Lords Sitting of 5 February 1968

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

ARMED FORCES: DISCHARGE RIGHTS
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 whether decisions have now been made on

(a) the period of service in the armed forces of boys who join at 15 and 16 years of age; and

(b) the procedure for conscientious objectors within the forces.]

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., a Statement which my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration will be making in another place.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, as my noble friend has indicated he will be making a Statement, I will reserve my supplementary questions until then.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the contracts of service of girls will be similar to those of boys?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I cannot quite hear the noble Baroness. Perhaps it is the lights.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I was asking the noble Lord whether the contracts of service will be
910
similar for girls as for boys, because I believe some girls join at about 16 or 17.
LORD SHACKLITON: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving me advance notice of the supplementary question she is going to ask.

BOARD OF TRADE FLIGHT INSPECTORATE
2.36 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: My leave to ask the Question my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the present staffing of the Flight Inspectorate of the Board of Trade.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, to meet the increased work resulting from the growth in civil air transport and the more advanced types of aircraft employed, the strength of the Flight Inspectorate has been substantially increased. The Board of Trade cannot be satisfied, however, until it is at its full planned strength. It is estimated that 33 inspectors are needed to carry out a fully effective inspection of airlines holding or applying for air operators certificates. Thirty officers are in post, including four under training. Recruitment is continuing, but of course the Board of Trade must maintain a very high standard in recruiting for this work.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his very full and, I think, fairly satisfactory reply. But may I ask him whether he is aware that on January 29 (I think the noble Lord admitted this) the number of flight inspectors employed in the Flight Inspectorate numbered 30 to cover some 4,000 pilots and 400 aircraft of 40 commercial airlines operating from this country?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there are 40 companies now holding the air operator's certificate. I think the 33 inspectors will be able to cover these satisfactorily.

CONSUMER SPENDING
2.38 p.m.
LORD BYERS: 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 measures they propose to take in advance of the Budget to curtail the present alarming increase in personal consumption and consumer spending.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the arguments against taking additional measures to restrain personal consumption in advance of the Budget were set out in some detail in the speech of January 23 by the Lord Privy Seal, and by myself in my speech on January 24.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for answering the Question, but is he not aware that there is a record spending spree going on at the present time? Is it right to maintain this uncertainty up to the Budget? Surely one of the halves of the devaluation package was some restraint on consumer spending. Is it not about to get out of hand?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the answer to the last part of the noble Lord's question is, No. As for his assertion that there is a record spending spree, I am not certain to what figures he is referring. The fact is that there are no really reliable statistics about it, although there is a lot of speculation in the Press. If the noble Lord will look at the speech to which I referred, he will see that a great many of consumer durables—in the case of washing machines it is 75 per cent.—come from the depressed areas, and we want to build up demand there. There is no evidence—and I shall be glad if the noble Lord can provide the figures on which he bases his assertion—that home demand is impinging on export demand.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, surely it is within the noble Lord's knowledge, with all the Press reports and even one's own experience, that people are buying motor cars, washing machines and all the rest of it. If his contention is right, is there any need for cutting consumer consumption at the time of the Budget? What is so magic about March 19?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, one of the things the noble Lord ought to know is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not make decisions based on Press reports. So far as motor car production is concerned, I am advised that in the last three months of 1967 production was still 12 per cent. below what it was three years ago. There is slack to take up, and until that slack is taken up we need not get alarmed about hindering exports.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may we take it that the Government are quite happy that this is having no adverse effect on the export drive?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord can take it that the Government are not getting alarmed as the noble Lord is.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, apart from Press reports, many people think there is a great deal of reason to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not well advised in the reasons he gave on January 23. Will the Government keep a very careful watch on the position and be prepared to revise their estimates and change their decision before March 19, in the interests of our export drive, if they think it necessary?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Earl will remember, one of the things I said in that speech was that it was much easier to be dogmatic if one did not have the responsibility for executing the decisions taken. The fact of the matter is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has two factors to take into account. One is confidence at home, and although additional measures would no doubt have assisted the creation of favourable opinion abroad, it was still necessary not to undermine confidence at home. While there was this slack to take up, in so many of our industries, it was unwise to take premature action.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I congratulate my noble friend on his answers, will he take into consideration that the expenditure of the rich on consumption, even of one meal, would be a day's wage to a worker, and that that fact should also be taken into consideration in any reduction of consumption?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this may well be the case. Here we are talking, in the main, about consumer durables, and there is no evidence at all as yet that the present demand is anything more than anticipatory buying which later on will fall away, at a time when we hope the export demand will be building up.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government statistics are usually at least three months out of date?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what the noble Lord is saying is that the Treasury assessment of economic trends is made four times a year, and therefore so far as his statistical proposition is concerned I agree with him. But the most recent Treasury assessment is not yet available. It will be available within the next week or so, and it would be much better, I should have thought for the Chancellor to wait for that and not base any decision upon Press statements.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
2.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Brown.)
On Question., Bill read 3a.
Clause 42 [Short title and commencement]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Consumer Protection" and insert "Trade Descriptions". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move to change the Short Title of this Bill from "Consumer Protection Bill" to "Trade Descriptions Bill". I do not propose to make a long speech about this; I think we have already debated the subject almost ad nauseam. My first reason for disliking the title "Consumer Protection" is that I loathe the word "consumer". To me the word "consumer" conjures up a picture of somebody in a café, sitting in front of a plate of fish and chips. In any event, it is not a particularly meaningful word, because although most of us do not like to think of ourselves principally as being consumers,
914
we are consumers, and so this Bill, if it is a consumer protection Bill, is a Bill for the protection of the whole of society. Of course, the whole of the criminal law, of which this Bill is but a small part, is for the protection of the whole of society. So the title "Consumer Protection" does not get you very far in any event, and it does not tell you what the Bill is about.
I thought the purpose of the Short Title of a Bill was to explain as briefly as possible what the Bill was about; and what this Bill is about is trade descriptions. There is no question about that. If it were called the "Trade Description; Bill" nobody would have to look it up in order to discover that it was about trade descriptions; whereas if it is called the "Consumer Protection Bill" nobody" coming upon that title will have the faintest idea, within wide bounds, what the Bill is about. They will have to look it up in order to find out that it is about trade descriptions.
A second Amendment is down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I am certainly not going to attack that alternative title, because if my Amendment is not accepted I will certainly support the alternative of using the expression "Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions)". My criticism of the second Amendment (which nevertheless I shall be pleased to support) is that we do not already have in the field of consumer Protection Acts called the "Consumer Protection (Weights and Measures) Acts"; we do not have Acts called the "Consumer Protection (Food and Drugs) Acts", so why must we have an Act called the "Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions) Act"? I think we should go on in the same way as we have been going on until now. Let us describe this Bill in its Short Title simply by describing what it is about, and call it the "Trade Descriptions Bill". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 34, leave out ("Consumer Protection") and insert ("Trade Descriptions").—(Lord Airedale.)
2.48 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has been good enough to refer to my Amendment, and I take it that it would be the wish of the House

915
that we should discuss these two Amendments together. I should first like to say that we have discussed this Bill throughout in a spirit of compromise. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has been extremely good in meeting points wherever he could and in amending the Bill to meet points that have been made. We have had only one Division so far, which resulted in a tie, and that was on a comparatively minor drafting point.
It may seem odd to some of your Lordships that we are discussing this point at all. I think there are two reasons. The first is that we have always reached this point at a late hour of the night; and the second is that, to my mind, there is a question of principle—indeed, two questions of principle—involved here. I think there are at least three good reasons why "Consumer Protection" is not a good title. The first is that there already exists an Act of that name, the Act of 1961, and if this Bill were to go through it would have to be called all the time the "Consumer Protection Act 1968", to distinguish it. I do not think that is particularly desirable.
The second reason is that the previous Act, based on the first Molony Report, deals with a particular aspect of protection: that of protection of the person; whereas this Bill, I suppose, deals with protection of the purse of the customer. That being so, I should have thought that it would be desirable at least to differentiate this Act, if not to give it a totally different name. The third point is that this Bill protects not only consumers. It protects any trader—anyone in trade or business—from the actions of a competitor or supplier of his in misleading as to the quality, and so on, of the goods. Therefore, as it protects not only consumers, it seems to be a mistake to call it the Consumer Protection Bill.
The fourth point is that there would be some argument for saying that it would be a good idea to call this the Consumer Protection Bill if it were completely comprehensive, but it is not completely comprehensive. It is true that this Bill is based on the Report of the Molony Committee, which was called the Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection, but it deals with only a part of that Report. If it is to have the title "Consumer Protection Bill", then it should
916
specify that part of the Report with which it is dealing, which is trade descriptions. It has been said that nobody knows what "trade descriptions" means. I should have thought that it was perfectly clear what it means. We all know—and everybody soon will know—that this Bill deals with what is said or written or portrayed about goods and services, and lays down that it should not be false—that is, false to a material degree,—or misleading.
The point that weighs with me most against calling this the Consumer Protection Bill is that it would be most unfortunate if the idea were to be given that this was a protectionist Bill. In another connection the noble Lord said that he wanted to remove the "slur of protectionism". I do not think that this ought to be a protectionist Bill. I take the same view as that taken earlier on by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, that the time for pure consumer protectionism has passed, and that what we want is consumer education and consumer information. We want a Bill that is fair all round.
There is no doubt in my mind that the psychological effect of calling this the Consumer Protection Bill will be to slant the Bill to influence magistrates and enforcement officers, in favour of the consumer, whereas I firmly believe the Bill should be fair to all.
We have acted in a spirit of compromise throughout the Bill. If the noble Lord is prepared to accept my Amendment, which will faithfully reflect the Molony Report, then I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in the same spirit of compromise will agree so that we may avoid a Division. If, on the other hand, the noble Lord is not able to do that, then I, for my part, would support Lord Airedale's Amendment. I realise that the noble Lord's Amendment is not acceptable to all noble Lords, some of whom would be prepared to reach a compromise on this matter. Therefore, if the noble Lord's Amendment were defeated, I hope that the noble Lord would be able to support me and that we should carry the second Amendment.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I wish that the Government could do something on this particular matter. I feel very strongly about it and

917
I have spoken about it at various stages of the Bill. I am afraid that this is one of those awkward subjects where at one time or other one faces a question of principle. I dislike intensely the term "consumer protection". I hope that we have now reached the stage of discussing these matters round the table with consumers and industry or shopkeepers alike, and not on a basis of the consumers on one side of the table and industry or shopkeepers on the other side. I feel that my noble friend Lord Brown is in a difficult position here. He has had the honesty to go on record in this House as saying that he does not like the present title. I do not think he has committed himself to liking either of the Amendments, but I believe he was not happy about the present title.
We have been told quite often that it is not necessary for anything we send from this House to another place to be in a perfect condition, and I wish that the Government would feel able to accept one of these Amendments. If an amended title goes to another place, their Members can amend it and send it back to us if they so wish. Furthermore, if the title put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale., is not acceptable to the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put forward a compromise and has left in the words "consumer protection", which I dislike as much as he does, and has suggested something else in addition. I very much hope that in this year of 1968 we do not use the phraseology of the 1950s but that we move forward. If the noble Lord could see his way to accept one of these Amendments, it would give satisfaction to the progressive side of the consumer movement in this country.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, although I must confess I have always regarded this Bill as a consumer protection Bill, and very much of a consumer protection Bill, I still think that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is a very good compromise. I myself would support it.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and as her designated successor on the Consumer Council, I should like to report that I have consulted my colleagues, with the
918
exception of the noble Baroness, who does not quite agree, and we are content with the Government's chosen title. We take the view that the original 1961 Bill was well entitled and deals with one particular part of consumer protection, and that this Bill is generally entitled and deals with a more general part of consumer protection. We are unable to think that any consumer will be confused in any way at all by this title. We do not feel passionately about it. We do not dislike the name in the title so much as does the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. We do not think that "trade descriptions" is a self-evident phrase. One thing the Bill does not mean is what that title says, which is that it is the description of a trade. On this view we would favour the Government's title, but, as I say, without passion.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I support what my noble friend has said about the title of the Bill, and also what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on his Amendment. Of the two Amendments I much prefer that of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Indeed, I suggested a compromise on these lines during one of the later stages of the Bill on Report. The advantage of that Amendment is that it retains the words "consumer protection" but includes the words "trade descriptions", for the good reasons put forward by Lord Airedale, and I hope that the Government will accept it. The title of the previous Bill, which came to nothing owing to the General Election, was Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill. The title of this Bill is Consumer Protection Bill only. If it were to become "Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions) Bill", it would still be shorter by one word than the title of the previous Bill. I think it would also answer the various objections put forward to the words "consumer protection", which do not describe the aims of the Bill adequately and also are rather loaded against the great majority of traders, both retailers and manufacturers, who are honest and who are protected in the Bill as much as is the consumer. I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accept the second of these Amendments.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, surely it is what is in the Bill that matters, and

919
personally I do not regard this as a question of principle. I do not think it matters two pins.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, If Clause 11 had stood it would have been possible to call this a Protection Bill. But, as we know, Clause 11 is to be withdrawn, because we have proved conclusively that it cannot possibly work in any guise that any human being has so far managed to suggest. As for the rest of the Bill, it protects the purchaser, the wholesaler and everybody else just as much as the consumer, and therefore I feel certain that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has the right sort of Amendment down.
3.1 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as the House already knows. I have some sympathy, though a little less, with the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will no doubt move in due course of time. But I am in the unfortunate position, as spokesman for the Government, that I am unable to accept either of these Amendments. I must appear to the House to be extremely unaccommodating in saying that, but there it is. It is possible to put up some sort of rough logic in defence of these Amendments, or indeed against these Amendments. Personally, I feel that in the last analysis the matter is one of choice, rather than of logic, and the House knows my own feeling about it.
I feel that, really, we have two courses open to us to-day; and I do not want to take up a great deal more of the time of the House in debating this matter. Either the noble Lord should agree to withdraw his Amendment, which I doubt if he will do, or we should divide on it and possibly send a new title to the other place. Whatever happens, I think it is sound that those who influence my stand in this House should be subject to the arguments which have been put forward here. I do not know what the outcome will be. It might well be that the title of the Bill would be amended in the other place, even if the Amendment were withdrawn here. But, of course, I can give no guarantee at all of that. I shall not try to pursue the argument further.
920
I am sorry to be unaccommodating, but there it is.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, surely the Minister is going to give us some sort of reason for preferring the one title to the other. I came here with an open mind on this matter. Reasons have been given in favour of the Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has said that it does not matter two pins. I dare say that it does not matter very much, but surely the fact that reasons have been given for the Amendment, and no reason, apparently, has been given for abiding by what is in the Bill, would tend to make the House vote against the Government, unless they give some reason in favour of what is in the Bill.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, as the noble Lord forces me to my feet again on this Amendment, I can point out that it is indeed a Bill which started with the primary objective of offering protection to the consumer, and, although it is concerned with the matter of trade descriptions and the like, the fundamental purpose of this Bill is in fact to protect the consumer. It is not setting out to enforce on the trader the onerous task of, perhaps, describing his goods differently or conducting his affairs differently merely for the sake of doing so. It is doing all that in the interests of protecting the consumer, and the logic of calling it the Consumer Protection Bill lies in the fact that that is its objective. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has argued the logic of calling it the Trade Descriptions Bill on content and not on purpose, and that is the other sort of logic which one can attach.
One is therefore left with a choice as to whether one decides to base the title of the Bill on its content or on its purpose. The Government have thought fit to choose the latter, and the noble Lord has chosen the former. I do not know which is right. I have already expressed my sympathies with the line in which the noble Lord wishes to go, but I am just one single person. But that is the argument here. I am sorry that the noble Lord was disappointed when I did not give this explanation, but as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has said, it is not a matter of enormous importance. I do not want to occupy your Lordships' time any further.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether he can give us some guidance as to the normal practice. From Bills I have seen passed here, my impression is that they have generally been called after their contents, but I may be wrong. Is a Bill sometimes called after its purpose?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I am sorry, but I am afraid that is not a question I could answer. It would involve a good deal of research work which I personally have not done.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, of course I am sorry that the Minister finds that he has to be unaccommodating, but the noble Lord, Lord Brown, on this occasion, as on all occasions through all stages of the Bill in this House, has been unaccommodating in the most charming possible way. To the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I would only say that when he says that "Consumer Protection" as a title would not confuse
consumers, I certainly never suggested that it would do so. What I said was that consumers would not know what the Bill was about without looking it up and reading it, when they would find out that what it was about was, in fact, trade descriptions. That is why I so firmly feel that it is much better to describe, the Bill in its Short Title by its content than by its purpose, which, after all, is the Government's social purpose. The content is surely a much better basis for the Short Title of a Bill.
I shall not pursue the matter any further. If I thought I could pick the winner between these two Amendments, I might save time by not dividing the House upon this one. But I feel pretty sure that your Lordships are going to accept one or other, although I do not know which, so the only thing to do is to put the matter to the test.
3.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, D.

