questions which have been asked have not been by way of criticism of the Bill itself but designed merely to get further information. This pays tribute to the way the Bill has been drafted. It passed without comment in the other place, and speeches during the Second Reading and Committee stage contained no criticism of the Bill itself. Therefore, we owe much to Dr. Roberts and others who have assisted in drafting the Bill and to members of the Consultative Meetings and the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research.
I am glad the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, drew attention to the importance of the co-operation and contribution of lawyers in this matter. The noble Lord himself speaks as one who has taken an active part in International Law, and I am grateful that he was able to take part in this debate and emphasise this aspect. Since the Antarctic Treaty came into force, happily the turn of
766
events has been from a good deal of international friction which had existed before the Treaty came into force to international co-operation which has been progressively strengthened. This in itself is something greatly to be welcomed. Apart from this, I hope that your Lordships will support the Bill which will do something to preserve this continent and its wild life for posterity.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ST. TERESA'S MATERNITY HOSPITAL
5.57 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will advise the South West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board to reconsider their decision to withdraw the grant for contractual beds from St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital at Wimbledon. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I bring this Question to the attention of your Lordships because the decision to withdraw this grant has caused widespread concern to all the people who have had anything to do with this hospital, whether they are patients, or ex-patients, doctors or nurses, or whether they merely reside in the locality. Indeed, the interest in this decision goes far wider even than the locality. It has stirred the interest of people who do not live in the locality; it has stirred the interest of the newspapers and television. It has resulted in a spirited lobbying by mothers and their children of their Members of Parliament. And some 5,000 people are expected to meet in Trafalgar Square and to march upon Downing Street next Sunday with a petition to the Prime Minister begging him to keep the hospital open. Such concern is not generated lightly.
I should like to give your Lordships the background to this case. The hospital is run by Roman Catholic nuns of

767
the Order of St. Anne. I hasten to add that their patients are not restricted to Roman Catholics, but are of any and of no persuasion. It was started in 1938 as a hospital for cancer patients, and in 1948, when the National Health Service took over, the cancer patients were moved to another hospital and St. Teresa's became a maternity hospital. At that date it catered for 22 patients. In 1951 an extension was opened by Sir William Gilliatt, bringing the number of beds to 40. In 1956 another extension was opened by Lord Evans, and in 1959 a third extension was opened by Lady Dorothy Macmillan. Last year a fourth extension was opened, enabling the hospital now to cater for 70 patients. Of these 70 patients, between 40 and 50 are National Health Service patients and the remainder, about twenty, are private or semi-private patients.
In addition to carrying out its duties as a maternity hospital, St. Teresa's is a teaching hospital. In 1955 the hospital started to train two students a fortnight in midwifery, and this still continues. In 1962, obstetric courses, which last for three months, were started for 16 nurses from St. George's Hospital, and this forms part of the training for their S.R.N. In 1966, 20 hand-picked students were sent from St. George's Hospital to St. Teresa's for an experimental course in obstetrics, as part of a scheme to see whether it were possible for the S.R.N. course to be condensed from three to two years. These girls were hand-picked; so, presumably, was the hospital. In 1966 the Central Midwives Board approved St. Teresa's as a training centre for Part II midwifery, allowing those who passed to become fully-qualified midwives, practising midwifery in any part of the world.
I mention these details at some length to stress that this is not a small, pokey, little substandard hospital, but a maternity hospital of outstanding ability and qualifications, built specifically as a maternity hospital and recognised as a teaching hospital. It is this which the South West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board have decided in their wisdom to close down; or, to put it more accurately, from which they intend to withdraw their grant of some £70,000 a year so that it probably will close down. Why is this to be done?—for one simple reason, that the State is building a new maternity wing at Queen
768
Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, and it is therefore considered that the beds at St. Teresa's will be superfluous. But is this so? The Minister says, "Yes". But this is not the view of people in the locality. This is not the view of the local authorities, such as the Wandsworth Borough Council and the Merton Borough Council; and indeed it is not the view of the Merton and District Trade Council who are highly concerned at the closure of St. Teresa's.
The Minister said in another place, that the building of this wing will form part of a district general hospital, and that it is in the interests of the safety of mothers and babies. The standard of nursing at St. Teresa's is so high that since 1948, when it started. 19,000 mothers have been delivered of their babies in this hospital, and not one mother has died. In 1948 the national average of deaths among mothers having babies was 3 per 1,000, which has now dropped to 1 per 1,000. But in St. Teresa's there have been no deaths out of 19,000. Therefore, it would hardly seem to be in the interests of mothers and babies that this hospital should be closed.
Is St. Teresa's to be eliminated from the Health Service in the interests of economy? The answer is, No. The cost per bed per day in St. Teresa's, given by the Minister, is £4 12s. 11d.—and, if I may say so, a figure of unusual, uncanny precision. The estimated cost at Roehampton—and noble Lords will know that Government estimates are invariably on the low side—is not £4 12s. 11d. but £6: an increase of 30 per cent. over the cost of St. Teresa's.
Noble Lords may be interested to know that the State has not had to pay one penny towards the capital cost of St. Teresa's, either of the building or its contents. This has to be found by the Order. But it does pay to the Order the sum of £291 per month for the use of the building and its contents; what one can loosely describe as rent. Your Lordships know that within half a mile of where we are sitting there are three-bed-roomed flats which command a rent of £2,000 a year. The Health Service is paying not £2,000 a year but £3,500, not for a three-bed-roomed flat but for a 70—bedded hospital, fully equipped with all modern devices, fully equipped with labour wards and theatres; and within this same figure is the service of 20 nuns.

769
Indeed, these ladies work for 12 hours a day. Their responsibility is with them even on their time off. They work seven days a week, and they have two weeks holiday a year, with an occasional weekend in the winter if the strain gets too much for them. So if we are talking of economics and money, I think your Lordships will agree that this is dirt cheap at the price.
Your Lordships may also be interested to know that a matron of the equivalent standard of the matron at St. Teresa's, were she paid on the Whitley scale in a State hospital, would receive the sum of £1,460 a year. A qualified midwifery tutor would receive the sum of £1,200 a year. The matron of St. Teresa's has both these responsibilities and receives nothing. A qualified nursing sister would receive up to £1,200 a year but the nuns, also qualified, receive nothing. Who benefits?—the State.
But there is one inestimable benefit which St. Teresa's has. If I were asked what was the greatest shortcoming of the National Health Service, I should unhesitatingly say the lack of personal relationship between, on the one hand, the doctors and nurses, and, on the other hand, the patients; the fact that the patient so often feels that he is being treated as a case and not as an individual. But it is just this quality of personal relationship in which St. Teresa's excels, whether the patient is a married mother or an unmarried mother. I stress this, because 10 per cent. of the patients at St. Teresa's are unmarried mothers, and your Lordships know only too well that this type of patient needs a very personal and specific form of help.
The love of the nuns, the devotion to their work and to their patients, the atmosphere of happiness and selflessness are there to be sensed by anyone who cares to visit this hospital. This is at the moment being given to the Health Service. Of course, the trouble is that these qualities, like so many other valuable ones, cannot be measured by statistics. But it is because they cannot be measured by statistics that their value should never be underestimated, because they can never be taught. They should, indeed, be prized and guarded and not be allowed, like some small candle, to be snuffed out with a puff.
People love this hospital. They love what it is and they love what it does, both medically and in terms of humanity. Forty-seven thousand people—and that is a great many—have signed a petition asking the Government to keep this hospital open. But no, the Board says that it must be closed. Why?—because it does not fit in with some planner's plans. But there must be a point on the graph where the curve depicting the advantage to be gained from a plan is crossed by the curve depicting the advantage gained from skill, devotion, tenderness and practical common sense.
Who are the people who have decided to cut right across the grain of public feeling and the grain of economics? They are the members of the South West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board. They are not elected by anyone. They are appointed by the Minister for a term of office, and they are directly responsible to him. One would have thought that, after taking such a decision which has aroused such feeling, the Chairman of the Board would at least have taken the opportunity of going down to see St. Teresa's, to see what it is that he is closing which has caused such an uproar. But this has not happened.
I am glad to see the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, in his place this afternoon; and I realise, of course, that, by the Addison Rules—which, by some unfortunate quirk of providence, were adumbrated by his father and were then generally accepted by your Lordships' House—he may feel it, if not impossible at any rate difficult to participate in the debate this afternoon. But I hope the noble Viscount will not feel that I am hitting him whilst his hands are tied behind his back if I say that I am astounded that he should have taken this decision, have watched the public outcry grow and have stuck firmly to his decision and yet never have visited the hospital or ever shown any willingness or intention to do so.
One might have thought that the senior medical officer to the Board, Dr. Taylor, would have considered a visit to the hospital appropriate. But no; he also has not made a visit to the hospital. Indeed, he has never visited the hospital since his appointment as senior medical officer.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him before he pursues this line of argument even further? Would he be good enough to say that my noble friend Lord Addison invited members of the Hospital Committee and other members of St. Teresa's to visit him at his office and discuss these matters?
EARL FERRERS: Of course the noble Viscount has; but my complaint is that he has taken a decision not even having seen the building or the hospital to which his decision, which has had this devastating result, refers. I say with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that that does not answer the point at all. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, as chairman, has not visited the hospital; nor has his senior medical officer; nor, indeed, has any other of the 25 members of the Board. I can only say that I consider that such action, which has had such far-reaching consequences and which was taken without ever a visit having been made by anyone, is nothing short of a public scandal.
Yet my Lords, it is this decision, taken by a Board who have shown that their interests in this hospital are confined to the boardroom table arid to the statistics which are placed upon it, which the Minister is seeking to back up. One might have thought, again, that the Minister of Health would have considered, with such a feeling growing, that at least a visit to the hospital would prove both prudent and fruitful. Indeed, he has been invited to visit the hospital on two occasions, both in his official capacity as Minister of Health and in his private capacity—not to be lobbied or to be pestered, but just to see what it is that is being closed. But both those invitations the Minister has refused.
My Lords, if this decision to withdraw the grant from St. Teresa's, whose object is to work for the poor and for the unmarried mother, is to be maintained and the grant removed, the Health Service will be losing a unique hospital—unique in the very qualities which the Health Service is lacking. There is no Party issue here, and I have no doubt that the Minister and the Board have acted with the best of motives. But mistakes can be made; wrong decisions can
772
be taken by the best of men acting with the best of intentions and the highest of motives. But decisions are not irrevocable if there is the intention and the desire to see that, in the end, the right decision is made. A mistake has been made over St. Teresa's and a wrong decision has been taken, but it is not irrevocable if there is the real intent and determination to see that, in the end, the right course of action is taken.
St. Teresa's is an outstanding hospital. Its medical record is outstanding, its cost to the State is outstanding, its service to the National Health Service is outstanding, the devotion of its nurses is outstanding and the love of and by the people whom it serves is outstanding. Its only crime is that it does not tit in with some planner's plan. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will give a helpful reply this evening; but even if he cannot be as helpful or as conciliatory as I should wish, I beg him to go back to his right honourable friend and say, "Minister, think again".
6.15 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for having raised this matter. It is one which admittedly is causing concern, at any rate in that part of the area for which the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board is responsible; and I agree with the noble Earl that a large number of ex-patients and prospective patients are very agitated about what is happening. I think it is right that a matter which is causing so much concern in a particular area should be raised in this House, and the noble Earl has raised it in a fair way, although I think he has done less than justice to some of the reasons which prompted the Hospital Board in coming to its conclusion.
Let me say at once that there is no dispute whatever about the very valuable work which the hospital has done and is doing at the present time. No one is suggesting that the work has not been done with skill, with ability, with devotion, and even with dedication. I would not dispute for one single moment the tribute which the noble Earl has paid to those who are concerned with the running of the hospital.

773
What then is the reason for proposing to terminate the contract? It is certainly not on some vague planning ground, as the noble Earl said. Nor does it come as a surprise to the hospital itself. They have known about this for a number of years. For possibly as long as five years they have been aware that this was coming. Therefore it did not come to them as a bombshell. Had they been so minded, they had ample opportunity to make other arrangements for the use of this hospital in ways which would have been equally valuable to the community.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord excuse me for interrupting him? I wonder whether he could substantiate that statement. I had understood, subject to his correction, that the five Members of Parliament from the area concerned who visited the chairman of the Board asked about these warnings and were unable to obtain any satisfactory confirmation that early warning, at any rate as far ahead as the noble Lord has just mentioned, was ever given. Does the noble Lord have more evidence than I have on it?
LORD SILKIN: Yes, I think so. I think there is some correspondence going back to 1965 from the hospital itself to the Board. That is over three and a half years; but they have known for five years of the plans that were being propounded by the Hospital Board for this area. At least, I presume they have, because the plans have been public knowledge all that time.
LORD HAWKE: Did I hear the noble Lord say from 1965 to the middle of 1967? That is not five years. It is not even three and a half years.
LORD SILKIN: What I am saying is that the hospital have known since the plans for the area were propounded. But certainly they have known since 1965, because there is correspondence on the subject dating back to that time. But whether the period is two, three or five years is not the vital point. The point is that the hospital have not been taken by surprise. This has not been a bombshell to them, and they have had ample time to consider what to do. In any event, this contract is not coming to an end until the end of this year, so they will have had ample time, had they so desired,
774
to make other plans for the use of their hospital.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord will agree that, as the contract is coming to an end at the end of the year, those mothers-to-be who would be expecting to occupy places in this hospital have now to make alternative arrangements. Therefore, in effect, the change is coming into effect now.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord can do arithmetic as well as I can; but the number of women who are to-day making preparations for the use of this hospital by the end of the year must be very limited indeed. Certainly alternative arrangements will be available for them. There will be no difficulty: no woman will be left without proper attention and treatment.
My Lords, the question then is: What is in the best interests of the community itself, taken as a whole? I would not dispute the fact that one must throw into the balance—and it is a balance—such questions as the personal relationship between the staff and the patients. I agree that those are excellent, and that it may well be that those personal relationships will be closer and more to the comfort of the patient than they would in a general hospital. But, when all that has been said, the fact is that some five years ago a plan was drawn up for the purpose of providing accommodation for obstetric treatment in this area. I think no one will dispute that it is right that the Board should have looked ahead. There were figures projected as to what would be the ultimate requirements of the area, and on the basis of those forecasts new accommodation was provided and will become available from the beginning of the year.
This accommodation consists, first, of some 50 beds at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton. This will, of course, be first-class accommodation. It will have available X-ray and laboratory facilities; it will have the services of a professor of obstetrics and will be closely associated with Westminster Hospital. It will have facilities for student nurses from Westminster Hospital, and generally it will be in a position to provide the highest service of this kind for expectant mothers. In addition, there will be accommodation for ten more beds in the Queen Charlotte's Hospital at Richmond this year. Here