Craigavon, V.

Jessel, L. [Teller]

Ailwyn, L.

Derby, L.Bp.

MacAndrew, L.

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Mansfield, E.

Albemarle, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Alport, L.

Dundee, E.

Mountevans, L.

Amulree, L.

Dundonald, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Effingham, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Oakshott, L.

Atholl, D.

Falmouth, V.

Ogmore, L.

Auckland, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Bannerman of Kildonan, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redmayne, L.

Barrington, V.

Hawke, L.

Rowallan, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Headfort, M.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Buckton, L.

Henley, L.

St. Helens, L.

Byers, L.

Hives, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cawley, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Coleraine, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Vivian, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ironside, L.

Windlesham, L.

Woolton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Greenway, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hankey, L.

Raglan, L.

Brown, L.

Henderson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Royle, L.

Burden, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Champion, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Crook, L.

Hunt, L.

Shannon, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Latham, L.

Soper, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Listowel, E.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

McLeavy, L.

Southwark, L.Bp.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Strang, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Mitchison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Moyle, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

3.15 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In moving this Motion, may I make some comments? Since this Bill was read a second time, your Lordships have spent something like 24 hours discussing it in Committee and on Report. In that time you have made a large number of Amendments, both to the drafting and on points of substance; and it is worth remembering that when this Bill was first presented to this House, in November last year, it already took account of a number of suggestions made during your Lordships' discussion of its predecessor, the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill, which lapsed in 1966. This Bill has therefore been the subject of long and detailed consideration; and I should like to thank your Lordships, not only for what I consider to have been most valuable and fruitful discussions, but also for the extremely co-operative and constructive spirit in which these debates have been conducted.
Together we have achieved a good deal. The first six clauses have been clarified in several respects. In particular, I hope that no one doubts now that the purpose of Clauses 2 to 6 is to interpret expressions used in the Bill and not to change the meaning of those expressions in other parts of the law. We have extended Clause 12 to false claims that goods or services are of a kind supplied to any person and not just to claims concerning the Royal Family, Government Departments and local authorities. We have taken out the power to order the forfeiture of offending goods proposed for the courts in Clause 17. We have introduced a six-month time limit for the institution of summary prosecutions for oral offences in Clause 18. Clause 20 has been entirely redrafted. The defence in Clause 23, subsection (1), now expressly covers cases where the commission of an offence was due to reliance upon information supplied to the defendant or to the act or default of another person. We have also accepted an Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which will require the giving of notice to the prosecution where it is alleged that the commission of an offence was due to such act or default.
We have redrafted subsection (1) of Clause 27, and have modified some of
924
the powers which it would give to the authorised officer of an enforcement authority. For instance, he could now require the production of books or documents only where he had reasonable cause to suspect that an offence had been committed. The new Clause 35 would provide an exemption from Clauses 1 and 8 of certain market research activities; and Clause 38, subsection (2), would protect all genuine editorial comment published in a wide variety of media. These and other changes made by this House add up to a valuable improvement in the Bill. We think that it was a good Bill when we introduced it, and thanks to your Lordships' help it is certainly now a better one.
I recognise that there are points on which some of your Lordships are still not happy. There are, for example, the fears that have been expressed about the wide scope of the powers sought in Clause 9 to require the inclusion of information about goods in advertisements. We still think that these fears are unjustified, but we have tried to meet them by omitting the power to require instructions to be included in advertisements and by making it clear that the Board of Trade must not make a blanket order covering all descriptions of advertisement in respect of any class of goods. We think it would be wrong to restrict this power any further. My Lords, there is nothing sinister about this. We are simply concerned to be able to protect the consumer as and when the need arises. In preparing for the unpredictable, we have to assume that if an advertisement is an advertisement for the goods which will be supplied to people, then it is an advertisement in which sooner or later we might find it necessary in the interests of consumers to require that certain information should be included. The point of such an order would obviously be to ensure that the consumer was forewarned of some significant fact about the goods which might otherwise not come to his notice before he had committed himself to the purchase of the goods. This is not simply an issue where mail order is involved; in some cases the buyer may have been so conditioned by the advertisement that by the time he goes into the retailer's premises to buy goods of a certain class, he is likely to ask for the particular brand by name, without inspecting the goods closely

925
enough to notice the information printed somewhere on them. Your Lordships may wish that shoppers would not be so impulsive, or that they could be taught not to be so impulsive; just as you would wish that every motorist could be relied upon always to drive carefully and sensibly.
But, my Lords, we have to deal with the shopper as he is, not as we would wish him to be. He takes the advertisement to have disclosed the material facts, and merely asks at the counter for a packet of "Blotto" or a bottle of "Squish". The advertisements that achieve this effect on him will not necessarily have been issued by the retailer, or issued in any particular physical form; nor will they necessarily amount to an "offer to supply", or to an "invitation to treat", or to any other special legal concept of that kind. Nor can it be assumed that it will be only in the case of goods of some particular type or price range that the need arises, or with regard to some particular consideration such as safety. That is why we are convinced that, to deal with the many diffierent circumstances that might arise, it is essential to leave this clause as it stands.
Perhaps I may here return to a question which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked me on Report stage. He asked whether this power would extend to information about the price of goods, or credit or hire-purchase terms or—as the National Board for Prices and Incomes recommended in relation to television rental—total changes over a period of years. I regret that I inadvertently misled the House when I said that I thought it would. For I am advised that there is room for doubt whether Clause 9 as at present drafted would enable us to make an order covering all these matters. We shall, therefore, have to decide in the course of our consideration of the National Board's recommendation whether some further amendment to this clause may be desirable.
The drafting of Clause 11, which deals with false indications as to the price of goods, has given us a lot of trouble. I will not weary your Lordships with another account of the possibilities which we have, one by one, considered and regretfully rejected. As matters now stand we have a clause covering false comparisons with a recommended price, false
926
comparisons with one's own previous price, and false indications that the selling price is less than it really is. The clause deals with these three mischiefs in a perfectly satisfactory way. As far as it goes, it is—with all due respect to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke—a good clause. The objections that have been raised to it are that it does nothing to repress "phoney" recommended prices, and that it does not attempt to deal with false comparisons with other people's prices, or with false statements as to worth or value. There is no disputing that it would be sound if we could add something to the clause to deal with such abuses; the question to which we have as yet found no satisfactory answer is how to devise something which is helpful, fair, and enforceable. As I have assured your Lordships we shall keep on thinking and trying I have already indicated in debate one of the possible avenues of advance which, we are exploring. We do not, however, yet know whether it will be possible to add to Clause 11 in a manner which will both yield further protection to the; consumer and he enforceable.
Finally, some of your Lordships are concerned about the possible consequences of making oral mis-statement an offence. I fully appreciate the sincerity with which noble Lords have argued the difficulties in which shopkeepers might find themselves, and have advanced various proposals for mitigating these problems. But our view is that it is right and proper to make these misstatements an offence, and that as the Bill stands the difficulties will not in practice be anything like as serious as may be theoretically supposed. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brown.)
3.26 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord for having given a résumé of what we have done in the course of this Bill. I think we can all claim some modest credit for having improved the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, not only listened to arguments put from both sides of the House, but has taken great trouble to meet them wherever he judged it possible. Indeed, as he has said, he has undertaken, at least on Clause 11, to

927
go on trying to meet them. Although he was able to accept only three Amendments or substance moved from this side of the House, I reckon that he has himself introduced 15 Amendments of substance to meet points from this side, often with support from his own side. I am sure that we are all grateful to him.
As the noble Lord has covered the Bill so fully, I do not want to go over the ground again before we part with it to another place. But there is one aspect of the Bill which I think needs further consideration: that is the enforcement provision in Clause 25. This Bill not only brings the law on trade descriptions up to date; it breaks new ground in extending it to cover misleading indications that might be taken as trade descriptions about goods, and to cover misleading statements about services. In other words, at present the criteria for determining whether a trade description is false are wholly objective, matters of fact ascertained from tests or records. The only subjective element lies in whether they are false to a material extent. In future there will be a further subjective element: whether what is written or said or portrayed is likely to give a misleading impression. In such cases the enforcement authorities will not themselves have been misled. Before bringing a prosecution, they will have to exercise their own subjective judgment whether others are likely to be misled, as well as whether the implication is false to a material degree. It is, therefore, important to know who are to enforce the law and how they are to be trained and equipped to do so.
Who are to enforce the law? Clause 25 says it is to be the local weights and measures authorities within their areas. But whom are the local weights and measures authorities to employ to do this? For my part, I have assumed throughout that they will employ the Weights and Measures Inspectorate; although, in matters involving the whole country or a large part of it, as the noble Lord knows, I think the Molony Report was right to recommend that the Ministry concerned, mainly the Board of Trade, should regard itself as the appropriate prosecuting authority. On Re-commitment, the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said:
928
"The Government have set out to use the local authorities' weights and measures inspectors; and they believe that this will work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/1/68, col. 48.]
I must ask the noble Lord this question. Has the Board of Trade changed its mind since it submitted its evidence to the Royal Commission on Local Government in England? In paragraph 21 of its evidence the Board of Trade said this:
"The designation of weights and measures authorities as the authorities charged with the duty of enforcement is not intended to imply that the work should be done by weights and measures inspectors. Indeed, the Board of Trade would hope that the time of qualified inspectors would not be taken up by enforcement duties in the greater part of the field covered by the Bill which would not be of a kind to require such qualifications. It would be for the authorities concerned to decide what staff to employ for the purpose."
Surely we must be clear on this point. In the past year we have also had the Mallaby Report on staffing local government which had a lot to say about recruitment and training. There can be no doubt that the officers who are to enforce this Bill will have to be trained, and it is important that they should be properly trained. We cannot entrust powers of entry, inspection, seizure of goods and documents to half-trained or untrained officers. Indeed, my Lords, I know think that the Bill could have been, and could still be, improved by providing for qualification standards. The Mallaby Report observes that the profession of inspectors and weights and measures was one
"which has limited prospects and appears unattractive to good school leavers and graduates."
The Inspectorate as a whole was short of qualified staff. In the spring of 1966 the Mallaby Report recorded that there were 43 posts in Greater London alone, out of an establishment of 123, which were vacant, although elsewhere the proportion of vacancies was smaller. Yet there is no suggestion that the Inspectorate is inefficient. It is just, in the view of the Committee, rather unattractive as a profession.
My Lords, it would surely be a great mistake if the local weights and measures authorities were to be left free to lay the responsibility for forcing the provisions in this Bill on whichever branch of their local government services happened to have spare capacity at the time. Surely

929
there should be uniformity in this matter throughout the country. Surely, also, the responsibility for enforcing the wider provisions of this Bill should be laid on the Inspectorate which has already been dealing with trade descriptions. If one reason why a profession is short staffed is that it is relatively unattractive, surely there is a very good chance offered in this Bill of making it more attractive by entrusting to it the wider responsibilities involved and providing a better ladder of promotion and one reaching higher.
A great advantage enjoyed by the Weights and Measures Inspectorate is that of a personal contact. The local inspectors are already in close contact with manufacturers and distributors of goods in their area, though not as yet with suppliers and services. I believe that the success of this measure depends upon personal contact and on the ability to enlist the co-operation and enjoy the confidence of consumers and traders alike. That is why I should like executive authority for enforcement to rest with chief inspectors of weights and measures in England, Scotland and Wales.
Perhaps I may be allowed a personal reference and to say that my work in Government, and elsewhere, has brought me into contact with the Weights and Measures Inspectorate. I have greatly admired the way in which the Inspectorate approached their task under the Weights and Measures Act of 1963. They explained the requirements of the Act to those of their flock who inadvertently infringed them, and for the most part they have brought prosecutions only where they were satisfied that an offence was deliberate, or that there had been irresponsible negligence. This is precisely the approach needed under this Bill—and particularly in that part of the Bill which deals with misleading statements and indications. The Bill does not require proof of intention to mislead, but it is greatly to be hoped that prosecutions will not be brought unless the enforcement authorities are unable to enforce the law without doing so. This is the approach with which weights and measures inspectorate are familiar. At local level they are well fitted to carry it out.
Naturally they will require guidance from the Board of Trade to ensure reasonable uniformity of enforcement.
930
This is one general point with which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, did not deal—the matter of guidance. Is it the intention of the Board of Trade to issue circulars to local weights and measures authorities guidance circulars on how to carry out their functions?
My Lords, in practice, if I am right, prosecutions will be brought only where the law has been deliberately and flagrantly flouted, or where the enforcement authority think an offence has been committed, but the alleged offender disagrees. In such cases the courts must clearly decide what is the law and whether it has been broken.
Of course, not all weights and measures inspectors are equally endowed with tact and common sense. Occasionally somebody may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, put it, "over-zealous". But, by and large, they are good judges of men and succeed in keeping a sense of proportion. I suggest that the enforcement authority must be, and must be known to be, completely fair and impartial, and should not be too closely identified with either traders or consumers. This again is a good reason for using the weights and measures inspectors. Distributors and manufacturers may sometimes feel that they are harried by the Inspectorate, but I have been impressed by the realisation of the Inspectorate that they are enforcing the law just as much in the interests of the honest trader as in the interests of the honest consumer. They are there to see fair play for all. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me some information about enforcement.
There is one other general point that I should like briefly to mention: it is a point with which I am intimately concerned. I know that, like the Molony Committee, the noble Lord wants to see the voluntary system of control in advertising playing its full part. Certainly it would be a long step backwards if the voluntary system, which has grown in influence and effectiveness in the past six years, were to be allowed, or indeed compelled, to wither away as a result of this Bill. That is certainly not a necessary result; but it is a real danger unless the authorities, at both local and central level, are as willing to work with the voluntary system as I may say the voluntary system is willing to work with them. There are many aspects of advertising in which control is exercised voluntarily and where

931
it would be quite impossible to exercise effective control under our present legal system. That side of voluntary control could scarcely survive if the other side were undermined. By "the other side" I mean the side which does a great deal to ensure that advertisements likely to infringe the law do not appear, and that, if any do, they are amended or withdrawn as soon as possible.
My Lords, I hope very much, therefore, that before bringing prosecutions for offences in advertisements both the local and the control authorities will inquire what steps, if any, have already been taken under the voluntary system. I should like to make it clear that I am not saying that no prosecutions should ever be brought where the voluntary system has already succeeded in having advertisements amended or withdrawn. I suggest that, if we are to get the best results for the public, the closest understanding and co-operation between the statutory and the voluntary controls are desirable. I believe that this can be a good Bill, provided that the keynote of its implementation is co-operation between enforcement authorities and the Board of Trade, on the one hand, and between both and the voluntary system, on the other.
3.37 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I would wish this Bill well in its journey through another place. As the House knows, I have certain reservations, and I hope very much that these will prove to be ill-founded by the time the Bill comes back to us. As my noble friend Lord Brown said, we have still not yet decided how the law should operate on the vexed question of the value of goods, and I shall await with much interest the discussions and Amendments which take place elsewhere, particularly on the framing of an adequate Clause 11; because I still believe that acceptance of the Amendment deleting the words "or are being offered by others" on page 6, lines 32 and 33 of the Bill as first printed, was a grave mistake and a significant weakening of the Bill. Having said that, my Lords, I should like to pay my tribute to my noble friend Lord Brown. I am sure he thinks that some of us have been trying, and that probably I have been
932
more trying than others; but obviously, if one feels strongly one has to speak. Although I did not get anywhere with my protests I should like to say how much I appreciated his comments.
3.39 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I, too, should like to associate myself with what noble Lords have said about the Minister, his patience, good humour and hard work, and the kindliness he has shown through all the stages of the Bill in this House. I wish to say only a word or two about enforcement, which was mainly the subject the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had to discuss. I cannot allow this opportunity to pass, I am afraid, without saying this. There is, in my humble opinion, still a black spot in this Bill under the enforcement provisions. It is this: that Clause 27 empowers a magistrate to give a warrant to a local government officer, or an officer of the Board of Trade, to enter by force into a shopkeeper's warehouse or store, or even into part of the shopkeeper's house, if goods are stored there. I imagine that a great many shopkeepers keep part of their stocks in part of their dwelling houses above the shop. The inspector can be empowered by a magistrate to break into those premises to inspect goods in them, without his having the faintest suspicion of any kind against that trader or that there is anything the matter with any of the goods in the warehouse or at the back of the shop or wherever it may be.
I think it is extraordinary that the Board of Trade should have come to Parliament to ask for a power of this kind to be inserted into a Bill in peacetime, Socialist England. I am comforted in several ways. To begin with, I do not believe that this power will survive the passage of the Bill through another place. I believe that it will have been removed when the Bill comes back to your Lordships' House. If it has not been removed, I have a certain amount of faith that no local government inspector will ever go before any magistrate to ask for a warrant to enter by force into the premises of any shopkeeper if that inspector has no suspicion of any kind against that shopkeeper.
Thirdly, I have a good deal of faith in the magistracy and I do not believe that any magistrate is likely to give a

933
warrant to an officer who comes to ask for one to burst into some shopkeeper's premises when he has no suspicion about that shopkeeper. Fourthly, I believe that on the first occasion that happens, if it ever does happen, though I do not believe it will, there will be a public outcry and people will say, "Are we living in Socialist England in peace time or in Nazi Germany?". I am sorry to speak so strongly about this matter, but that is what I feel about it. If it were Parliamentary to have a bet with the Minister that this provision will not survive the passage of the Bill through another place, I would do so; but I do not think that it would be Parliamentary to engage in a wager with the Minister upon this.
Finally, as I ventured to suggest on Second Reading, the Bill perhaps errs on the side of being too grandmotherly and that our duty in this House would be to try to see that it left us in not too grandmotherly a state. But it has now a nice refreshing new title, much less grandmotherly than the old one, and I hope that another place will discuss this Bill in the spirit of that much more refreshing and less grandmotherly new title. I wish the Bill well in its remaining stages through Parliament.
3.45 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, not only for the consistent courtesy which he has displayed through these proceedings but also for the fact that his business knowledge has helped him to pilot the Bill with a great deal of skill. Nevertheless, some of us are not entirely satisfied with the product as it has so far revealed itself. The test of the Bill, as of any consumer Bill—and I have had experience of three or four in this House—is its enforcement and the spirit of good will among all those concerned with its enforcement—the weights and measures authorities, the factories, the wholesalers and the retailers and ultimately the persons who really matter so far as any business is concerned, the consumers.
One clause about which have some reservations is Clause 7, which empowers the Board of Trade to assign definite meanings to expressions used in relation to goods. As the Bill stands, there is nothing to prevent those meanings from
934
being quite different to the consumer from those which the Board of Trade intends. I have read paragraph 593 of the Molony Report which recommends this, and also Clause 36(a), but they seems to me only to strengthen the case for looking at this point again. Of course, the Board of Trade must have the power to designate meanings in legislation, but so far as I can see there is little or no right of appeal. Possibly this matter will be pursued in another place, because I think it is an important point.
I am particularly grateful for Clause 35, dealing with market research, which, as I said on the last stage, has never been of more importance to our home and export markets than at the present time. This clause will be greatly welcomed by all those engaged in this vital profession. So far as Clause 9 is concerned, I know that the Government did not accept health and safety as the criteria in the Amendment which I moved at an earlier stage, but I hope that they will give further consideration to making this clause slightly more flexible, because, though I appreciate that it has been looked at and changes have been made, it is still an inflexible clause. Having said that, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who has piloted the Bill with such skill from this side, and once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brown. I think that this House has made this a very much better Bill.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I have: talked a lot at various stages of this Bill and I shall say little more. I want to add my personal tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for the patience and good will he has shown to my own personal suggestions, and in particular to the Amendments to Clauses 6, 12 and 20 which he has made. I think that his conduct of the Bill has been an example to all Ministers in charge of Bills.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those of the speakers who have preceded me to my noble friend Lord Brown for piloting this Bill so skilfully through the House; and also from this side of the House I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the constructive way in which he has approached the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I should also like to thank him for treating it in a non-Party way. This is not a

935
Party Bill: the matter is too important for Party politics. As other noble Lords have said, we have, I think, improved the Bill considerably during its passage through this House.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, I am somewhat disappointed that Clause 9 remains virtually unamended. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has not told us—indeed, he has probably not been able to tell us—exactly why the Government need these powers, but we have received the assurance from the Board of Trade that they will consult with all the interests concerned, and we welcome that. This is really an important matter, and I hope that this offer by the Board of Trade to consult will never be forgotten in the years to come, because we are legislating for a great many years. I am very concerned about this matter. One hopes that there will be nothing in the same light as the Food Labelling Regulations, which have been brought in without adequate consultation, and where really first-class packaging design has been so stultified and ruined that it begins to look rather like something primitive produced by an emergent country or by a first-year student. This is an important matter. The whole of our prosperity depends, to a large extent, on successful marketing and advertising. One welcomes the assurance that the Board of Trade, while they may wish to bring in the necessary regulations to include certain information in advertising, in doing so will not wreck this important side of the whole marketing operation.
With those few words, I welcome the Bill. It is a good Bill. It has, as I say, been considerably improved. I have no doubt that it will receive careful consideration in the other place, and any improvements that we have not been able to make here one hopes will be considered during the passage of the Bill through the other House.
3.52 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long, but there are one or two points to which I must respond. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for what he has done during the passage of the Bill, and I must do my best at once to rescue him over his agony of mind on Clause 27. I assure the noble Lord most sincerely
936
that he is misreading the clause, because no justice of the peace can under this Bill give an officer the right to enter premises by force unless—and I refer to Clause 27(1)(b)—
"he has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence under this Act has been committed"
et cetera.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord please read paragraph (a)?
LORD BROWN: I do not want to start a debate on the meaning of the clause, but I may point out that Clause 27(3) refers to the duties of a justice of the peace, and says:
"If a justice of the peace, on sworn information in writing—
(a) is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that any goods, books or documents which a duly authorised officer has power under this section to inspect are on any premises",
then he may give authority to break open. But that is consequent on Clause 27(1)(b).
LORD AIREDALE: No.
LORD BROWN: I think we shall have to leave it there. I honestly believe that the agony of mind expressed by the noble Lord is unjustified, but perhaps we can discuss this point afterwards. I had hoped to take him out of this state of mind. Obviously I cannot do it now, but perhaps I may do so subsequently.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, drew attention to the fact that inadvertently I have spoken of weights and measures inspectors in some words that I have used when I meant to say weights and measures authorities. It is, of course, an easy slip to make, but I apologise to the House. I can assure your Lordships that the views of the Board of Trade remain as stated to the Royal Commission on Local Government in England in relation to the original Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill. While we recognise that it will be for the local weights and measures authorities themselves to decide what staff to employ on the work of enforcing this Bill, we think that much of it will not call for the special qualifications and expertise of weights and measures inspectors, and that it will, therefore, be a pity to load it on to these scarce officers in all cases.
The reason for designating the enforcing authorities, in Clause 25, as those

937
authorities which are weights and measures authorities is that this is a short and convenient way of specifying the larger local authorities who we think should have this duty. It carries no implication at all that the work ought to be done by the weights and measures inspectorate. We are only too well aware that this service is at present understaffed. In the early days, however, when the Bill first comes into force, it seems to me probable that many authorities will rely largely on the staff of their existing weights and measures and public health departments who are now engaged on the enforcement of the weights and measures and food and drugs legislation and, in some cases, of the Merchandise Marks Acts, as well. They can be expected to take time to assess the extent and nature of the new duties arising from the Bill and to build on to their existing organisations. In the longer run, one would expect that while some parts of the work under the Bill might conveniently be combined with the other duties of weights and measures and public health inspectors, a good deal of it could appropriately be handled by officers with less specialised qualifications, perhaps under the general supervision of the senior staff of the authority's weights and measures inspectorate. But, as I have said before, it will be for each local authority to decide how best to organise the work and what kinds of staff to employ.
Having said that, I have noted carefully the words of wisdom spoken by the noble Lord about the general relationships between local authorities and their inspectors and those who come under scrutiny as a result of the new provisions of the Bill. I will undertake that in the course of the consultations and discussions, of a probably fairly detailed and lengthy nature, that will take place between the Board of Trade and the local authorities the text of the noble Lord's remarks this afternoon will be considered fully. I consider them to be words of wisdom, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having said what he has this afternoon. Other noble Lords have referred to different points, but I will not deal with them now, because I do not think they require a direct answer. I have noted them. All that now remains for me to do is to thank noble Lords very much indeed for the kind words they
938
have said about me. I am one of those unusual people who very much like praise, and I have had some this afternoon. I am grateful to noble Lords for giving it to me. With that, I think I have said all that I need to say.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

RELEASE RIGHTS OF BOY SERVICEMEN AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
3.57 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration has just made in another place about the Latey Committee's recommendations on boy entrants to the forces, and also on the procedure for dealing with conscientious objectors. My honourable friend's words were:
"I am now able to announce the outcome of my examination of the Latey Committee's three recommendations on boy entrants to the Forces.
"I am prepared to accept the first recommendation; namely, that all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right on application within six months (instead of three months) from the date of their entry. This recommendation will be brought into force by regulation under Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1966. The detail of the arrangements for applying this policy will differ in each Service in accordance with established practice.
"I am also prepared to accept the third of these recommendations; namely, that parental consent to enlistment under the age of 18 should be required. At present such consent is required up to the age of 17½. If and when the age of majority is reduced to 18 years, this recommendation will be brought into force by administrative action.
"I regret, however, that at present I cannot accept the second recommendation; namely, that all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right within three months after their 18th birthday. I have considered this matter very carefully. The Forces are

939
unique and cannot be compared with civil industry which is able to bear the easy circulation of labour. It takes a long time to make an efficient Serviceman, and, with the limited number of suitable men available, it is most likely that if this recommendation were accepted either in the form proposed by the Latey Committee, or in any substantially similar form, the Forces would be unable to replace their losses, and the ability of the Government to carry out its responsibilities for defence would be seriously impaired. On the other hand, there are the considerations set out in the Latey Committee's Report and advanced by honourable Members of all Parties "—
and, indeed, by noble Lords in this House.
"These considerations are based on the natural desire, which I share, not to bind young men too tightly to long engagements undertaken in their immaturity.
"In view of the conflict of these apparently irreconcilable considerations, Her Majesty's Government have decided to continue studies by all the Departments concerned to see whether a satisfactory solution can be found to meet both the future defence needs of the country and the principle underlying the Latey Committee's recommendation.
"I would like to take this opportunity of informing the House of new procedures for dealing with Servicemen who seek to end their service on conscientious grounds. The existing arrangements have for some time been regarded as unsatisfactory, and I am replacing them as soon as possible.
"Under the new arrangements applications from Servicemen for discharge on grounds of conscientious objection will be allowed and will be dealt with in general under a system similar to that used in compassionate cases. Commanding officers will be required to establish the merits of cases which will then be referred to higher authority in the appropriate Service for decision. There will also be provision for applicants whose cases are rejected by the Service authorities to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and a successful appeal will be accepted
940
as decisive on the question of conscience.
"Once conscientious objection has been accepted as genuine, either by the Service or the Tribunal, discharge will be conditional upon payment of the standard purchase price. The Services will, however, have discretion to reduce or waive the purchase price where financial hardship can be proved.
"The advantage of these arrangements is that they provide a fair and reasonable means of judging whether cases are genuine but do not include the penal provisions which, in some cases, are involved in the present procedure. It is hoped that these arrangements will go a long way towards solving what is an admittedly difficult problem."
4.2 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that Statement. We on these Benches agree that the increase of the extension from three to six months of the right to be released is reasonable. But, in view of the serious decline in recruiting, and the fact that 60 per cent. of naval entrants, and a high percentage of Army and Royal Air Force recruits, join before the age of 18, we think it is the absolute maximum. We also agree with the decisions expressed in the rest of the Statement. But I am slightly confused by paragraph 3, which possibly the noble Lord could clarify. The Government say that they are prepared to accept the third recommendation (in the first sentence), and then they say,
"If and when the age of majority is reduced to 18 years, this recommendation will be brought into force …".
Does that mean that it is not being brought into force now, and will be only if and when the age of majority is reduced?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I welcome the provisions in it. I should also like, on behalf of my colleagues, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, upon the persistence he has shown in this matter. May I ask the Leader of the House one question on the matter of Servicemen and conscientious objection? Is it not an odd