775
again it will be in association with a teaching hospital; and everyone knows that Queen Charlotte's Hospital has the highest reputation of any hospital in this field. Moreover, a further 12 beds will be provided at Kingston, making 72 in all.
My Lords, the fact is that at the present time the total number of beds is not being fully used. It was expected that beds would be occupied to the extent of about 70 per cent.; but in fact this is not happening. Whether there has been a decline in the birth rate or whether there is some other reason, the beds are not being occupied to the full. And with the coming into operation of these new beds that I have mentioned there is no doubt that the beds at St. Teresa's for obstetric purposes will become redundant. In face of all this, as I see it, the Hospital Board had no alternative but to terminate the agreement and to ask the hospital whether they could not use their accommodation in some other way in the public interest. The hospital had no difficulty in making a change from cancer treatment to obstetrics when the Health Service came into operation. Good luck to them! I think it very praiseworthy that they adapted themselves to the requirement of the time. The present time necessitates further adaptation. I hope they will not feel that there is any indignity or any kind of discrimination against them. They are asked once more to adapt themselves to changing circumstances.
I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, what he would do in the circumstances. Here are these beds becoming available. Here are the needs. What would he do?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I would answer by asking the noble Lord another question. Does he think it prudent expenditure of public money to build maternity wings for hospitals which will result in maternity hospitals now in use becoming redundant?
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl answers my question by asking me another. I would answer by repeating mine. But I will answer him. The fact remains that here are these beds. Provision was made for them some years ago when, on the best information available, it was believed they would be required to meet the needs of a rising population. Here
776
they are. They exist. The noble Lord can perhaps say that in 1960 (or whenever these beds were planned) some mistake was made; but they were planned in good faith. Here they are. The question is—it can be a rhetorical one—what is the Board to do in these circumstances, when they already have available 72 beds, which they are going to have some difficulty in filling, and when there are another 40 beds in St. Teresa's. I would submit that they did the only possible thing—and the noble Lord does not challenge their good faith in the matter; he merely says they made a mistake—in giving as long notice as possible of the termination of this agreement.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is advocating that the hospitalisation in this country should be so completely regionalised that it is quite impossible for a patient to go across a boundary? Surely there is no superfluity of maternity beds generally over the Metropolitan area.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the South-West Metropolitan Board already covers a very large area. It does not comprise merely the Borough of Wandsworth or another London borough. It is a wide area. There must be a limit, and I think this limit is already being reached in the South-West Metropolitan area.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but this is a point of some importance. The noble Lord has made considerable play with the statement that there is, or will be, a superfluity, of beds in this area. This is not accepted by the local health authorities. I have here two resolutions, one from the Health Committee of the Merton Borough Council, the other from the Health Committee of the Wandsworth Borough Council. They are resolutions to the Minister of Health on the closure of St. Teresa's; so this is up-to-date information. That from Merton says that:
"… the Council considers that there is already a local shortage of beds for maternity cases in the Borough."
Merton says there is a shortage. So does Wandsworth. Neither supports the statement that has just been made.
LORD SILKIN: I do not know whether they have directed their minds to the statement that I am making. I am taking the region as a whole. It is a very big

777
region and, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, you must not compartmentalise these cases into Merton and Wandsworth. It may be that in fact there is not enough accommodation within the Borough of Merton, it may be even that there is not enough accommodation within the Borough of Wandsworth, but my case is that there is more than enough accommodation within the area of the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, and that is a very different thing from what the noble Lord was saying.
So I hope that some kind of accommodation can be arrived at. I hope that my noble friend will pay a visit to the St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital and discuss the possibility of making use of the accommodation there in a way which would meet a need. There are other departments and other uses which could be made of this hospital so that a real shortage could be met. If some adjustment of this kind could be made, I can assure the noble Earl—at least, I hope I can—that every effort will be made to meet the wishes of the hospital and see that it is allowed to continue the excellent work which it has done in the past.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, sits down, can he describe—I do not think he made it clear—what he considers the new hospital wing will provide that St. Teresa's Hospital does not provide, and whether he thinks it will be done better?
LORD SILKIN: Yes, my Lords, I think it can be done better in the public interest—that is to say (I thought I did explain), that facilities for X-ray examination and laboratory facilities will be provided. There will be available the services of specialists—certainly at Queen Mary's Hospital they will be on the spot—and there will be students and student nurses, in considerable numbers. Generally, I think that the services that will be provided will be better. But that is not part of the case which is being made. It is not suggested, even, that the reason for the change is that better facilities will be provided. The reason is that there are these facilities which have become available; and what is the Hospital Board to do about it? There certainly is not a demand for 72 beds which are available, or will be available by the end of the year, plus the 40 at
778
St. Teresa's Hospital. There is certainly not a demand for 112 beds. What is the Hospital Board to do? I think that in the public interest and in the interests of economy the only thing the Board can do is to ask St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital to consider making use of its accommodation in some other way to fulfil some other need.
6.33 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, if I may say so without disrespect, I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made the best of a very thin case.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, did the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, say the "best", or the "worst"?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The best—I was being polite and generous. I do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on the detailed points which they have made, because I believe there are some important issues here of general policy. Before coming on to these, however, I will touch on two things said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The first was the alternative use to which the 40 maternity beds could be put. I think the noble Lord finds himself in the same difficulty as the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and Mr. Kenneth Robinson, and others who have not visited the hospital. They do not appreciate the grave difficulties in switching these over to geriatric purposes. This is a compromise solution which has been made by the Regional Hospital Board.
As the noble Earl explained, St. Teresa's is a hospital which, since 1948, has been expanded from 22 beds to 70 beds entirely for maternity purposes. In effect, the additions made since 1948 have constituted a custom-built maternity hospital. On the ground floor, where the old people would have to go, there are a lot of small rooms. Some of these have large glass windows reaching down to the ground, or to a balcony. That, as I think my noble friend, Earl Ferrers, would agree, is one of the attractive features about the hospital. It is situated on the side of a hill, and the mothers can sit on a balcony in the sunshine, or walk up and down. That is one thing which would be unsuitable for old people; they could not be put in rooms where the windows are low, or down to the floor, and a hill outside. It would be too dangerous. Then the hospital is composed of many small

779
rooms, instead of the large wards and communal recreation rooms necessary for old people. In addition, the hospital is specially equipped for maternity work and not for the care of old people. The nuns have acquired a special skill in maternity work over the last twenty years. So there is much more to this than suggesting that all that is required is a little flexibility of mind.
The second point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if he will forgive me for returning to it—indeed it was the central part of his argument—was that there will not be a need for maternity beds at St. Teresa's when the new wing at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, is opened. I read out statements from the Wandsworth and Merton Borough Councils, formal statements, on the record, which do not support that argument. These statements are important because it is these areas which are, in the main, the catchment area for St. Teresa's. Both these statements were quoted in the House of Commons Adjournment Debate as reported in Hansard for April 12. Also the St. Helier Group hospital consultants sent out a letter to general practitioners saying they might not be able to take in all the mothers they had done until now, in particular young mothers between the ages of 18 and 25. The adequacy of maternity provision in the area may be an arguable point, but it should not be taken by noble Lords as a fact that there are enough maternity beds in the area without St. Teresa's.
As I said, my Lords, this decision by the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board raises two issues of principle which are of far-reaching importance. The first is the relationship between public and private provision in hospital care, and the second is the lack of any effective machinery for public participation in policy decisions in the Hospital Service. I think that noble Lords on both sides of the House would agree that in social policy, generally the trend is towards mixed institutions—that is, institutions which are partly supported by fees and partly by public funds. This applies to education in respect of the direct grant schools, and the present approach towards the public schools is, in fact, based on the same idea of mixed
780
institutions. It applies also to housing development by local authorities. The Minister of Housing and Local Government is always urging—correctly, in my view—for provision to be made for houses for letting at economic rents to be included in new housing estates, so that there may be a move away from segregation by class and income. If this is true of education and housing, why should it not be true of hospitals?
In this connection noble Lords opposite, including the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, probably remember that when the Health Service was set up Mr. Aneurin Bevan—perhaps to the surprise of some people—came out strongly in favour of retaining private wings in State hospitals in order to prevent, in his words, "a rash of private nursing homes." He was worried that if there were a lot of private institutions, doctors and nursing staffs might be drawn towards private nursing homes and away from the big general hospitals. I suggest that St. Teresa's is an excellent example of what one might call a direct grant hospital. In addition to its fee-paying patients, who are in a minority and always have been, it provides an excellent service for 40 to 50 National Health Service mothers.
As the noble Earl has said, it is one of the aims of the nuns to provide for poor and unmarried mothers. About 10 per cent. of the National Health Service mothers cared for at the hospital have been unmarried. It is a hospital which is remarkable both for its efficiency—and that is demonstrated by the fact that no mother has been lost in 19,000 confinements over 20 years—and perhaps as important, for its atmosphere of humanity and cheerfulness. The hospital has been extended from 22 beds in 1948 to 70 beds to-day. The cost of three extensions has been met entirely by voluntary subscription. The nuns are unpaid and have little time off. So in my view the Regional Hospital Board are getting a bargain at £70,000 a year. Through this subvention from public funds, an institution has been established where there is a very good mix between fee-paying patients and patients provided for publicly.
The second issue of policy raised by this decision, perhaps for the first time in the history of the Health Service, is the question of responsiveness. Some