941
principle, if I have understood it correctly, that although a man satisfies a tribunal completely that he has a genuine conscientious objection he should nevertheless have to pay the full purchase price to get out of the Army? This seems to me a very odd principle indeed, and one which might be reconsidered.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Brockway has a prior claim in these matters, but may I deal first with the two points that have been raised? In any case, I think that Lord Brockway will be referring to the second question. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, will not be too dogmatic about the possibility of some further arrangement. The object of further consideration is to see whether there is some way of harmonising this very difficult problem which causes the Service the anxiety, which I hope we all feel, of immature young men committing themselves for many years.
The noble Lord also asked about the interpretation of paragraph 3, which referred to the Latey Committee's third recommendation:
"That parental consent to enlistment under the age of 18 should be required,"
instead of age 17½. This recommendation is not going to be put into force at once. The Government have not yet come to a view on all the Latey proposals. There are complications here, of course, because adult pay is tied to the 17½ age, and I think there could be mixed arguments either way. None the less the Government have accepted this proposal, but I do not think anyone will reckon this a very important issue. It is normal, for instance, as I understand it, in industry to ask for parental consent up to age 18.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers—and I thank him for his remarks—touched on this question as to whether conscientious objectors should be called upon to pay. I should like him to address himself to this argument. Young men or older men, or whoever they are, have voluntarily entered the Service they are not conscripts. That is to say, the situation is very different from that which prevailed during the war. In the course of their service they changed their minds, and we are prepared to recognise this. But, none the less, they have incurred,
942
and possibly at an early stage they may have incurred, pretty expensive training. I think it is right that we should allow due recognition of a conscientious objection, but I would remind the noble Lord that there are other people who may have reasons which are as compelling to them, acute compassionate reasons, and it seemed to me quite wrong that somebody who leaves the Service for some acute compassionate reason should be called upon to pay, and the conscientious objector should not.
If the noble Lord wishes to challenge that he is going very much wider, and he had better deal with that on a wide question. But I ought to make clear to him—and I have had some experience of administering this—that the Services will always waive the purchase price if circumstances are difficult. My experience is that they do this on the generous side they do not try to screw the last penny out—far from it. They will take into account all the circumstances: family circumstances, ability to pay. So, although I see that there is a difficulty, and the noble Lord raises an interesting point, when he sets it in the wider background I hole he will agree that at least in this respect it is right that, once they are allowed to go we should treat them in the same way other Servicemen who have been allowed to leave the Service for other reasons.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I hope the House will give me permission, in view of the fact that I took the initiative in raising both these issues in this House, not to content myself with just a supplementary question.
A NOBLE LORD: Why?
LORD BROCKWAY: Then I will try to put my point as a supplementary question. In the case of conscientious objectors, is the noble Lord aware that we appreciate the strength of his argument that the cost of training, while they were content to be in the Services, is a justifiable charge? I accept that at once. But is he not in agreement that there is also a service which they have given to the Armed Forces and which that can be balanced against? Thirdly, does he not appreciate that there is something a little repugnant to a person whose conscience is affected by service in the military Forces if he has to buy himself

943
out? This is a bargain with his conscience. I will content myself with that first supplementary.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, could the noble Lord clarify the position a little on the scope of conscience under these new arrangements? I can perhaps make it clear by saying that he will remember that just before the First World War a number of officers would have sent in their papers if they had been asked to fight against Ulster, though I do not think it would have been possible for other ranks to get out under that heading. What is the position under these proposals? For instance, would this apply—it does not at the moment, of course—if any Government decided to use force against Rhodesia?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, let me take Lord Brockway's point first. I agree, and I share a slight feeling of discomfort about this question of payment; but I should make clear that the rate of purchase price is tailored to the length of service the individual has given, and obviously somebody right at the beginning of his service will have to pay a higher figure than someone near the end.
I would rather not be drawn into the difficult subject of people sending in their papers, or indeed the particular circumstances of the Curragh Mutiny, which is what the noble Lord has in mind. But in those days I think I am correct in saying that officers were enabled to send in their resignations and they were automatically accepted. For a long time now officers have not been entitled to assume that their resignations will be accepted.
The question of Rhodesia is one I would rather not go into. I appreciate that this question could cause an acute difficulty for a particular individual. I have encountered such difficulties myself as a Service Minister, and I can only say to the noble Lord that these matters, like other matters, are treated by the Services with intelligence and sympathy.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether since Question Time he has had an opportunity of finding out about the contract for girls?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have checked that. Of course my Statement related only to boys, and I understand that this problem does not arise in relation to girls. I hesitate to use the word "contract", because the question of contract is a rather difficult one, but most girls do not join until they are at least 17 years of age. Even if they sign on for six years most of them have an option at four years, and a girl who marries (and indeed in other unusual circumstances) is released without difficulty. I do not think this is a problem, but if the noble Baroness would like to pursue it perhaps she will put down a Question.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in relation to the first part of the Statement which has been made, regarding these boys of 15 or 16 years of age, and whose period of service is 15 years until they are 30, while I welcome the acceptance of the first and third recommendations in the Latey Report I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the grave disappointment felt by many of us in the rejection of the second recommendation? Was it not the recommendation that within three months of these boys reaching the age of 18 years they should have the right to decide whether to continue their service? And is not this period of 15 years' service in effect conscription applied to an underage and unprivileged section of our community? Many of these boys come from orphanages.
Will not the Ministry, in the serious consideration it is giving to this problem, regard this human right of liberty before the considerations of the demands of the Department, in connection with which the Latey Committee has said:
"We doubt very much if manning requirements and planning would be seriously affected by our recommendations"?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am again in difficulties, in the first place because the Latey Committee, although offered the opportunity, took no evidence from the Ministry on manning requirements, and with due respect I must say that it is very difficult for them to express an opinion on a matter on which they did not receive direct evidence, although it was offered to them. I do not think my noble friend will want to bandy words

945
on this particular question. As he knows, I am well aware of the anxiety that he has expressed. I must point out that the number of boys who sign on for this lengthy period are certainly not the majority, but I do not think we are even concerned with total numbers. It may only be a very few individuals to whom the principle applies. For this reason the Government, having found almost overwhelming reasons why a concession should not be given, having felt the force of the arguments expressed by my noble friend, are again considering it, and they will consider it in the widest sense.
I cannot agree with my noble friend that this is really conscription. I think "conscription" has a precise meaning, but without going into emotional terms I understand the force of what the noble Lord has said. He must also realise that there have been a number of particular cases, and in the great majority of those cases one way or another some solution is found. But I promise my noble friend that the matter will be carefully considered.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can my noble friend say when that consideration is likely to be concluded, so that we may raise the matter again?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot say that. I do not doubt that my noble friend will raise the matter again if he thinks it is too long delayed.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House what criteria will be used for these boys to be released on conscientious grounds? It may be that some boys join the Services because they are attracted by an adventurous life. Then as time goes by they may feel that they might be called upon to serve in some threatre of war which they did not like, such as Vietnam, and may feel a conscientious objection to remaining in the Services.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, whether it is Vietnam or Rhodesia, the fact is that I will not be drawn into the question of what is a conscientious objector. A conscientious objector is somebody who conscientiously objects to war, and I think my noble friend Lord Brockway might talk to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and explain it to him.
946
There is a great deal in this question, and I do not think the House would wish me—however much we desire to help the noble Lord—to go into all the questions as to what is a sincere and genuine conscientious objector. By and large, the record of this country in recent years has been much better than in the past and indeed, if I may say so, is better than a number of other countries.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, if my noble friend is not prepared to accept my noble friend Lord Brockway's description of this service as "conscription", I wonder whether he will accept that it is in fact indentured labour, and as such is possibly fairly objectionable.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, may I say that I joined the Royal Navy at 15½ years of age and, with all the ups and downs of a midshipman's life, I have been happy ever since.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, I think we can attach all sorts of names to this. I take his point about "indentured labour". The happy thing is that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, is not alone in finding great satisfaction in a Service life, even if not all members of the Services are as successful as he has been.

ACCIDENTS IN FACTORIES AND WORKPLACES
4.20 p.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take arising from the Annual Reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories (Cmnd. 3358 and Cmnd. 3359), and the Report of the Minister of Labour for the year ended December 31, 1966, presented to Parliament pursuant to section 79 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In the past twenty years I have been in your Lordships' House I have sought on a number of occasions either to move a Motion or to raise a question on accidents in factories and workplaces. I make no apology for doing so again, because, unlike the sensational accidents on railways or in the air, or indeed the normal toll on the

947
roads, the kind of accident to which I am directing attention this afternoon secures little publicity at all. Yet there is a terrible loss of life and a shocking future for the injured people, and a very great loss of production in the country. There is no committee of inquiry in these cases, no investigation, nothing which will rivet public attention. The most reportage that accidents of this kind get, unfortunately, is the odd few lines in a local newspaper about some unfortunate fellow's death being dealt with by an inquest.
Unlike the strike which paralyses the country, the toll of accidents at work goes unnoticed except for the valuable Annual Reports to which I am directing attention at this moment. Paralysis in the docks, paralysis in the car industry, all these losses arouse the interest and indeed the wrath of the nation. Last year by that means we lost 2½, million working days—a very bad picture. But my Lords, the Ministry of Labour Reports show that in the same period we lost 23 million working days as a result of these accidents. That means not only the suffering of the people who are concerned, the suffering of the families dependent upon them, it means many more things as well. It means, of course, the great loss of production, it means that tens of thousands of days of hospital beds are occupied to the detriment of those who may be awaiting operations, it means that tens of thousands of pounds are poured out in accident and sickness benefits. But not only is there suffering and loss of production; in all too many cases this means death and the resultant misery in the families who lose father or husband. My Lords, this day two workers will die from accidents in factories and workplaces.
Once again notified accidents rose from 627 dead in 1965 to 701 dead in 1966. And I accent the words "notified accidents" and "notified deaths" because not all accidents in this country have to be notified—only those that are covered by the Factories Acts and covered in the Reports to which I am now directing attention. The slightest examination of these Reports will show that 296,610 reportable accidents were notified during that year, which led us to the 23 million lost working days. As the
948
Chief Inspector of Factories said in presenting this, his farewell Report:
"Nearly 300,000 reported accidents a year is not a figure which any of us could accept with equanimity."
And it is certainly true, as he said, that it should be unacceptable to any society such as ours, indicative as it is of the complete and inhuman waste of the material of this country.
A number of the accidents are painfully described in some detail, and shocking reading that provides. The Report says that in fiction these accidents:
"… might well provoke the reader to incredulity; in the real world they provide a sad commentary on the level of competence that prevails in certain sectors of industry."
There are all too many top managers who apparently neither cared nor understood about the problem. Top management, the Chief Inspector says, and I think quite rightly, should plan as much for the safety and security of those who work for them as they plan for production or for research or development. The worker, whose great investment is his labour, is as entitled to leave his workplace alive and fit as the investor, the shareholder, is entitled to look for a dividend. Every year in this Report attention is drawn to the fact that those who are in greatest risk are very often young people in industry. Once again the Chief Inspector says:
"Employers remain utterly unconcerned or inactive until a serious accident occurs."
I am sure we shall all agree with him when he says in this Report that this shows a complete and wanton disregard of the responsibilities that employers have.
Having said this critically of the employers, may I go on to say something about the workers themselves, because they have their blame too. Possibly half the accidents could be prevented by a little greater care, at any rate on the part of the men and women concerned—not only the men and women concerned in the actual accident but the men and women with whom they work, who are part of the community inside the factory or workplace. One of the things which I could criticise again, as I have in past years, is the failure to establish joint consultative committees. The Minister of Labour has been pressing workers and employers to get these committees set up.

949
There has been the rattle of a whip, the threat of compulsion. No one has ever gone on with compulsion. It has been the general feeling that in this case, as in the case of first-aid, if it is possible to get people to do these things voluntarily then it is very much better to do so. But the time is coming, I have no doubt, when compulsion will have to be a serious consideration of the Minister, and I and others here today would like to hear something, when the reply comes to be given, as to where the Ministry of Labour stand on this matter.
I was very glad to note in the course of the year the special attention that was given to accidents on the constructional sites and the special report that was made on this matter. On one item of particular interest I should like to ask the Minister, when he comes to reply, whether he can tell us anything of the steps the Government propose to take to deal with the horror of the nail gun. I know from talking informally over lunch that many of your Lordships have never heard of it. It is a gun which fires nails or screws or threaded bolts at high speed into solid objects in order to construct quickly—and in principle a good idea. The matter has come to a head by a recent report of the first notifiable death from this means at the beginning of this year, in January. It was said that this was an accident which was quite rare, but those of us who read the British Medical Journal have soon discovered it is nothing of the sort.
In the Southampton Chest Hospital we learn of a case where a gun was fired at a brick wall and the nail unfortunately went through the plaster between two bricks, straight through into the next room and straight through a woman standing in the next room; and she has had 14 months in hospital to recover. In St. Thomas's Hospital, over the road, we learn of the shocking case where one of these screws lodged in the spinal cord of a man, who lies there and continues to lie there, never likely to recover again, completely paralysed, completely conscious, kept alive only by artificial means. From the medical officer of the Ford Motor Works of Liverpool comes a letter saying, "This is not new; it is not fresh in any way." He has dealt with four cases in his factory in the past five years. He goes on to suggest that those who use these guns should be licensed to use
950
them, and that licences should not be issued until the men have been trained in the use of the gun. In the light of all that the Ministry of Labour are doing to train people under the new training Acts, that probably has something in it.
I am bound to say that it is probable that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Lord who represents the Home Office will also have in mind another thought about these guns, now that there has been all this publicity in the daily newspapers about I hem, which can be read not only by your Lordships but also by those gangsters who find it possible to go with all sorts of instruments to hold up banks and to threaten the police. Although it is not appropriate to my Question, I throw out as an aside comment that the Home Office might like to look at these grossly offensive weapons now coming into general use.
There is another section in the Report to which I should like to give some special attention. It is to be found at pages 13 to 15, and it deals with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The Report speaks with approval of the establishment by agreement with the Ministry of Labour of ROSPA'S regional organisation for industry. Indeed, I have recollections of the Minister speaking last May at the Jubilee Celebration Safety Conference when he praised the organisation on this matter. He said that it was no mean achievement to do what had been done, and continued:
"… without this most valuable provision many firms would have been in serious difficulties in meeting their obligations under the new Power Presses Regulations."
He went on:
"It is equally praiseworthy that this heavy load did not prevent ROSPA from expanding its other courses."
Alas! my Lords, this expansion is not proceeding as planned because ROSPA, like others, has suffered from the current economic situation. I understand the financial situation of the country and the difficulty in which Ministers are placed, but I hope that this regional scheme will continue to receive sufficient help from the Government, and that, at the least, the Government will give sufficient help to keep it in being. Even if its full reinstatement and subsequent