781
months ago the decision was taken to discontinue the grant. There may have been warnings put out before, but the time came when the decision was taken. We may assume it was taken at official level on the facts as they were then known. I suppose the decision was later confirmed by the Board. The noble Lord who is to reply can tell me if I am mistaken, but I imagine that was the procedure.
Since then a completely new factor has come into existence—the extraordinary demonstration of public support by the users of the hospital. It is no good saying that the closure of hospitals always provokes an outcry. The five Members of Parliament for the area, from both major Parties, have testified that in their experience they have never seen a public protest like this against an administrative decision. Even the Minister of Health and the Regional Hospital Board are no longer attempting, I notice, to brush this off as a bit of trouble which would all die down by Easter. The opposition has not died down, and it will not die down, because the Board's decision is an unjust one which will deprive the National Health Service mothers of a hospital which many of them have come to love. That cannot be said of many hospitals, but undoubtedly it is true of this one. It is a great mistake to dismiss the opinions of the mothers as emotion. Their feelings cannot be put on one side by the administrators in the Regional Hospital Board, and now by the Government, who are stuck with having to support what the officials decided. These mothers are the users of the maternity services. The hospitals exist for them, and not for the administrators to administer, tidily and neatly.
How are these dissatisfied users to express themselves?—and everyone who opens a newspaper knows that they are dissatisfied on a wide scale. They can express their views in two ways—first, by public demonstration, and then by recourse to Parliament. There is a petition which has been signed by between 45,000 and 50,000 people. There has been a mass lobby in the House of Commons of Parliament from the area concerned. There have been large scale protest meetings, and another is due in Trafalgar Square this Sunday, after which a petition will be presented to the Prime Minister in Downing Street. It is rather unusual
782
for a small hospital with only 70 beds to be able to organise a protest on this scale. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, who knows about organising protests, will be aware that a protest on such a scale about so small a subject is rather exceptional.
There is the alternative of recourse to Parliament, and here the mothers have obtained the unanimous support of all five Members from the area. There have been Parliamentary Questions and an Adjournment Debate. The five M.P.s also went as a delegation to make representations to the Regional Hospital Board. But it has all been to no avail. Nothing has happened. After all the Parliamentary exercises have been gone through, the situation is exactly the same as before.
What are the mothers to do? Here is an administrative decision which is palpably against the wishes of the people whom it is intended to benefit. Where a railway station is closed there is a procedure for public inquiry, and an appeal procedure if the people whose interests are being affected do not agree with what is decided by the public authority. If there is a development scheme, or a compulsory purchase order on one's house, there is a procedure whereby the views of the people concerned can be taken into account. Even in the ill-starred Iron and Steel Act there is provision for a consumer's council, so that consumers can make representations and, if necessary, appeal against decisions. Not so in the Hospital Service. There is no way for the users to make their views known on matters of policy. This is a serious shortcoming, which so far as I know, has not previously come to the surface.
What happens now? If there is another stonewalling answer by the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government to-day, all the opinions of the users of the hospital, of the local population, of the Members of Parliament, of the local authorities—who have gone on record with the resolutions I read out—and much newspaper and broadcast comment, is going to have no effect at all. We must credit the Minister of Health and the Regional Hospital Board with sincerity and a desire to do what they honestly believe to be the best thing for the people in the area. But they are now caught in an impossible situation. A decision was originally taken

783
at official level. We can assume that it was endorsed formally by the Regional Hospital Board. Now the Chairman, the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and the Minister of Health are stuck with this decision. They cannot afford to go back on it. Ironically, there has been too much public protest. If they now go back on the decision they let down their staff. No one can suppose that the noble Viscount is not deeply disturbed by this whole episode, and this goes for the Minister of Health as well.
The public response to the decision could not have been foreseen, but the system is such that now nothing can be done to change it. Yet if we are to have democratic and representative institutions in this country, and not sweep aside the views of the people whom a social service is intended to benefit, this dilemma has to be resolved in some way. It cannot be left to endless argument and marching up and down in Trafalgar Square. I appreciate the reasons why the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, cannot take part in this debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will no doubt put the point of view of the Regional Hospital Board in his reply. The noble Viscount must have given this question a great deal of thought. It is one that has preoccupied me. As a local resident myself, living a few hundred yards away from the hospital, I am well aware of the reputation of St. Teresa's. And from the opportunity I have had of visiting the hospital and meeting the staff, I can confirm everything that has been said in its favour by my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
There is now only one solution. I believe a wrong decision has been taken, on inadequate information, and without taking into account the opinions of the users of the service. To be frank, in these circumstances the only way out is for the Chairman of the Regional Hospital Board to resign. This might be thought too drastic and unfair a proposal. It is unlikely that the Chairman was personally concerned with the original decision at all. But if the Board are to be regarded as directly responsible for a policy decision—and the Parliamentary Secretary made it quite clear in two replies in the Adjournment Debate in another place that he sees this as primarily a matter
784
for the Board—then it seems to me that this is the only solution to the problem.
I do not seek to make this suggestion as a personal criticism of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. But the structure of the Hospital Service is such that there is no other way for the users to get at the Board. They do not have any representatives on the Board, and, therefore, they cannot ask their representatives to put forward arguments on their behalf. Nor can their representatives themselves resign. Hospital users can make representations through their Members of Parliament; and they have done so. But none of this, as I have said, has had any effect.
In conclusion, I would say that this decision, and this hospital, might seem to be relatively small and unimportant. But when real issues of principle arise, administrative decisions can become symbols of something much more important. Crichel Down was not in itself a very important matter, but it did come to stand for what people generally regarded as a just, fair and reasonable solution. If Governments and Boards disregard deep rooted opinions of this sort, then they do so at their peril.
6.53 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, those of us who care about people must welcome the opportunity that has been given to us to-day to discuss the future of St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital at Wimbledon. We have every reason to be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for putting down this Question. I am glad to be able to support him, and in doing so I should like to make it clear that I am not speaking as a Roman Catholic. Since the inception of the National Health Service, St. Teresa's Hospital has been used by the South West Metropolitan ' Regional Hospital Board for maternity cases. As we have already heard—and I make no apology for repeating this figure—some 19,000 mothers have been safely delivered of babies there. At a time when the Regional Board had insufficient beds to meet the needs of its maternity cases, St. Teresa's Hospital willingly and efficiently adapted itself to help to bridge the gap. In another place, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the temporary nature of contractual arrangements with hospitals independent

785
of the National Health Service. I must say, my Lords, that I find an unbroken contract of twenty years duration a pretty strange sort of temporary nature.
During the debate in another place on April 12 reference was made to the comparative cost of a bed in St. Teresa's and the estimated cost of a bed in the new maternity wing at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, when it opens next January. The cost at St. Teresa's, as has already been said, was quoted at £4 12s. 11d. a day, as against the estimated cost at Queen Mary's of £6 a day. My Lords, most of us have had experience in our own lives of the inaccuracy of forecasting estimates for potential services, and when the time has come for the actual bill to be rendered the cost is almost invariably higher than we have been led to expect. Indeed, in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said himself that "estimates tend to go awry". I shall watch the estimated figure with much interest when Queen Mary's maternity beds are in full use.
It appears from that debate on April 12 that the Minister of Health bases his costing of maternity cases upon the length of stay in hospital, rather than upon the cost per bed per day. A comparison was made between the length of stay in Regional Board hospitals, which was, on an average, 9·4 days in 1965, and in St. Teresa's hospital, where it was 12·2 days in 1965 or 11·15 days in 1966.
My Lords, in common with the noble Earl, I have visited St. Teresa's hospital, and when I was there I put this particular question to the Mother General and to Sister Barbara, the matron, who were good enough to meet me and take me round. I understand that the figure given for the average length of stay in St. Teresa's includes the extra length of time that some of the mothers have to stay when they come in before their confinement because of complications in their pregnancies. For instance, in the case of a pregnant mother suffering from toxæmia, it sometimes happens that she may have as much as 14 extra days in hospital before her baby is born; and this will be shown in the final average figure for length of stay. Could the Minister who is going to reply tell us whether the figures for the average length of stay in a Regional Board hospital are based upon
786
the same contingencies and calculated in exactly the same way? If they are, the length of stay of many of the mothers using Regional Board hospitals must be considerably lower than the 9·4 days referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on April 12; and that, surely, is not a desirable feature.
What I find difficult to understand in the whole of the unhappy developments in this particular case of contractual beds is why no members of the South West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board have ever been to visit St. Teresa's Hospital. During my time—some twelve years as a member of another Regional Hospital Board—any similar situation such as has arisen between the South West Board and the hospital, where the Board has had contractual beds, and those members of the general public who are deeply involved, would have been personally investigated on the spot by a member or members of the Board in order to get a true picture of all the background facts. But in the case of St. Teresa's Hospital, so far as I am aware, no member of the Board has ever been to the hospital. Officers have been in touch, but even their contact seems to have been somewhat superficial.
It would seem as if the decision to end the contract for maternity beds had been based, as has been suggested by noble Lords this evening, upon paper considerations, with no thought of the people involved—the nuns, the mothers and fathers, or, indeed, the babies. At a time when the Regional Hospital Board had not been in a position to provide sufficient maternity beds in their own hospitals St. Teresa's had provided a very convenient solution. But as soon as the Board gets round to building the new maternity wing at Roehampton, St. Teresa's is written off—though the Board, again to suit their own needs and convenience, are prepared to offer St. Teresa's another temporary contract for three years for 30 geriatric beds or beds for young chronic sick. No thought seems to have been given to the consequent scrapping of the labour wards, the nurseries and the milk kitchen, which would not be needed by geriatric cases. That problem was to be left with St. Teresa's.
My Lords, there seems to have been no regard for the very real and personal feelings of the women who had counted on