951
expansion may have to wait for better times, I hope we may be assured that that is the intention of the Government.
Time will not permit of my saying much about the second Report, that on health. But I would refer in passing to the reference at page 76 to cancer of the lung. As long ago as 1934 the first regulations on the effects of asbestos dust were issued. We in this country now use six times the asbestos that we used in 1934. What is more, it is the most dangerous form of asbestos, crocidolite asbestos, as it is called. Medical opinion is now clear that the use of this material can subsequently cause cancer in from as little as 20 to up to 40 years after first inhalation. Professor Case, Reader in Social Medicine at the University of London, has expressed great concern, which I believe is shared by the Minister of Labour, and I hope that the Minister replying to-night may be able to tell us that new regulations will be formulated, in the light of present medical knowledge, and embracing those branches of the profession and trade which are not at present covered.
This leads me to mention the third of the Reports, that as to accidents in offices and shops. I suppose that most people in their ordinary daily lives, whenever they think of accidents (if they ever bother to think about them) and certainly when they read about them, think of them happening in factories and workplaces, in the mines or in the docks. The reports under this more recent Act which your Lordships and Parliament passed as recently as 1963, give us the most savage reading. The total number killed in offices and shops last year was 29; and no fewer than 14 of those were actually killed in offices. The total injured in shops and offices was 18,162. Over 6,000 of those were injured in offices, and over 6,000 of them were injured in shops. It is not sufficiently realised that one innovation under the 1963 Act is that there are now registered in this country over 700,000 shops and offices employing over 7½ million employees.
I should like to congratulate the Ministry of Labour on an addition they made this year to their valuable quarterly publication, Accidents, in which, in July, they developed a new
952
feature dealing with offices and shops. Many of your Lordships who have bothered to obtain that document will have seen the graphic, and indeed quite horrifying, pictures of death and disaster. The accounts cover a wide field, including falls, knives, gassing, food-slicing machines, printing machines, lifts, electric conveyors, fires in hairdressing establishments from the alcohol solutions used to make ladies look beautiful. It all makes most horrifying reading. Once again, it is the young workers who are shown to be at greatest risk.
But I think the worst thing this Report discloses is the difficulty of enforcement. Your Lordships will remember that when the Bill passed through your Lordships' House in 1963 there was a great deal of argument as to whether enforcement should be by way of the factory inspectors or whether there should be some more local form of inspection. Finally, the Act divided up the authority for enforcement between 119 fire authorities and 1,219 local authorities, a few other odd authorities, the remainder going to the Factory Inspectorate. Let it be made clear that the local authority rate of enforcement and inspection has been deplorable. In 44 cases there was no inspection at all within the year; 76a little under 10 per cent.—had bothered themselves to inspect. Only 191, that is to say, 16 per cent., have done their job properly. And after two years some authorities have taken no steps at all to enforce the Act. The position as to fire authorities shows a similar pretty dim picture.
The Ministry of Labour Report before us could not, quite properly, include the evidence which the Ministry gave to the Royal Commission on Local Government. But that evidence happens to be available in the Printed Paper Office to all of your Lordships and, for better information, I obtained a copy. In that evidence (I quote from page 10) the Ministry of Labour said:
"The only conclusion … to be drawn … is that despite all advice and guidance, both quantitative and qualitative, uniformity of enforcement by local authorities is an unrealisable ideal."
The evidence shows that there is a vast difference between enforcement in premises for which the Factory Inspectorate is responsible and enforcement by the 1,338 authorities throughout England.

953
Indeed, the evidence shows an absurd position. As the Ministry says in this document:
"It is a ground for general criticism that an Act which provides safety, health and welfare protection for all office and shop workers should vary in its application according to the degree of enthusiasm of the enforcing authority."
The position of multiple stores like Boot's, Marks and Spencer, Woolworth's, and Sainsbury's is absolutely ludicrous. They do the best they can. If they establish a standard which suits the inspector in county X and they put that standard into operation in county Y, they will find that the inspector in county Y does not approve of it and wants something completely different. That in itself is bad enough, but industry and manufacturers are suffering from it too. The manufacturers produce something that is wanted; it suits the inspectors in local authority A, who pass it and agree it. But there is no agreed standard in respect of authority B or authority C, since the local authorities there require something different. What must come is a national scheme of enforcement, which some of us were pressing for in 1963.
My Lords, I have reached my final query—and I know that I have been far too long on an Unstarred Question. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government intend to introduce a new comprehensive Factory Act shortly. Can the noble Lord say whether Parliament will be asked to amalgamate the provisions of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 with the general provisions? Most of us would regard this as a sensible step. Thirdly, can we hope that such a Bill will seek to end the blunder of the division of responsibility for enforcement in regard to shops and offices, to which I have already referred? So, again apologising for speaking at such length, I beg leave to ask the Question.
4.42 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for raising this matter. However, I wish that he had found it possible to put down a Motion on this subject, as there is enough in these Reports to fill two whole debates. Since to-day we are being followed by a most important further small debate, we shall have time only to touch on one or two matters and therefore one will have to
954
keep one's speech short. I should like to say how glad I am that the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, is replying to this debate. In his non-political life he has had a good deal to do with these matters and is something of an expert on them. It is much easier to ask Questions of somebody who knows what he is talking about and is not just speaking from a brief.
I am not going to say much about the Industrial Health Report. I was going to say a word about asbestos, but that aspect was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Crook. This is one of the two Reports from the Chief Inspector and is the one with the most hopeful outlook. Medical knowledge and research is keeping up to a considerable extent with both new and old industrial diseases, many of which are caused by the new techniques and new materials which are being used. It is clear that the doctors are keeping up with this problem, and for some reason both management and employees seem to take a greater interest in industrial health than they do in industrial accidents.
The picture is much more gloomy when one comes to the Report on industrial accidents. As the noble Lord, Lord Crook, pointed out, the appalling problem of industrial accidents does not seem to get much publicity in the Press or among the general public. Although one often hears people say "Aren't these road casualties too awful?", one does not very often hear people say "Aren't these industrial accidents too awful?" The problem is very much greater in industry, and the loss to the country is also very much greater even than the very bad losses caused by road accidents.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, stressed the lack of responsibility of certain firms and managements in their duty as regards accidents; but the Chief Inspector pointed out, as the noble Lord indicated, that there are many firms, both large and small, with a very good record. I only wish that there were more of them. The Chief Inspector also implies that the problem is much worse and the supervision much less in small firms than in large ones. This is quite understandable, although very regrettable. In a very large concern it is not too difficult to alter the workload, whether among

955
management or on the shop floor, so as, by reorganising the work, to take a little of it off one man and put in on to another; and the man who has had a little work taken away from him can be made a member of the committee which looks after industrial accidents and welfare. That applies whether or not the man is in management; it is easier for a large firm to arrange these matters than for a small firm. In the very small firm, both in regard to management and the men operating the machines, there is probably only one man doing a particular job, and there is great difficulty if one tries to switch some of his work on to another man. In a small firm it is also difficult to give to a member of the management additional work when he is already probably very much overworked, but this has to be done.
The most horrifying part of the Report is that dealing with the enormous number of accidents to the young. The Chief Inspector points out that the prime reason, though not the only reason, is the lack of training and supervision. Training should start, if possible, at school, and it most certainly ought to happen in technical colleges. I know that there are certain difficulties about finding enough lecturers, but it is being done. Some of the big firms are helping the technical colleges, and when they run courses in their firms for their own employees they allow people to come from the technical colleges to join in the discussions and the lecturing.
May I ask the noble Lord one question on a matter of information? Are the Ministry of Education taking a really active part in this instruction about industrial accidents and industrial safety? They may already be doing so, but if they are not now taking an active part they ought to be urged to do so, since this is part of the education of anybody who is going into industry. The Ministry of Education ought to play their part. I regret to say that a great many of the accidents to young people are caused by older men. When a man has been handling dangerous machines for years he gets a knowledge of the machine and does not always obey the regulations. He finds one way easier than another and, as a rule, because of his great experience, he does not have
956
accidents. But if a younger man is working near the experienced one, the young man copies the older man. If the older, experienced man leaves the machine for a few minutes and the young man takes over and copies what the older man has been doing, he is in very great danger of losing his fingers or even his hand. One of the duties of management is not only to impress on their older, more experienced workmen to obey the regulations, but to teach them that when they have young people working near them they must obey the regulations even if they appear to be rather fussy, otherwise the young people will continue to suffer accidents as they do now.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, mentioned the nail gun. There are other weapons of this kind—I use the word "weapons" advisedly—which can get into criminal hands. There are new steel-cutting tools. We have had a case recently, and perhaps the less said about that the better. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, asked whether it would not be wise to license people to use these modern tools which might be useful to criminals? I would go further and ask whether it would not be wise that certain tools such as the nail gun should by regulation be kept under lock and key when not in use? I would ask the noble Lord whether anything has been done in that direction.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with this point, since it might be a repeated theme. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Crook has used a nail gun, but I understand that it calls for considerable strength and an exceedingly passive and willing victim.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, that may well be, but I was thinking more of the modern steel-cutting tools. Of course it may need a strong man to use a nail gun, but I believe that some of our criminals are quite muscular.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, when the noble Lord goes out to shoot a bird or a man, he would prefer not to have a 10lb. pressure before he can discharge his missile.
LORD DERWENT: Yes, my Lords, I quite agree. But certain of these tools can be dangerous if they get into the

957
wrong hands, and the question is whether they should not by regulation he kept locked up when not in use. Another question which I should like to ask—and again I am asking for information—is this. Is there a regulation that all safety orders and regulations, which are posted up in factories and mills, and so on, where there are large numbers of immigrant workers, have to be in the language of the people working there? I ask that because many of them do not speak English. I am really thinking of the mills in Bradford. It is no good putting up safety notices in English, if many of the immigrants cannot understand them.
Finally, I come to the Report on the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. I want to deal with only one point with which I have been concerned for some years, and that is the question of light. In most shops and offices—though not in all cases—the lighting is adequate in that part of the premises to which the public have access. That is quite a common thing. But there are some offices in old buildings where the lighting is absolutely Dickensian. It really is quite atrocious. Bad lighting is not only injurious to health, it also causes accidents. The sort of thing one finds far too often in the backs of offices or shops is that the store rooms are badly lit, the passages are badly lit, and the lavatories are badly lit.
Firms vary enormously, but in some of the old buildings one finds a dark passage with, perhaps, three stairs and with no lighting at all; not because there has not been a light put there but because somebody, working in an office just off the passage, has taken the bulb and used it in his own office because he is too busy to go out for another one. Then five minutes later somebody comes along, forgets the stairs and breaks his leg. This happens in many firms because it is nobody's responsibility to see to the lighting every day, and in many cases the lighting is in any case inadequate.
I am not blaming this Government, the last Government or the one before that, but the whole lot of them together. It has been the general policy to send out advisory booklets on lighting, but not to have legislation or regulations. The theory behind this policy is that if you
958
lay down a minimum standard of lighting—and it has to be a fairly low standard because of certain old buildings—then those who have good lighting now, or who are thinking of putting in better lighting, will then say, "We need not do more than the minimum", and will reduce their standard of lighting. I have heard this argued and I used to agree with it, but, quite frankly, I no longer believe in it. A good employer will have good lighting, and a bad employer who has totally inadequate lighting should be made by law to bring it up to standard. I would ask the noble Lord what the Government view is on this. I know that the view I have expressed has been the official view for a long time, but I have come to the conclusion that it is wrong.
My final point is about the Inspectorate. One is rather horrified to see in this Report that the establishment is 533 inspectors, but that only 482 have been recruited. Unless we have a full staff of inspectors, we are not going to get anywhere with this accident problem. I know that things are difficult economically at the moment, but I would ask whether the shortage is because, as a career, the Inspectorate is under-paid. If one increased very largely the pay of the Inspectorate it would not amount to very much in total, when one thinks of the appalling wastage and cost of all the accidents. So I would ask the noble Lord to say whether he considers that the Inspectorate is adequately paid. If it is not, would it not be wise not to wait till our economic circumstances are better, because we really cannot afford the accidents which are occurring in industry. Industry cannot afford them, and the country cannot afford them.
4.58 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I do not want to follow the two noble Lords who have just spoken, who have dealt in the main with accidents and the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories. I should like to touch briefly on one or two points which have occurred to me from reading the second of the two Reports dealing with industrial health. This Report makes fascinating reading, because it shows what a lot of curious and unexpected preventable conditions can be found in industry, and that there is a need for doctors to keep a very careful watch upon people taken sick in

959
factories, when the doctors are not quite sure what the people have wrong with them.
So far as I can see from reading the Report, a great deal of their work is successful. I do not want to quote a great many details from the Report, but one figure in which I was particularly interested was the figure of deaths from cancer of the scrotum, which occurred among mule spinners at the cotton mills. Dr. Henry of the Home Office made a long inquiry into this disease, and in 1943, the last year he quoted, there were 50 deaths. But in the year 1966, which the Report also covers, there was only one death from that disease, which I think is a very fair example of what is going on in factories in regard to these preventable diseases. The numbers who die are falling, which I think must mean that the numbers who become sick are falling, too.
There is one thing that has always occurred to me about the Industrial Health Service, and I should like to mention it briefly to your Lordships. It has always seemed to me that, since we have a National Health Service, it might well be possible for the Industrial Health Service to be part of that Service. At the present time, for various reasons, there is a shortage of doctors in this country, and one wants to make the most effective use of them possible. I wonder whether, if we are going to have all these little health services in various Government Departments, we are really making the best use of them. There has been some suggestion, I think, that the Prison Medical Service might be combined with the National Health Service, but I do not know that that has gone any further than being a suggestion. But one can quite well see how it might be possible for a man working in a factory to be under his general practitioner for something, to be under the care of his factory doctor for something else and at the same time to be going to the town hall, to the Public Health doctor, for the same or some further condition. One would have thought that it might be possible for that man to be dealt with by only one doctor instead of by a great many of them.
I believe, too, that it would be a great help for general practitioners if they could have some finger in industrial medicine. I think that we might require
960
at the top a certain number of what I might call consultants, who could deal with the really difficult diseases and pathological conditions which occur; but I am sure it would be much easier for a general practitioner to recommend his patient to go back to work, or to recommend his patient to stop work temporarily, if he had some idea of what the work in the factory was like and what were the processes in which the man was going to be involved. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to give me any answer to that question—I did not give him very much notice of it—but it has occurred to me that there might be a possibility of a saving of doctors in that way.
I think there is one health centre in Manchester which deals both with National Health Service patients and with industrial medical patients; but, so far as I know, that is as far as the scheme has gone at the present time. Shortly before Christmas the Minister of Health said, I think, that he was proposing to make a survey of, or an inquiry into, the administration of the National Health Service, and I wonder whether that will be one of the points that he will consider. Because in my view that is where the future will lie; that the inspector of factories will be dealing very largely with the safety angle—which I entirely agree with the noble Lord should be increased a good deal—and not with the general health angle.
I should like to deal briefly with the Report on the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. According to the Report, there were 700,000 premises registered under the Act, very few of which did not need something done to them because they did not meet all the requirements of the Act. There were a large number of visits made by inspectors—600,000 odd—partly in the first instance and partly to follow up what they had seen before. Then, in paragraph 21, the Report says:
"In Crown and local authority premises the standard of compliance was generally good. There were no glaring cases of deficiencies …"
My Lords, here I want to put in a purely personal plea that the premises of your Lordships should become liable to inspection by the inspectors under these Acts of Parliament. I do not say that in any lighthearted way; I say it quite seriously. Because two years ago, when

961
the Lord Great Chamberlain gave up his care of the buildings of the Palace, his functions devolved upon the Administration Committee. I had the honour to be a member of that Committee, and we paid a visit to the whole of that part of the Palace occupied by your Lordships. Quite a lot of it was perfectly good; some of the offices were probably not quite satisfactory (though I am not technically able to deal with the details), but there were one or two places which were beyond belief shocking.
One was the room where carpets are repaired. That is in the basement or sub-basement—heaven knows where, but it is somewhere a long way down—and it consists of one long tunnel with no ventilation and no outside window at all; it is lit entirely by electric light. It has some hot pipes running through it, which makes the room very hot. It is down on the lowest floor, and they tell me that when there is a storm the storm-water sewers overflow and the premises become flooded. We reported that over two years ago now, but when I went down and saw the same room one day last week there had been no change at all.
I know that things take a long time to do. I remember that the washbasin in what is rather euphemistically called the lavatory next door to the Printed Paper Office took, at my personal effort, five years to install, although in that so-called lavatory there was one water closet and two urinals. Now that a basin has been installed the room is going to be turned into a lift for the Printed Paper Office—whether you call that progress or not I would not say. The point I want to make is that I think that your Lordships' House should be an absolute model of all propriety everywhere. I know that this building was built a long time ago, and that it is difficult to make changes; but one sees things where, if the person involved were some little shopkeeper outside, he would be jumped upon and forced to put them right. I think the same principle should apply to this House.
5.8 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I feel tempted to follow my noble and medical friend in his description of some of the domestic offices of the Palace of Westminster. I could give a very vivid description of the kitchen which I
962
examined thirty years ago in another place, but if I did I should cause considerable ill-feeling. Not, of course, that that deters me, but I feel certain that the conditions which I saw then have been remedied. I will go with the noble Lord who has just spoken, if I may, and accompany him to the "torture chamber" where people sit and mend our carpets, without daylight. I presume that they are women.
LORD AMULREE: No, my Lords; they are men.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder if I might interrupt my noble friend. I am not quite sure who the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and my noble friend are addressing. I do not know whether they are addressing me as Leader of the House or the spokesman for the Government. I was very tempted to ask what the members of the Administration Committee, whose responsibility this would seem to be, should have done about it. But I will note everything that has been said.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I apologise to my noble friend; I was just trying to continue the debate. However, the House will recall that it was about a year ago that we debated a Motion very similar to the one on the Order Paper to-day, and many of us spoke very strongly about the comparative failure to improve the conditions of the industrial workers in the field of health and accidents. We were given then all kinds of promises; but, so far as I can see from reading these Reports, no change has taken place at all. In fact, the position has gravely deteriorated. It would appear that our words last year fell on deaf ears in those places where policy and action should be co-ordinated, for there has been yet another increase in the number of accidents. It now stands at 296,610. I do not know what consolation the permanently mutilated or the relatives of the dead will derive from the euphemism used in the Report that this figure may represent a "plateau". And even this figure does not present the ugly picture in its true light, because it represents only the accidents notified in our factories.
When I listen to the repeated demands on television and radio for greater production, it seems a little incongruous that

963
while Jekyll lectures the workers, Hyde reveals a smug complacency concerning the loss of productivity resulting from accidents and the cost to society which, including industrial injury benefits, amounts to more than £325 million a year. We were told just now that the Press were not interested in accidents which stemmed largely from bacon-cutters and from slipping on dirty floors, but I hope that the newspapers will be more interested to learn that the cost of this to the country is £325 million a year. The tragedy of it—I am tempted this time to say the "scandal"—is that most of these accidents could have been prevented and that so many of them occurred to the young and ignorant boys and girls.
It is now 11 years since the Minister of Labour's Joint Advisory Committee recommended the establishment of joint safety committees. Last year we asked, we pressed—and I remember my noble friend spoke very strongly on that occasion—that these should be made compulsory, having regard to the report that there had been little progress in the last ten years. However, we were then told in the winding-up speech that the Minister still believed that these should be left to voluntary effort. Surely this evidence of further deterioration in the position does not justify further delay. I hope my noble friend when he comes to wind up will give us a little more help than we received last year.
My Lords, may I give you a brief history of this matter? As a doctor, I feel strongly about it. It was over 170 years ago that the first factory legislation made provisions regarding cleanliness and the health of the workers. Then, at the beginning of this century, Sir Thomas Legge made a plea for the protection of the workers by ensuring overall cleanliness, including that of the air. Despite the passage of 170 years, there has been a failure to respond to the pleas which have been made in your Lordships' House and, I suppose, in the other place and by many people other than politicians.
The part of the Report which I found most interesting was where the Senior Medical Officer for Factories found it necessary to appeal for elementary
964
hygiene. I should like to put this on record, for it surely should be regarded as an anachronism that we should be called upon to-day to discuss matters of elementary hygiene. On page 81 of the Annual Report of H. M. Chief Inspector of Factories on Industrial Health, under the heading "The concept of cleanliness", the Chief Inspector writes:
"All concerned in industry are, it sometimes seems, too ready to accept not only dirty conditions in their simpler forms—dirty floors, work benches, walls and ceilings—but also dust and dirt, whether harmful or not, in the atmosphere they breathe. If standards of general cleanliness are low, it is all too easy to accept that the evolution of dust at a particular process is nothing out of the ordinary, and management and workers alike can come to accept it is part of the background of their working lives.
"Before it is possible, therefore, to tackle in detail the problems of industrial dust in any particular plant or industry, there needs to be a general awareness of the problem itself and a sympathy to the ideals of cleanliness which will make control measures effective."
I find this elementary, but sound, advice very difficult to reconcile with the Chief Inspector's statement in a preface to the Report. He writes:
"To-day we are left with only the difficult problems; the easy ones have been solved."
If the Chief Inspector over the years has approached the problem in that way, I really am not surprised that the situation deteriorates every year.
Again, I wonder whether the Minister—and I mentioned this last year—has given careful thought to the fact that the high incidence of chronic bronchitis among middle-aged workers in our industrial areas is not necessarily due to some toxic substance but to the general filth, dirt and dust of their surroundings. As I said last year, my last constituency was in an industrial area of the North, and I was shocked to find the number of men who fatalistically accepted chronic bronchitis at the age of 40 or 50. When I taxed them with it they said, "My father had it, my grandfather had it, and died from it." Both father and grandfather were in the same works at the same time.
On our television screens, we often gaze at the Minister of Labour being, sometimes, a little critical of the behaviour of his fellow men. I wish—and I say this to him sincerely—that he could spare a little time to examine the disgraceful conditions of the factories so

965
graphically described by his senior Medical Officer. While I consider, for example, that the asbestos industry regulations should be extended to all persons engaged in handling and using asbestos, I do not ask the Minister of Labour to try to master the mysteries of highly technical processes. All I do is to invite him to examine the dirty and accident-inducing conditions under which men and women are compelled to spend a large part of their lives in the latter part of the 20th century.
5.18 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for putting down this Question. Like the noble Lord, I am a Vice-President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. My own particular interest, as some of your Lordships will know, is on home safety. But I believe the time has come to consider safety not in isolation but as a composite matter. Because the person who exercises safety on the road, and does not overtake on every double white line, who makes sure that the electric fire is switched off before he leaves the house, is the kind of person who, if he is the manager of a department in a factory or an office, will do his best to ensure that safety regulations are adhered to.
My Lords, I have put to the Leader of the House—whose secretary was good enough to telephone me over the weekend—one or two questions which I should like to repeat now. My noble friend Lord Derwent has already mentioned the matter of education, and this is something about which I feel very strongly, particularly education in the sphere of safety in the home. It can also be applied to safety in factories. I believe that films can play a vital part in education. They could be shown in schools, at evening classes and in technical colleges. Last year I attended a seminar on the subject of marketing. A film was shown of a certain type of shoe which is used in heavy industry. The purpose of the film was to help to sell the shoe, but there was also a message about safety. A young factory worker, wearing light fancy type shoes, was shown walking round a factory. He tripped over various steel castings and things fell on his feet; and generally he became accident prone. He was advised
966
by a mate to wear the type of shoe advertised in the film, and when he did so and was subjected to the same hazards he did not suffer such bad injuries. I think the message was that one vital factor about safety in factories is that people should be properly clothed. Where necessary safety helmets and masks should be worn and, of course, the right type of footwear.
Reinforcing the point made by my noble friend, I should like to ask the Leader of the House how much attention is currently being paid at schools to visual aid education in an age where technology is growing in importance and obviously more people will be receiving industrial training. I would also ask the noble Lord whether the grants to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents will be maintained, and indeed increased, at a time when, admittedly, there are serious financial problems. It is also a time, as was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and other speakers, when there is an increasing number of accidents and an increasing number of man-hours are being lost. Therefore there is a growing need for education and training. I know from experience of the very valuable work which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents does, and I hope that the grants to the Society will at least be maintained, and if possible, increased.
At a time when most of us, at any rate, are fully behind the "I'm backing Britain" campaign (putting aside any reservations which we may have on certain aspects of it), it is all the more important that we should cut the accident rate so that those who are loyally supporting the campaign and producing more do not become accident victims, which would, to some extent, negative the value of the campaign. May I say a word about construction sites, where a large number of accidents occur? Many of us may have seen lorries backing our from construction sites at speeds which are too fast. Other types of accidents occur, such as heavy objects being dropped from a height and falling on people who may be on the site or in the street. I hope that attention will be paid to that aspect.
Finally, my Lords, I think we should look to the future, and I should like to

967
put this question to the Leader of the House. I have not given him notice, but perhaps the matter may be considered by the relevant Department. With the large number of industrial estates now being built where there are new factories and new machinery, will there be an increasing amount of safety training going on? I know that we are moving into a computer age and therefore we may need less labour, but there will still be a number of modern devices which can go wrong and cause accidents. So while it is important that existing machinery and factory techniques should be geared up to a high standard of safety, I hope that the Government will bear in mind not only what is contained in this Report but the need to look to the future, so that when we receive similar Reports in a year or two they will indicate a considerable improvement. My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this very important subject.
5.28 p.m.
LORD GEDDES OF EPSOM: My Lords, the discussion so far and the consideration of the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories prompts the question, are we spending enough time or money on the prevention of industrial accidents? I suggest that the only conclusion which may be drawn is that we are not. I wish to concentrate particularly on the Inspectorate and whether it is effective. Within the limitations placed on it undoubtedly the Inspectorate is efficient, but is it as effective as it should be? We know, for example, that at the end of 1966 there was a shortage of 50 inspectors and the inspectorate was 10 per cent. below the authorised establishment. It was considered that there should be 532 inspectors when the establishment was decided, and there was a shortage of 50, so the Inspectorate cannot possibly be as effective as it ought to be.
In 1963 (reference has been made to this) a large number of shops and offices were brought within the purview of the legislation. About 700,000 shops and offices were concerned, and 170,000, in which over 3 million were employed, were placed under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour Inspectorate. They are quite different from the local authority people who inspect offices and
968
shops on a part-time basis. I am dealing only with the Ministry of Labour Inspectorate. As a result of this increase in the volume of work, 18 inspectors were added to the establishment. It may be that this was given careful consideration and the conclusion drawn that the inspection of another 170,000 premises employing 3 million people could be done effectively by 18 more inspectors. From the purely lay point of view, one can have some doubt about this.
Some idea of the task facing the inspectors can be gained by looking at the skeleton map on page 98 of the Report. By making a comparison with the actual map one can reasonably conclude that the North Division, for example, covers Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland and Durham. This is an area of some 5,300 square miles and to look after that area there are 28 inspectors. It could be argued that this is largely a rural area, but it certainly contains shops and offices requiring inspection. And what about the North-East and North-West coasts? In Division F there is a broad segment stretching from Hampshire in the South right across the southern half of the country to the East coast, including Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. For the whole stretch there are 37 inspectors.
One thing necessary to make legislation effective is general inspection; general inspection being that inspection which is undertaken without notice and which does not arise as a result of complaint or information given. One would have thought that this sort of inspection would certainly help to guarantee that the present statutory regulations were being observed. With the present staff, it is possible to have a general inspection in factories and shops under the control of the Inspectorate only once every four years, and in some cases only once every five years.
We are certainly not spending the time necessary to prevent accidents. One of the difficulties with which we are faced is the complacency which arises from the view that accidents will happen anyway. Of course they will happen. I doubt whether it is possible for any legislation, any Government, any inspectorate, to completely prevent accidents, but surely it should be accepted

969
that every accident that can be prevented should be prevented.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, referred to the question of whether or not the Inspectorate is being properly paid. I suppose it is true that paying more money does not necessarily result in the recruitment of more qualified staff, but there can be no doubt whatever that it helps materially towards that end. This is accepted by the Prices and Incomes Board, which has accepted the principle that where it is not possible to recruit sufficient qualified staff, then they can be rewarded more. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that the question of salaries ought to be closely looked at in view of the apparent inability of the Government and the Inspectorate to reduce the appalling number of accidents which take place.
On pure economics alone, any small expenditure of money to increase the Inspectorate must be more than justified. I submit to the House that we cannot expect to get properly qualified people—and they must be of graduate standard—unless some further look is given to whether this is a rewarding and satisfactory career for the type of people we want. Incidentally, it is interesting to know that in an attempt to bring the Inspectorate up to establishment the standard of entry has been lowered, and people who would not normally he accepted have now been accepted to do certain inspectorate work.
This gives rise to an important point. At the present moment the Government have decided—whether rightly or wrongly, I am not saying—to put a ceiling on Civil Service expenditure. The popular view—certainly the view expressed in another place, and often in the national Press—that all you have to do in the Civil Service is to hold up a hand and say, "Please, I want another ten people," and you get them next day, is as far from the truth as anything can possibly be. Not only have you to prove need, but, having proved your need, you may be told that you cannot have them.
In this situation, when there is a ceiling on Civil Service establishments, I should like to know—although my noble friend who is to reply may admonish me for asking this—whether the special study which was undertaken in 1966 to examine the facts, the result of which
970
would appear to indicate the need to increase the establishment of the Inspectorate, is being held up because it might be found necessary to increase the establishment. It should not take many years for a special study to be made of an establishment of 533 inspectors and for the experts in the Ministry of Labour and the Treasury to decide how many more inspectors are required. It is not like examining an inspectorate of 5,300. It would be interesting to know when this report will be presented. This may be an unfair question to put to my noble friend, but would he assure the House that if, in an endeavour to increase the numbers, a decision has been made to increase salaries, the present clime to of opinion with regard to increases of salaries and wages will not interfere with this increase.
The only other point I want to raise concerns joint consultation. I believe it is impossible to get effective safety measures in factories and shops without getting co-operation between management and workers; and this depends on joint consultation. It is often said that it is not possible to get effective joint consultative machinery in a factory because it is not big enough or because the employer does not want it, and therefore there cannot be a safety committee. That is not the truth. Any factory can have a safety committee, even though it does not have any joint consultative machinery at all.
We have to remember that in many cases where employers have set up safety committees, they have not set them up out of any altruistic ideas of their own: they have done it because it pays them to do it. The more they can reduce industrial accidents, the more manpower they can use effectively, instead of ineffectively, and the less sick pay they have to pay. Obviously this is a great advantage to the employer, but it is also an advantage to the employee. If there is this mutual interest, surely the best possible way in which it can be exploited is to have it discussed jointly round the table.
What can such a committee do? One thing it can do—and I am not sure that this is not particularly important—is to ensure that bonus schemes do not encourage workers to take short cuts, to take risks and ignore regulations, in order to see that they get the maximum bonus.