787
having their babies in a hospital they knew well and in which, because of its justifiably proud record of safe deliveries, they had every confidence. To have visited St. Teresa's Hospital is an experience I shall not easily forget. I have spent many years closely involved in hospital work. Seldom have I been more deeply impressed than I was by the happy, competent, quiet serenity I experienced when I was taken last week round the hospital by some of the nuns who devote their lives and their trained skill so un-self-consciously to the mothers and the babies in their care.
It may be argued that the hospital staff is not entirely drawn from the sisters of the Community. That is true enough. But the posts of responsibility and leadership are held by nuns who, because of the nature of their dedicated calling, create such an atmosphere of quiet, happy calm that those lay nurses training under them, or working with them, cannot fail to respond. This is by every count a good and happy and a productive place.
I hope, my Lords, that the South West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, encouraged by the Minister of Health, inspired perhaps a little by some of the thoughts that have found wing in this Chamber to-day, will think again; and that, as a result of their thinking, St. Teresa's will be allowed to continue to bless mothers and babies for many years to come, as I would suggest the Mother General and two of the sisters have blessed this Chamber this afternoon by coming to listen to this debate.
7.2 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I take it that it is now my turn to speak, and I speak with a certain diffidence, which your Lordships will understand. I should be very unhappy if anything I said were to be interpreted in a denominational sense. I am a Methodist, and I have been involved for many years in the kind of work to which we are turning our thinking. Let us get two things clearly out of the way. No one thinks more highly than I do, and knows perhaps out of experience more confidently than I do, of the magnificent work that places such as St. Teresa's Hospital have done and continue to do. This is not in debate. The loving care and sense of vocation are only too obvious to all who have
788
any contact with this kind of hospital run by the kind of people with whom we are concerned to-day.
In the second place, there is no question whatever in my mind that enlightened Government must seek indefinitely a marriage between local authorities and central Government and vocational bodies, who have in the past become the bellwethers of enlightened social practice, and who have in many respects worked for their own redundancy. That, I think, is particularly applicable to-day in the emergence of the Welfare State.
Before I venture a little more widely, I should like to deal with a number of the enthusiastic and highly inaccurate statements which have been made. I was much impressed by the enthusiasm of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but I must point out that in many respects he created a good deal of heat but not very much light. Moreover, he was severely at fault in a number of misstatements he made—not least, the statement that this hospital was being closed down. Let us clear up that point straight away, because there is no suggestion that this hospital should be closed down. In fact, the evidence—and I can give specific dates and figures—indicates how clearly a contractual undertaking was arrived at some years ago; and even then it was known that modifications, in view of other practices and other procedures, would be required.
On October 18, 1963, St. Teresa's indicated that they were aware that a maternity unit would be opened at Queen Mary's, Roehampton; and on October 21 the Board replied that this would not be in the next eighteen months to two years, but that it might well be that modifications would be necessary in about one and a half years to two years' time. This does not entirely remove the problem, but it casts a much more radical light upon it, and the inference which has to be drawn is an inference which, I think, belongs to the very nature of this kind of work. Furthermore, it is the kind of work which I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, must not castigate, when it is taken over by public authorities, with this old and weary cliché that personal relationships are lost in public institutions. This simply is not true. I have a pretty long experience of public hospitals, and I am continuously

789
encouraged—and sometimes, I confess, surprised—at the amount of care and personal attention which is given to people, whoever they are, and the almost universal gratitude which patients express (and this also is gratifying) for the attention they have received.
I hope that this stale assumption that public authorities do not provide personal attention, and that only private and vocational authorities do, is not going to be argued out in your Lordships' Chamber again to-day; because this is an old subject, and it is not true.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? As he has attributed those sentiments to me, I think it would be fair to make it perfectly plain that what I said was that in my opinion this was the greatest shortcoming of the Health Service. I did not say that this personal attention did not exist.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, the noble Earl would prefer me to say, "it is in short supply".
EARL FERRERS: Yes.
LORD SOPER: I would repudiate that as well. I understand this point; I know how often it is repeated and how familiar it is, but I want to say how clearly and categorically I repudiate it.
I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his comments about my own acquaintance with public outcries and "raising steam" in public matters under consideration. This is perfectly true. But I am not sufficiently naïve to believe that this cannot be contrived, and I am not sufficiently naive to believe that this is a matter which should be taken as an indication of public outcry in itself. I can imagine what would happen, for instance, if the local authorities in Lincolnshire decided to close Epworth Rectory. The local inhabitants of Epworth are a very small community, but they would have the entire Methodist Church behind them in their public outcry. St. Teresa's is a small hospital, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said; and no Roman Catholic must take offence if I remind your Lordships that they have at this moment the whole apparatus and instrumentality of the Roman Catholic Church, highly organised, to do this very thing. All honour to them, if they believe in it! But let us not make the mistake
790
of thinking that this is a spontaneous outcry on the part of the local community. It has its repercussions, and I am sure it has its relationship to the most highly organised and most integrated Christian community I have ever known.
I am sure that this question raises a matter of principle, or, rather, two matters of principle; and I would briefly advert to them. I am sure that a very great deal of voluntary effort in this field should be working towards its own redundancy. This would certainly not be true in any community which did not seek a Welfare State. But I am sure that in a Welfare State there are opportunities for the whole community to take responsibilities which in other ages have been the accepted vocational responsibilities of only a few. And I see nothing wrong in recognising the inevitable process whereby such (if I may say so) ordinary, almost everyday, occurrences as belong to the business of a maternity hospital can and should be taken over, not entirely but in large measure, by local authorities who can provide certain amenities.
This is a matter upon which I think a little more accuracy is required, because it is true that in this particular instance there are to be provided an additional ten maternity beds over the allotment in St. Teresa's, as well as the availability of the full resources of a general hospital, X-rays and laboratory facilities, while a "flying squad" service to the community is also being planned. It would be, I think, gratuitous to assume that, with all the love and care, there is not a considerable argument to be made that in maternity care the enlightened community can probably be better than even a vocationally inspired religious community.
Having said that, I would immediately pass to the other thing which I think is a companion truth. I firmly believe that there are certain services which need to be rendered by devotionally-minded people who have two qualities which are probably not to be found in the public sector. One is a particular sense of devotion; and no one would want to say that this is not displayed in an exemplary manner by the Roman Catholic sisters. The second, and equally important, is a reference back to some kind of reservoir of fellowship in many cases, and I am thinking particularly of the hostel in which I have the care of girls who are pregnant