971
They can agree on propaganda within the factory, and the best way in which to put safety across. They can agree on training. They can agree on a number of things which are absolutely essential if we are going to get the most effective means of reducing—not preventing—to an absolute minimum the number of accidents that are now taking place.
I hope that the noble Lord, when he replies, will be able to give the House some assurance that it is in the Government's mind that we are not spending enough, that we are not using enough time, and that it is about time that we started to do it.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord sits down may I say that I was listening with great interest to what he was saying on the subject of safety committees and joint consultation, but I was not quite clear whether he was asking me to express approval and encouragement or compulsion.
LORD GEDDES OF EPSOM: As it had already been referred to, I did not refer to the statement made in the other place in July, 1966. But if the noble Lord wants me to, I will do so, because I think it is evidence of the attitude of mind of the Government at that time. Mrs. Shirley Williams, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, made this statement:
"The Government regard the voluntary machinery for consultation as preferable to machinery established under compulsion "—
with that, of course, I entirely agree. But she went on to say:
"but unless there was more satisfactory progress in the establishment of joint works safety committees on a voluntary basis in the next few years the Minister would feel obliged when the next major revision of the Factories Act took place"
and so on. That statement said,
"in the next few years".
But surely we cannot wait for the next few years.
5.43 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, hinted when he mentioned the "I'm Backing Britain" campaign, it is quite clear to most of us that we as a country are fighting an economic battle for survival, that the battlefront lies in the factories, and that
972
the campaign is organised and controlled by management and workpeople. But when it comes to accidents and the danger involved in doing a job, the work-people are those who are in the front line. There is not a trade union official alive who has not had the experience from time to time of dealing with cases of serious accidents occurring at work, sometimes involving handing over large sums of money because unions have taken action under the Common Law. Although we recognise that we perform a service for our people in helping them in this way, we know that we cannot replace an arm or an eye, and we certainly cannot give back a husband to a widow. So we in the trade union movement take this question very seriously indeed, and over the years the General Council of the T.U.C. have been pressing hard for an improvement in those lines of activity which may help to reduce the toll of accidents in our factories.
After all, what do we see? To-day we are discussing the last Annual Report, and I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Crook for giving us an opportunity to say a few words. I, too, wish that this had been a Motion so that we could have spent more time on it. We are told in the Chief Inspector's Report that the number of accidents has increased again—he says this with regret, this being his last Report. He adds that the increase has been somewhat smaller than in 1965, and much smaller than in 1964, and that therefore we may be reaching a "plateau". Frankly, I think it is dreadful that we should have to talk in these terms. We should be battling away at this mountain and not be satisfied with the prospect of arriving at a situation where the number of accidents does not increase.
Like my noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom I, too, question whether we are doing enough within the Inspectorate itself. The Report says that the establishment is now 533; that there are 482 inspectors in post, and that this is 51 short. At a previous date when the establishment was 442, the actual postings were 388. Certainly there has been an improvement, but I do not think the extension of the service has been nearly enough, particularly when one can telephone Mr. Charles F. Kerr, the Chief Deputy Inspector of Factories, who had

973
to admit the other day that only 7½ per cent. of all accidents reported could be inspected by the Factory Inspectorate. This indicates a lack of manning and an under-staffing.
We are also told in the Report that one of the problems is to find people of the right calibre and experience. This may well have something to do with the salaries they receive and the conditions under which they work. Most certainly this small body of men, dealing with countless factories in this country, must be very much over-worked and under great stress. This may be one of the reasons why the job does not attract people; and I think the salary may be another.
The General Council of the T.U.C. have been pleading ever since 1959 for a substantial increase in the Inspectorate. They said in 1959:
"… that the Factories Inspectorate must necessarily be regarded as under-staffed so long as it is unable to ensure adequate inspection of all factories at reasonable intervals …"
They pointed out then that:
"The International Labour Convention of 1926, which was adopted by Great Britain, provided that as far as possible there should be annual visits to every factory".
This has never been achieved, and it does not look like being achieved. Indeed, over the years there has been an increasing departure from this high standard. In 1930 a departmental committee recommended the visitation of important factories once a year, the visitation of less important factories every two years, and the whole of every factory to be thoroughly inspected within an average period of four years. We have not hit that target yet. If I may quote the International Labour Convention of 1947, again ratified by Great Britain, this required inspection to be as often and as thorough as necessary to ensure the effective application of legislation.
We have had a number of surveys carried out seeking to estimate the degree and size of the problem. I would mention in passing the Halifax Survey of 1958. That Survey was quite independent,
"and established that the level of health, welfare and safety conditions in many workplaces is below even minimum acceptable standards."
The surveyors pointed out that Halifax is no different from any other place;
974
the conditions there are no worse than elsewhere. They said that it could be regarded as typical of the country as a whole. The Report said that conditions were generally unsatisfactory in no fewer than a quarter of factories surveyed; that is, in some 200 out of approximately 800. They mention some of the major lacks; bad ventilation; washing facilities; dirty conditions; littered floors. And how can our Inspectorate, small as it is, visit all those thousands of little, dirty, miserable, backstreet factories where we know the worst conditions apply and where we know most of the accidents occur?
Finally on this subject, may I say a word about the safety committees? My noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom has already mentioned them, and I mentioned them in your Lordships' House the other day, but since then I have obtained new figures. The survey which was undertaken at the request of the Trades Union Congress covered all factories in which more than 50 people were employed, and this covered approximately 80 per cent. of the total employees in factories. It was found that, of the 22,211 works within scope, 7,793, which is 37 per cent., had formal machinery for joint consultation, and this figure compares with 5,826, which is 27 per cent., on June 30, 1966. The Report went on:
"This represented a 34 per cent. increase in the number of firms with committees…"
But the figure of 34 per cent. is misleading. The figure we have to anchor on to is the fact that, even after the efforts made by the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. Joint Committee, after all the persuasion we could bring to bear, only 37 per cert. of factories employing more than 50 people had safety committees; and really this is quite unsatisfactory. The T.U.C. for years supported the voluntary prilciple. It was bitter experience that convinced us we would not get safety committees on a voluntary basis; there would have to be compulsion; there would have to be legislation. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour pointed out in the other place that he felt that progress was not being made quickly enough, and he said that if things did not improve he would be prepared to introduce legislation when the next occasion came, when they reviewed the Factory

975
Acts. If I may say so in passing, I am very glad indeed that a total review of the Factory Acts is taking place, which will be much more comprehensive. But I have not time to go into that.
May I say one or two words about accidents in the construction industry. There has been a very terrible increase over the years. In 1960, 20,584 accidents were reported; there were 277 fatalities, and the number of operatives employed was 1,432,000. In 1965 there were 44,381 accidents reported—over twice as many—and 230 fatalities, while the number of people employed was about the same, 1,491,000. So it is quite clear that we have not made very much progress in reducing accidents in the building and construction industry. Recently a survey has been undertaken by two factory inspectors, who published a report. If I may, I should like to quote one or two of the paragraphs of that report because they are highly significant. Paragraph 15 says:
"The extent to which full compliance with legal requirements would have modified the accident picture"
is answered, but
"it is extremely difficult to assess the position".
But it is believed that
"about one-fifth of the accidents could probably have been prevented had there been full compliance with statutory requirements".
Again, the report says:
"The safety supervisor"—
in this industry or in the firms concerned in the industry—
"has achieved only a small measure of the success which might be expected from the requirements of regulations 5 and 6 of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations 1961. In some cases safety supervisors lacked detailed knowledge of safety legislation and in some cases they had insufficient background knowledge of the industry. On some large sites the safety supervisor had insufficient time to carry out his duties effectively".
Another paragraph states:
"There was evidence that some site foremen and agents did not possess a good working knowledge of statutory requirements".
I could go on, my Lords, but I really think that the time has come when Government, and all of us in industry, must take steps to ensure that this dreadful toll of life and suffering that is taken of our workpeople in factories every year is reduced. I believe it could be reduced.
976
So far as the trade unions are concerned, they are prepared to play their full part—and I am not pretending that everything in our garden is particularly lovely. I could quote cases. There are one or two in the Report, and I will quote just one, from page 33:
"We think a frequent cause of accidents to young workers is the imitation of bad example by old hands."
One of the examples is quoted. A young boy had three fingers amputated by a revolving circular saw which he was operating without a top-guard. And this happened in the presence of the foreman. That is bad enough, but before it happened the foreman himself had operated the saw in the same condition, and the youngster just followed suit.
One could give other examples. But, clearly, one of the things that we can do, in addition to improving the Inspectorate, is to see to it that safety training is a "must" in industry; that injunction courses are really effectively undertaken by management. I would suggest that it should be a requirement, and that the new training boards should make safety training part of their curriculum. I agree with the noble Lord who said that you cannot start too young, and I think that young boys and girls should be given general safety training at school, particularly since, as they leave school and go into industry, it is necessary to give them a specialist training in what is going to appertain to their job. I must not go on. A number of very potent questions have been asked of the Minister, and I have asked one or two. It will be very interesting indeed to hear the replies. This is a problem which has been with us too long, and we want to see some progress made in its solution.
5.58 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I am sure that we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for introducing this particular Question on the Order Paper, thus allowing this particular debate on such a very important topic. Twenty-three million days per year lost in accidents is a staggering figure. We are seeking to increase productive effort. How much more we could increase productive effort if we could check this figure to a considerable degree! Most accidents are preventable. Very few accidents in industry can be, as it were, attributed to

977
an act of God; most of them are preventable. They arise chiefly through some incident—a little neglect, a little carelessness; or the skilled worker, or other worker, taking a chance with a view to doing his best.
Custom breeds contempt, and those of us with experience in industry in the past know very well what a large part custom plays so far as accidents are concerned, particularly where the younger people try to follow the customs of the elderly. I had an interesting experience a little while ago when I went up to Scotland to see the Tay Bridge being built. Talking with the contractors I found that they had suffered initially with a considerable number of accidents through falling debris and such things. Although they had provided adequate tin hats, there was great difficulty in getting them used. Eventually, as a result of joint consultations, they hit upon a colour scheme, and as soon as they introduced blue hats it was astonishing how the accident rate fell. I suggest to your Lordships that this is an interesting feature, and I wonder, when industrialists and trade unionists are taking part in joint consultations with a view to seeing what can happen in the more enlightened industries, in order to reduce the accident rate, how much attention is being given to colour schemes and various gadgets which are interesting features in the reduction of accidents.
Various pleas have been made for an increase in the number of the Inspectorate. I should like to add my voice to that view. If we take the vast area which they have to cover, as was outlined by my noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom, and take the industries and the number of workpeople they have to cover, that alone indicates that there is a tremendous need for an increase in the numbers. But it is not just the Inspectorate themselves. I endorse what my noble friend Lord Geddes said. The inspectors appointed should be progressive, enlightened, far-seeing people, and not necessarily university graduates. Many people come out of industry whose help would be most useful in this connection. If we had this type of inspector they would be most useful.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and other noble Lords have suggested the need for increasing and intensifying propaganda
978
so far as safety gadgets are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, spoke about films for propaganda purposes. We know that many firms to-day, and particularly more progressive firms, have this type of film and try to get it across to their workpeople. The smaller firms are not so forthcoming, and one can understand the reason why. Therefore it might be a question not just for that particular firm itself but for the industrial group, as it were, connected with that particular product, and also for the Government Inspectorate, to take a more active interest in trying to increase the attentiveness of the workpeople in order to reduce the tremendous accident rate.
At the moment the nation is shocked by the great tragedy of the loss of the North Sea trawlers. I do not know whether it is correct or not, but it has been suggested that had there been a wireless operator on board some of these trawlers the total loss might have been prevented. The nation, reading this in the Press, is shocked; but still we have the large number of accidents taking place daily, as my noble friend Lord Crook has enumerated. We see men and women maimed as a consequence of these industrial accidents. We hear of the 23 million days lost last year as a result of accidents, and still it is taken without even a flutter of the nation's nerves. Of course the spectacular ones shock everyone, but we as a Government, and my noble friend know that he requires no urging by us in this particular direction, because he is sympathetic and wants to do everything possible), must do all we can to remedy this situation. It is a question of finding ways and means to improve the approach of the industrialists. In the smaller firms, and even in some of the larger ones, the supervisors are inclined to wink an eye when they see a breach of the safety regulations taking place.
Above all it is essential to instil into the workpeople themselves the great need for care in every possible direction. They do not think about the possibility of accidents: they get on with the job; carelessness develops from time to time and custom breeds contempt. This is the type of thing that is responsible for such a large number of accidents. A joint co-operative effort is required, and while I am sure that my noble friend needs no