791
and unmarried, of unmarried mothers and their babies, and those who are ill and old and are very lonely. I think here there will be a continuing—indeed a permanent—need for the sort of tasks which have been so splendidly undertaken by St. Teresa's and like hospitals in the past.
I earnestly invite the responsible people in St. Teresa's to do again what they have done already, which is to follow out the advice of John Wesley to his helpers. He said: "Go to those who need you, and especially to those who need you most". At the time when this contractual arrangement was entered into the greatest need was for some hospital beds for maternity cases. To-day I am convinced that this need is secondary to a need of an entirely different kind of particularised and devotional work. It ought to be put on the record, although I think in fact it was referred to by the noble Baroness who has just spoken, that far from the Regional Hospital Board's saying, "The only thing you can now do is to go back to geriatric work", what the Board has proposed is that this hospital should turn over to the kind of chronic sick nursing among young people which I believe is one of the most difficult and complex and heart-rending opportunities which we have for public service, and for which I share with my Roman Catholic friends a sense of great conviction and devotion.
Therefore, far from hoping that out of this debate it will be assumed that the public sector has no further need for St. Teresa's, I earnestly invite your Lordships to consider whether or not the right course is for St. Teresa's to seek to do a job which, on the evidence, seems to me to be approaching redundancy in this particular area. It may be of interest to point out that in the Inner London area there are at the moment 719 beds available and only 556 of them are occupied. It should be considered whether St. Teresa's should not turn from this work which is now becoming, not unnecessary, but equally well done by the public authorities, and concentrate once again on those pioneering efforts, as it has done in the past and by which it has known its greatest glory and has fulfilled its deepest mission. I hope this will be done in the future.
7.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, until the last speech I had not regarded this as being in any sense a
792
denominational issue. I am quite unaware of this supposed effort by my Church to make trouble over this incident. I should have thought that if that had been the case someone, in the expectation of this debate, would have sent me some documentation on the subject. I have received no documentation at all. No-one in authority in my Church has suggested that I should take any interest in the question. I put down my name to speak only this morning, after a visit I paid to Wimbledon on Saturday and Sunday, and I am speaking not as a Roman Catholic but as a man who has a great love for, and some understanding of, the Borough of Wimbledon. Before the war Lady Iddesleigh's parents had a cottage at Wimbledon and I spent many happy weeks there as an engaged man and a young married man, and I got to know it very well. My battalion was at Wimbledon in 1940 and I spent many, not quite so happy, hours in Wimbledon in that year. Now my younger son lives at Wimbledon.
I do not believe that the Regional Hospital Board would have come to this decision if they had understood the character of Wimbledon. It is a very closely knit community. A Wimbledon housewife said to me yesterday, "Living here is not like living in a suburb; it is like living in a county town. We are proud of our community; we are proud of our Wimbledon institutions. We fill our theatre very well and we are proud of our maternity hospital, where our babies are born in our Borough". This closely knit feeling which is notably strong in Wimbledon is the cause of this agitation, and I repudiate the suggestion that it is an agitation provoked by Roman Catholics. It is a genuine, common feeling.
The arguments in favour of retaining the services of the community, and retaining them in maternity work, have already been given by other speakers. I will add only this: if we deprive this community of the maternity work we shall be wasting about ten maternity trainings. The members of this community are pioneers. Fifty years ago it was not considered suitable for nuns to do maternity work at all. They avoided it then; but progress goes on in religious Orders as in other places, and when there was a need for more midwifery, in this country the Sisters

793
undertook maternity training. Whatever other work they do in geriatrics and the work of which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has spoken, that training of those nuns will be completely wasted. That is an appallingly uneconomic thing to do and I blame the Regional Hospital Board that when they came to level up the maternity services available they did not reckon on the possibility of keeping this excellent hospital going by continuing the contract. This would have suited Wimbledon, it would have suited a great many mothers who are fond of the place, and it would have avoided a great expenditure of public money on other places. I follow the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in begging Her Majesty's Government to think again about this matter.
7.19 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I rise to say a few words to-night on my noble friend's Question. In fact I feel rather like Daniel in the lions' den, and I am afraid my noble friends, the lions, will not be quite so kind to me as those lions were to Daniel. There can be no doubt, my Lords, that if one's heart were to rule one's head we should all be backing St. Teresa's here to-night. Wonderful work is being done by the nuns there. I know only too well, my daughter being in St. Mary's Convent at Roehampton what wonderful work they do for the mentally handicapped, and how grateful I am to them. Unfortunately, those of us who have a major or minor responsibility in the Health Service have to ensure that the best use is made of the all too little money available for the care of the public. I feel I should state that my hospital group is in the South West Metropolitan Regional Board, and hence under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, but that in no way has influenced my words to-night.
After very careful thought I have come to the following conclusion. I have for many years been connected with charity organisations, and I am convinced that the main function of a charity organisation should be to pioneer new projects and to fill in the gaps in services not covered by the health scheme. We shall be hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, factors which have influenced the Board in their decision, but I understand
794
that in general the maternity services in the area are now fully covered, with all the up-to-date techniques which medical science has devised. I also understand that there is urgent need for the care of old people and the chronic sick which the Board have been unable to cover fully. I would therefore say humbly to St. Teresa's, "Well done thou good and faithful servant. Turn now to new horizons where your loving kindness is so badly required".
7.22 p.m.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, I must confess that I also have not visited this hospital, but I have been stung into speaking this evening because I am a great admirer of voluntary effort, and I feel that until this matter was brought into the open, and in particular this evening, no real appreciation or thanks has been shown to St. Teresa's for the splendid work they have done and are doing. I should like to make clear that this dispute is entirely with the Regional Board and not with Westminster Hospital; the name of Westminster Hospital has been mentioned because it is the hospital which is taking over Queen Mary's when the new general district hospital is built. All of us in the Palace of Westminster know that if you are taken ill it is to Westminster Hospital that you are taken, and many of us have reason to be grateful to that hospital for the excellent treatment that all their patients receive. I should like no confusion about that.
When St. Teresa's was taken over by the National Health Service in 1948, as we have been reminded it was caring for cancer patients. At the request of the Ministry it then converted itself, at its own expense, into a maternity unit, having at that time, I think it was, 22 beds, and during the four conversions those beds have now risen to 70. All that has been at the expense of the hospital. The National Hospital Plan, which was presented to Parliament in another place, I think in 1962, while extensions to St. Teresa's were still going on, included Queen Mary's as a district general hospital. The then Minister asked the Board of Governors of Westminster Hospital to plan a maternity unit. So the Regional Board must have known about this. Surely a member of the Board could have gone personally to St. Teresa's

795
some time between 1962 and the present day to explain the position to them, and not just convey notes, or whatever method was used. Even in 1966 St. Teresa's were, vaguely, at any rate, under the impression that they were still going to be used, until they were suddenly told their contractual arrangement would stop in 1967. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that the job of the voluntary organisation is to pioneer objects and hand them over, but you cannot suddenly hand over wards that have been converted; you need a little time and also money to do that.
Whatever the reasons why the Regional Hospital Board showed no personal interest in this hospital at all, I put it to your Lordships that there were the most appallingly bad public relations between the Regional Board and the hospital, and also with the local people. It has been pointed out that Wimbledon is a little community on its own. Surely somebody on the Regional Board could have taken the trouble to go and see for themselves what really was happening in this hospital, and if this decision had to be taken, give them some helpful advice as to how their very splendid wards could be used.
Perhaps I might add a personal note here. I am myself a nurse. I have nursed both in maternity units and in geriatric wards, and I know that very different conditions are needed in both. In St. Teresa's you have a trained staff for a specific purpose, whereas for geriatric wards you need a rather different staff, and the talents of these ladies would really be rather wasted. I must emphasise again that the exceptional service that this hospital gives is not only in nursing but also in human relations. Although one noble Lord rather suggested that human relations do not matter very much, I think they matter enormously. Also, of course, there is this exceptional question of cost per bed. The very low cost, nobody will deny, is because very much of the service is given free. Free service is a very rare thing in these days, and I personally think it should be praised and taken into account, and not just fobbed off by saying, "You have done a splendid job; now turn your splendid maternity unit into a geriatric ward". And again the hospital pays; there is no suggestion that anybody else pays.
796
As there is a difference of opinion as to the number of maternity beds needed in the district, and bearing in mind the extra cost to the State of the new beds—quite apart from the cost in money and time to the relatives of patients who will then have to travel to other hospitals, to Kingston and Richmond, to visit their friends—would it not be wiser to keep all the available beds until the effect of the new Queen Mary's unit is seen? I should like the Minister to tell me whether it is the policy of the Regional Boards to be regionally bound, or whether there can be interchange if there is a shortage of beds in a particular region.
Finally, I was talking to a local resident of Wimbledon on the telephone—I discovered he was a local resident by chance—and I asked him whether he had any comments to make on this question of St. Teresa's. His only comment was, "It is a crying shame". I join with the noble Earl in hoping that Her Majesty's Government will persuade the Regional Board to think again.
7.30 p.m.
BARONESS STRANGE OF KNOKIN: My Lords, I am very pleased indeed to take part to-day in this debate on a subject that is close to my heart—I refer to the maternity services, and in particular to St. Teresa's Hospital in Wimbledon. I am most grateful, too, to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for this chance to be able to give him my unqualified support. I have lived most of my life in the country, and there I have learned what their hospitals mean to mothers when they have had their babies and need so much help, comfort and understanding. This is perhaps more evident in the country than in the towns, because, as well as other things, the mother often has a long journey to undertake.
St. Teresa's has been equipped especially as a maternity hospital. It is only a short time ago, in fact only last year, that the last improvement was made. The nuns there are dedicated people, catering principally and particularly for the poor and the unmarried mother. As there is not so much pressure on their beds as there is in other kinds of hospitals, the patients are allowed to stay there longer than they can in other and bigger hospitals. This is a good thing, because, when the mother and baby go

797
home (and this is especially true of National Health patients), the mother starts to work. Often it is heavy work, and so she does not get the rest and the quiet that are necessary to her. Also she is on her own. She may have other children to look after, as well as the small baby. For that reason she does not get back her strength so soon as she might. Surely this is an argument for the small hospital like St. Teresa's.
Though I think that a geriatric hospital is a good idea, the more so because I have a feeling that I may need to get a bed there myself soon, I consider that the young should not be deprived of a service which has been especially equipped for them. A maternity hospital is a thing apart. In it, it has some of the greatest joys in the world, and also the most demanding responsibilities. St. Teresa's is a teaching hospital, of which there are all too few in Great Britain. The skill and the high standard of devotion of these nuns has made them respected and loved by thousands of mothers who have had their babies there. I beg that Her Majesty's Government shall ask the South West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board to reconsider their decision to withdraw the grant from this splendid hospital. If they do so, they will earn the grateful thanks of many thousands of people.
7.34 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, replies, and although I had not intended to join in this debate, may I just say that no doubt he has heard from more than one speaker that about 19,000 cases have been dealt with in this hospital without the loss of a single mother. I wonder whether he could quote one other National Health hospital which has a similar record? If he cannot, is it not a strong indication that the Minister of Health is throwing away this remarkable talent in favour of a hospital which bows the knee, not to the true God, but to the more fashionable god to-day—at any rate among those in the Government—of bureaucracy?
7.35 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we have had a useful, a reasoned and an informed debate. I am only sorry that my noble friend Lord Addison has not
798
himself been able to take part in the discussion, especially as he came under what I thought was a somewhat unfortunate personal attack. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made a persuasive speech. He spoke with great feeling, and he made a contribution to a campaign which must rank as one of the most remarkable of recent years. Undoubtedly—and, like others who have spoken, I live in that part of London and therefore I know—St. Teresa's campaign has attracted great attention and support, especially in South-West London. However, that is not to say that its case is incontrovertible, or that there is not another side to it.
It is my experience (hat it is seldom that human beings can be persuaded to protest so strongly and persistently unless there is some good basic reason. The reason in this case, as so many noble Lords have already said, is the deep and understandable gratitude and affection for a hospital in which so many lives have been brought happily and safely into this world. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, emphasised this, and nobody has challenged it. The Minister certainly has not challenged it; the Regional Board have not challenged it, and I personally would never challenge it, because my wife and I have a special reason to be grateful to that hospital, as my son was born there. If I may be allowed to make this one personal reference, it so happened that at the time she was confined there I was dismissed from my post as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Labour Government of that time.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Give the reason.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I may say so to my noble friend, it was for supporting the Ireland Bill at that time. The nursing sisters there, with great care and sympathy, for which we shall always be grateful, because they thought, mistakenly, that I had lost my livelihood, went to immense trouble to see that the newspapers were kept from my wife. But though I understand the reason underlying this campaign, there are other factors which, in my view, justify the policy which I propose to explain.
I thought that the noble Earl made overmuch of the point that my noble

799
friend Lord Addison had not personally visited the hospital. I think it unfortunate that this observation was made, or that so much was made of it. Anyone who knows my noble friend—and here we all do—knows the voluntary and unpaid time which he devotes to his duties as chairman of the Regional Board, and would really hesitate before speaking as did the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in that way. In any case, my noble friend would not have learned a single new fact about this situation. The facts were all known, and my noble friend would be the last to challenge the assertion that has been made over and over again, that St. Teresa's is a fine hospital.
What we are really concerned with here is not so much the past, but how for the future we can ensure for South-West London the best possible maternity service with the large, but strictly limited, share of national resources which are at the disposal of the Regional Board. Let me deal with the charge made by some of the politicians in the area, and implied by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers this afternoon, and certainly made by one other noble Lord, that the developments affecting St. Teresa's are being pursued for ideological or political doctrinaire reasons. This charge is false and is known by those who make it to be false.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I specifically said that there was no Party issue whatever here, and such remarks as he has made certainly do not refer to me.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right. What I said was that it was implied in what the noble Earl said, but it has been said in terms by others in this controversy.
EARL FERRERS: It was not implied by me.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Earl went to great lengths in saying what was being done, in referring to the bureaucracy implicit in the way in which the Minister was acting. He implied that it was a decision of the present Government, and by people of a different political Party from his own.
EARL FERRERS: I must interrupt the noble Lord. This is absolutely a misrepresentation of what I said. I said
800
that this decision had been taken and that in my judgment it was a wrong one; but I said specifically that there was no Party issue in this whatsoever.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am very glad the noble Earl now makes it absolutely clear, but the fact still remains that it has been said in the course of this controversy—the noble Earl will agree with this—that the decision has been taken for ideological and doctrinaire reasons. I am quoting here from speeches that have been made.
EARL FERRERS: But not by me.
LORD BESWICK: But not by the noble Earl.
EARL FERRERS: That is different from what the noble Lord said a few minutes ago.
LORD BESWICK: We will read tomorrow what I said and what the noble Lord said. The fact I want to stress is that the initial decision to enter into a contractual arrangement for the use of beds at St. Teresa's—this was a temporary arrangement—was made during the time of, and by, a Labour Government. The policy which has led inevitably to the ending of this contract was decided by a Conservative Government. Both decisions were justified on medical and administrative grounds. In neither case was there a hint of doctrinaire thinking.
The principle governing the policy, decided at the time of the Conservative Administration, meant that the Hospital Service should be based on a network of district general hospitals, of which a maternity unit would normally be part. The advantage of this policy is that the full supporting services to be found in a district general hospital will be available to all maternity patients. In South West London, Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, which, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has explained, is part of the Westminster Teaching Hospital Group, will be the district general hospital to serve the surrounding community. A splendid modern maternity unit is under construction there and is expected to be admitting patients from January next year. My noble friend Lord Silkin went into some detail about this new hospital, and I do not propose to add more on that subject.

801
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, queried a statement made by my noble friend Lord Silkin, that St. Teresa's had known of this development of Queen Mary's as far back as 1965. In fact I have seen correspondence referring to this development as far back as October, 1963, and it is surely reasonable to assume that this development was, or should have been, taken into account in the forward planning of St. Teresa's.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord excuse me? I asked the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for evidence that the decision had been notified to the hospital five years ago. In his answer he shrunk the period to about 1964.
LORD BESWICK: The facts, as I understand them, are these: that there must have been a discussion about the new development in 1963, because I have seen correspondence in which this new hospital accommodation at Queen Mary's, Roehampton, is mentioned. A further warning was given verbally, I understand, in 1964 that the new accommodation coming forward would make it impossible for the contractual arrangements with St. Teresa's to be continued.
I would emphasise, in view of the point made about the position of my noble friend Lord Addison, that these early warnings were given at the time of my noble friend's predecessor. The original decision, or, rather, the planning which made the decision inevitable, was taken by the Board in 1964, before he assumed his present responsibilities as Chairman. Again, if the noble Lord wishes to make a personal point of this and press for the resignation of my noble friend Lord Addison, I can assure him that such is the feeling of the Board itself that if the question of his resignation arose the whole Board would automatically, I am certain, resign with him, because the decision was a decision of the Board as a whole.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? What I was arguing was not a personal criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, in any way. What I pointed out at some length was that, because of the structure of the Hospital Service, there is no way for users to make their views known and no possibility of an
802
appeal. May I put it in the form of a question to the noble Lord? Assuming that there was a proven case of maladministration in the Hospital Service, what, in his view, would be the correct remedy?
LORD BESWICK: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, did raise the broader issue, and I hope that he will excuse my not going into that matter this evening. There is not time, and I do not think that it would help this particular case. I have some sympathy with what he said. I personally think that there is a case for a more democratic structure of the Regional Boards but it seems to me that this has no bearing on the situation here.
I was taking up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who did call for the resignation of my noble friend Lord Addison.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord must get his facts right. I did not call for the resignation of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. I said that he had never visited the hospital. I never called for his resignation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I speak in the hearing of the House, and I am sure that when the noble Earl reads Hansard to-morrow he will find that he said something very different from what he now thinks.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord. It was I, not my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who called for the resignation of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison.
LORD BESWICK: Then I apologise to both noble Lords. That is quite right. I am very sorry, but certainly this question of resignation arose, and I thought that it was raised by the noble Earl.
May I now deal with one or two of the detailed points raised? The question of comparative costs was mentioned. Part of the campaign's argument is that it will be more expensive for the Regional Board to provide at the new hospital the service hitherto available at St. Teresa's. The actual figures have been published, and I do not propose to go into them in detail. Briefly, they seem to show that the cost per day at St. Teresa's is somewhat lower, but since the Regional Board paid St. Teresa's on the basis of so much per

803
patient per day, and as patients there tended to be retained for slightly longer that the regional or national average, the cost per patient to the Board is somewhat higher. But I do not think that the difference between the two would lead to a decision one way or the other.
There are two other relevant matters in this question of costings. First, the St. Teresa's figures have recently increased significantly, and in the last year or so they have spent this additional sum of money on the equipment of the hospital, and I should be surprised if the figures do not show a further increase in the future. The second, and more important, point is that the Health Service figures, which are slightly higher on a per-day basis, include an element for the specialist facilities not provided by the private hospital; for example, the maternity flying squads for emergency calls. They are available for all the people in the area and they have to be paid for, and the costs of those services are caught up in the average costs on the National Health Service hospital.
I am sorry that the question of comparative safety has been brought into the argument again. I agree that St. Teresa's has a very fine safety record; but so have other hospitals. If this part of the argument is pursued, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, appeared to wish to pursue it, then one must point out that the really difficult and complicated cases are more likely to be admitted into a maternity unit, at which all the specialist facilities of a general hospital are available.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, would the Minister agree, while he is talking on that point, that the vast majority of maternity cases are perfectly straightforward, natural deliveries? So is it not essential that we should not send to the really expensively produced units those cases which can be perfectly well delivered in such a hospital as St. Teresa's?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was dealing with the question of the comparative safety record, and all I am saying is that if you get on to the figures on which some have tended to dwell—whether it is a matter of one death or two deaths or three deaths over a period of years—that can be accounted for by the fact that really difficult and complicated
804
cases would not go to the small private maternity hospital but to a unit which is attached to a general hospital, at which the specialist facilities are available. That is the only point I was trying to make here.
One other point has been made very strongly, both in the campaign generally and again to-night, concerning the adequacy of maternity bed accommodation in this part of the metropolitan region. I must say that this was the one point on which I personally had doubts when I went into this problem. I am only too well aware of the housing development in the Wandsworth, Roehampton and Kingston Vale areas. I know, too, that there have been complaints about difficulty in gaining admission to a particular hospital at a particular time. But I think the position here must be understood. No one claims that at the present time there is, should be, or could be, 100 per cent. availability of beds for confinements. The Maternity Services Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, reported in 1959 that the objective should be to provide hospital accommodation for 70 per cent. of all confinements on the basis of a normal stay of 10 days. In the Boroughs of Merton and Wandsworth respectively, 85·9 per cent, and 85·4 per cent. of mothers were delivered in hospital last year. So, clearly, the Regional Board are more than fulfilling requirements in this respect.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, may I ask just one question? Since 1959, when the Report of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was produced, a very much larger proportion of mothers—and also potential aunts and grandmothers—are going out to work. Therefore, there are fewer home helps, and real home helps, available, which means that there needs to be a higher proportion of maternity cases in hospital.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is quite right, and the 70 per cent. was a national average. There must be a variation as between one part of the country and another, and in London the factors to which she calls attention apply much more than in other parts of the country. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the average suggested in the Report was 70 per cent., and I am saying that in Merton and Wandsworth 85·9 per cent. and 85·4 per cent. of the mothers

805
were delivered of their babies in hospital last year. So I do not really think it can be claimed that there is a shortage of beds in this area.
A particular reference was made at one point to the fact that there had been a statement that at St. Helier it was not possible to take mothers at a given time. But my information is that the position in the St. Helier group was not that there was a shortage of beds, but that there was a shortage of staff, and not all the beds were being used. That position is being improved, and I think there will be less cause for concern in the future, so far as St. Helier is concerned. Nevertheless, even though there were difficulties at that hospital at one time, overall in the South West Region there is no question about the adequacy of beds.
I have brought out the fact that some 20,000 additional people have moved into the area in recent years, and that this must mean a substantial additional requirement. But, again, if one goes into this without emotion and with a slide rule, and if one assumes a birth rate of 16·6 per 1.000, the extra requirement there indicated is 11·6 beds. As has been said, there will be this extra number at Queen Mary's—50 instead of the 40 at St. Teresa's; there will be 10 more at Queen Charlotte's and another 12 at Kingston Hospital later this year. To demand that the Regional Hospital Board, after making provision in its budget—a limited budget—for these extra beds, should, in addition, continue to contract for the use of beds elsewhere is simply to ask them to spend money unnecessarily, which they urgently need for other hospital services.
I have tried to explain the policy first declared by a Conservative Minister of Health (I accept what the noble Lord said, but there has been this feeling in the rest of the campaign, and I think it is fair that I should make the point), which provides for maternity services as part of a district general hospital. I have sought to show that the South West Regional Board are carefully and efficiently applying that policy. Nevertheless, I know that no-one will derive any sense of satisfaction if a side result of the application of this policy is the closure, or the curtailment, of the devoted service which the staff of St. Teresa's render to the local community. It ought not to mean that.
806
Previously, it is true, the hospital cared for the chronic sick. They have since accepted, and presumably will still accept, private fee-paying maternity patients. So the question of closing down the hospital does not, and should not, arise from the decision about which we are talking.
My noble friend Lord Addison, the Chairman of the South West Regional Board—and a more fair-minded and generous-hearted person cannot be found—is prepared to discuss with the hospital the use of some of St. Teresa's beds for other essential hospital services. I hope that it will be possible to listen to the appeal which was made by my noble friend Lord Soper. What he said was absolutely right: there are other needs, possibly greater needs, which have to be met in the area. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell—and, as always, he spoke movingly on a matter concerning hospitals—called attention to the fact that greater avenues of service were now opening; and this is, of course, so. I beg those who have played a part in this campaign to realise that there is still in that area urgent hospital service to be performed.
My Lords, harsh words have been used in this campaign—not in this House, but outside. There have been some who, in my view, have sought to exploit the deep-seated and understandable affection which many of the electorate in the constituencies around there have for St. Teresa's. But I am addressing my appeal this evening to those who actually serve in the hospital and who wish only to continue to serve the community. I put it to them that I believe it would be useful if they accepted the invitation of my noble friend and got round a table with him to see if some alternative use could be made, on a properly planned and longish-term basis, of the beds which will become available at St. Teresa's. That, I am sure, is the best way one can tackle what is, we all agree, a very difficult and moving problem.

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

EAST KILBRIDE BURGH BILL
Reported, with an Amendment.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.