979
urging to achieve this, we are adding our words in order to spur everyone concerned to greater efforts in this direction.
6.6 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, this is an interesting subject and one which has engaged the attention of employees and employers for many years. I came into contact with it first when I started work at 12 years of age in a woollen factory. The only thing that mattered then was to get one's name on a register and be examined by the doctor who came eventually, so that if, in the course of his duties, the factory inspector ever came he could look at the register and see how many small children were employed in that particular factory. I remember that when the doctor came, after I had been there for about six months, a tiny fellow stood next to me. The doctor looked down paternally and said, "Oh, you're only a very little chap, aren't you?". So the little chap spoke up and said, "What do you expect. My father was a little 'un, and my mother was a little 'un, You can't expect rats off mice". That was the answer the little boy gave to the doctor. This situation has changed over the years, but nothing like enough. We are nothing like so good as we should be on this question of conditions in factories and accident prevention.
When I began a factory of my own I had some ideals about it, and one of the subjects I was particularly interested in was that of lighting. If you are aiming for an increase in productivity every year, it means that you must have better machines, and more often than not they are faster running machines, making it more difficult to see at the point where the operative is doing the work. In that event, surely the regulations with regard to the standard of lighting on which the factory inspectors have to insist should be altered as time goes on and in view of the experience gained by working on machines which run faster. One can still see, in London and the principal cities, and generally in the North of England, when going around the factories in those areas at night, lighting which is a disgrace and a scandal to an enlightened community. If this is due to the paucity of numbers of the factory inspectors the answer must be to increase the numbers.
980
Step them up, because this is good business. Better lighting means that it is easier to work on a job which is becoming increasingly more demanding.
I must say at this point, in the light of what I am saying now, that the lighting, the measures against noise, and the provision of colour, mentioned by my noble friend, which are in operation in my factory, are still in current textbooks taken from industry—mine was one—in the series on factory building published by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. On noise, may I say that very often if a machine runs faster there is more noise. It is a fact that very little is done in this country to take away the reverberations of noise on ceilings back to the ears of the workers. The example that can be taken from Sweden on this matter should be studied by everybody.
It is not compulsory yet to keep the noise down in a factory. Neither is it compulsory to do anything about colour. But it is in the employer's own interest to do something about colour. I remember when we had an exciting colour put on the side wall of my factory. It was a stimulant and may not have been a colour that the eve could dwell on for a long period. It was good business, because the workpeople attended to their work and it helped everybody. I make a plea for more thought on these three points: lighting, noise and colour. The little document that I am as proud of as any that I have is a round robin when I left my factory, which thanked me for having made the factory a joy to work in.
6.14 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said, this has now become perhaps a bigger subject than an Unstarred Question; and in saying that, I certainly mean no reflection on my noble friend Lord Crook, who very properly takes the view that this is a subject of such importance that it is right to return to it annually, to review the progress, if any, and to give what stimulation is possible. He has done it this year, but it has given rise to a much longer and a much more powerful debate than it did on other occasions. Of course, one of the most powerful speeches of all came from the noble Lord, Lord Crook, himself. I am very grateful to him for letting me know the points he was going

981
to raise and for the very moderate way in which he put forward a matter which at times, when I listened to the speeches and to the reading of the reports of inspectors, made me feel rather desperate. It is rather appalling, and I think that people in future ages will look back with the same astonishment on this age as the astonishment with which we look back on the circumstances of the Industrial Revolution.
As a result, it becomes more difficult to get down to a humdrum discussion and an examination of the, as I believe, real, steady, but not very striking progress that is made against a situation which almost calls for heroic measures. I want to point to some of the improvements, not because I believe that this is something other than a horror story; it really is. If one reads this document and the examples of what has happened to people, one wonders how society can tolerate this running sore on our industrial life, for which we pay a very heavy price in human suffering and, as noble Lords have pointed out, in the hard economic factor of lost production. Of course, everything must be done, and we all feel, as I say, that it calls for heroic measures; but when it comes to the point, one finds that both the capacity of Government to do something and the willingness of the community to react to it is limited. This is a chapter of accidents; and this particular chapter is one that should not be written and should not go on being written, year after year.
I should like to refer to some of the points raised. Although I hoped I should be able to answer every point, or every major point, that was raised, the debate has gone on so long and has been so interesting that I am afraid I may not be able to deal with them all. If there are specific points which I omit I will write to noble Lords; I will write to noble Lords and answer anything that I am unable to cover to-day. I have such a lot of material, and there is another debate to come, that I may not manage it all.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Crook, will accept that comparisons in regard to statistics, one year with another, are not entirely satisfactory. That, of course, is a reflection on the collection of statistics, and it is a reflection on the amount of effort we put into it. It is improving
982
year after year, and one consequence of improvement in effort is to make comparisons more difficult. A great deal of action has been taken by the Ministry to remind factory occupiers and others of their legal obligation to report accidents, and this is thought—I do not give this as an excuse; we genuinely believe it—in part responsible for the rise in reported accidents during these years. Of course, there is no objective or constant measure of the severity of industrial accidents. The three days' absence criterion of reportability is quite arbitrary, and the pressure to return to work after an accident has not remained constant over the years. It is not that I am against the three days' period. At least it provides a point at which a report has to be made, and of course this is now extended over a wider field into shops and offices.
A number of noble Lords, and my noble friend, Lady Summerskill, have referred to the size of the Factory Inspectorate. I have some defensive briefs here; they are quite good, but I would not attempt, in the face of the evidence propounded to-day by noble Lord after noble Lord, to say that the Factory Inspectorate is large enough to do the things that we should like it to do. It is being expanded. Its total strength at the moment is 520, less than its possible establishment. My noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom referred to pay. The Report of the Departmental Working Party on the Duties and Staffing of the Inspectorate is now being considered. It is true that 175,000 premises were added, and not enough provision was made for this. It is very much better that we should recognise this, though I must say that the number was unknown at the time. This was a miscalculation under the Act. That is no reflection on the previous Government, which introduced this Act.
It is now apparent that the staffing provision was inadequate. Standards of entry have not been lowered, but recruitment to the general inspectorate has been going slowly, and of course pay is a factor. This is being examined. But with 207,000-odd premises subject to the Factory Acts, many of which are large, with the extra ones added under shops and offices, and with the responsibility for the enforcement of the construction regulations, even a considerably enlarged

983
Inspectorate would be able to visit them only from time to time. I think we ought to recognise, as I think noble Lords do, which is why they are so keen to increase it, what is possible and what, in the circumstances, is practical politics.
There has been acceptance by industry of standards of guarding machinery and of maintenance and inspection, and to this extent industry is to-day a much safer and better place to work in. But we should need a vast increase to achieve a really spectacular improvement through this one means alone. I can only say that the Government will listen on this point, and I do not doubt that the Chief Inspector of Factories will find his hand strengthened in this particular argument. But when we know that cuts are being made in certain other increases, it is not an easy time to make this increase, desperate though this particular problem is.
I should like to detail some of the other action the Minister has taken, and to defend him to my noble friend Lady Summerskill. I know that he takes a deep interest in this matter. One may as well recognise that one of the problems is the extent to which Ministers in any Government are under continuous pressure from day-to-day problems of industrial peace and matters of that kind. The same remarks applied to the last Government. It is a fundamental problem that confronts all Governments. But I would say to my noble friend that I know the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Labour is deeply interested in this subject, and has himself taken the initiative, and continues to give a lead, in certain areas.
In April of last year the Industrial Safety Advisory Council was set up. Its membership is one that I will not dwell on, but it includes representatives from both sides of industry and from outside, and it is one which noble Lords will expect. It is already at work. It has three sub-committees—on Safety, Research and Statistics and Safety Training. Perhaps I may say something on the Sub-Committee on Joint Consultation on Safety, because this is a matter to which most noble Lords have referred. My noble friends Lord Crook, Lord Collison and Lord Geddes, and others, referred to the question whether there should be some form of compulsion. It is true that
984
the Minister said in 1966 that unless there was satisfactory progress with the establishment of joint works safety committees on a voluntary basis he would feel obliged, when the Factories Act was next amended, to seek power to require the establishment of machinery for joint consultation in appropriate cases. Since then there has been some improvement. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, gave certain figures which had been given to me already in order to strengthen my case. To some extent he has destroyed them in advance, and he is entitled to do so. I suppose it is better to have your figures destroyed in advance rather than afterwards. But there have been certain improvements. In the case of 80 per cent. of the total of employees in factories employing 50 or more persons there is now some form of joint consultation for safety.
There are a number of figures that I could give your Lordships, percentages which I could present in a particularly encouraging light. It is not entirely satisfactory, but I am sure all my noble friends, particularly those who have experience of the trade unions, would prefer, if it is still possible, to proceed by voluntary means. It is only 22 years ago since I remember moving in another place an Adjournment Motion on joint consultation, and being told by one of my trade union colleagues—it may be one who is here to-day—that I had much better keep to things I knew something about. Therefore I am a little cautious on this subject. But there is no doubt that progress has been made, and there is also no doubt that you will not get improvement in one of the areas where real improvement can be made until there is effective joint consultation.
This arises to a large extent out of the general atmosphere in industry itself. Safety committees by themselves should arise out of the right kind of good joint industrial relations that we see in good industry, and it is therefore more difficult to impose from outside. The Sub-Committee for Joint Consultation on Safety is taking a number of steps. It has sponsored a booklet on Work Safety Committees in Practice. Of the other two sub-committees, the one on Research and Statistics is studying the possibility of introducing a severity classification of accidents reported under the Factories

985
Act, again a matter which I think is of importance and will enable us to judge of and to deploy our forces more effectively.
There is also the Sub-Committee on Safety Training, which is looking at the problem of training and safety matters. A number of noble Lords referred to safety training. First of all, under both the Factories Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act there are provisions prohibiting young persons from cleaning machines where these expose them to risk of injury from moving parts; and no young person may work on a machine specified as dangerous unless he has been fully instructed in its use or is under the supervision of an experienced person. I have had occasion myself to deal with managements who have failed to carry out the requirements.
These statutory requirements are supplemented by a number of training schemes. Here again, there is quite a story of progress being made. The industrial Training Boards have been advised by the Central Training Council of the need to include specific provisions for safety training in their plans. It must be taught as an integral part of all training. They draw attention to the contribution which can be made by technical colleges and other establishments of further education. There is, of course, a good deal of voluntary effort by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, prevention groups and so on. There will be some important developments in new Government proposals in legislation, to which I will refer in a moment. I will not go as fully as I should like into the question of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I am not able to answer the noble Lord as to the further assistance that the Society will receive, but it is the Government's firm intention to support this body, and the financial assistance is at the moment being negotiated. I would endorse all that has been said about the value of its work, and particularly its regional safety organisation.
My noble friend Lord Crook and other noble Lords referred to the dangers of the nail gun. This is a most tragic story, and I talk now of the accidents from an industrial point of view. It is not, of course, a new one; it is part of the risk of the technological changes
986
under which we live. The Factory Inspectorate did a great deal to persuade the various manufacturers to improve their designs so that some of the dangers of those early models were obviated. There is now a British Standard for these tools. With an explosive device of this kind which drives a nail there is a great danger that, if it is not properly used, the nail may ricochet. In fact, it is surprising that there have not been further accidents of this kind. Certainly in regard to any legislative provisions this is a problem on which we shall certainly give advice and try to concentrate attention.
The noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Crook, referred to a number of aspects of industrial health, the problem of asbestos dust, and the further problems which come from the use of orocidolite. These are matters to which the Government and the Inspectorate have given a good deal of attention. I have with me now, if my noble friend Lord Crook would like to see them, the draft regulations on the subject of asbestos which will replace and revise the 1931 regulations. We intend to press on with the making of these regulations as quickly as we can; and consultation is taking place on them now.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred to the possible development of what one might call an industrial health service. This is such big subject, and a matter in which I am so interested myself, that I hope the noble Lord will consider this as a subject to be discussed on another day. The noble Lord, Lord Collison, also referred to this matter. I am quite satisfied that it pays an employer to have a good health service within his own organisation. It is as much a part of management as the provision of canteens. But it is not going to be easy at this moment to visualise how this could be tied up with the general Health Service. It is a matter which I personally have pressed on a number of occasions, and I see the difficulty Therefore, I feel this is a matter which we ought to leave to another occasion There will be further occasions to discuss this, because there will be a new Act of Parliament. At present there is the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, which came into force only in 1963, but it is proposed that at some time in

987
the next two or three years—it is a complicated business—there shall be a new Act of Parliament.
Preparatory work has begun on a comprehensive revision of the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. This is not to be just a new consolidation Bill to replace existing Acts, but is to be a thorough overhaul of existing safety, health and welfare legislation and an extension of that legislation to as many as possible of the working population not yet covered. The first proposals have already been circulated to interested organisations. We accept that it is very important to get on with this as soon as possible. I promise your Lordships that we will press on. I know that my right honourable friend is very keen, but it will probably take a couple of years, or something of that kind, before the Bill can come into the legislative programme.
There is the question of whether there should be divided enforcement as between local authority inspectors and the factory inspectors. Here again I would say to my noble friend Lord Crook that there has been a great deal of improvement both as to performance and in the attention which is being paid to this matter. It may be that local authorities were perhaps a little slow to react to the responsibility put on to them. It may be unfair to say that they have been gingered into action by the Factory Inspectorate; it may be that they were merely laying their plans. But undoubtedly the majority of local authorities are now fulfilling their requirements. This is a highly technical question on which there is controversy. I myself have dealt with both kinds of inspector and in the London area I found both equally helpful. My instinct as a manager was to go in the first instance to my local Ministry of Labour inspector, for we always knew that we should get excellent technical advice there. This again is a complicated subject which we shall have to leave to future discussions.
There were a number of interesting small points raised, among them the problem of the carpet room in your Lordships' House. I am not sure whether this is really a matter for the Government to answer. I am advised that it appears to be a rest room for carpet workmen in
988
the basement area of the Palace of Westminster and that these workmen are normally working around the Palace. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that he and the Administration Committee had better get on to deal with this matter, but I myself will cooperate with the noble Lord in it. I should mention that, by a curious chance, the message from the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that he was going to refer to conditions in the carpet workroom in the Palace of Westminster came to me not in the form of a reference to the Palace of Westminster, but as a reference to Buckingham Palace. These, of course, are residential premises occupied by Her Majesty. But your Lordships may be glad to hear that I was authorised to say that arrangements were being made, as a result of Lord Amulree's misdirected initiative, for a factory inspector to visit Buckingham Palace and the part of the premises to which the noble Lord referred. Whether or not that will now be necessary, I do not know. None the less, I think this shows willing.
My Lords, time is pressing, and I am very conscious that there is so little that I have been able to say on the many interesting points that have been raised, such as the problem of deafness and the problem of standards generally. But there is one general point which I should like to make, in conclusion, and that is that whenever we are confronted with a social ill in this matter we always look for somewhere to put the responsibility for curing it. We look to the Government; we look to the workers themselves.
I personally strongly echo the views expressed by the Chief Inspector, when he emphasised how important it is for top management to take an interest in safety. This is something which, as the Chief Inspector said, management should plan for just as much as it plans for production or for research and development. This suggests that the responsibility in this field is spread over a wide area. It is spread over the Government, in the resources they provide for the Factory Inspectorate; it is spread over the trade unions, to the extent to which they can make their particular contribution in persuading workpeople and others to cooperate. Indeed, a particular responsibility has been on the trade unions themselves, in bringing to light bad working

989
conditions and initiating a continual dialogue.
Great progress has been made as a result of this, but I think we have to look to the whole basis of our society. What matters is the education system, the general environment, and the unwillingness, as I hope, to tolerate the intolerable. I would say to my noble friend Lady Summerskill that I think that real progress has been made. Even in the parts of industry in which I have been concerned I have seen improvements in cleanliness. There is this steady progress. However, it is only as a result of the energy and the "gingering" which noble Lords and others give that Governments, and others, will make a contribution towards the progress that we need. I hope that my noble friend Lord Crook is satisfied by the reaction to his debate, and I hope that this will become an annual event, if not on the same theme on allied themes, because I believe that this is a subject for which your Lordships have once again shown that you have a fitness for constructive discussion.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, by leave of the House may I say, "Thank you" to the noble Lord?

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE: CONTROL POLICY
6.43 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what terms of reference and conditions they will attach to the Committee of Inquiry which they are about to set up to inquire into the current foot-and-mouth outbreak and future policy for control of the disease. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I put this Question on the Order Paper I felt the subject was one which would be of some interest to your Lordships, and the large number of names which has now appeared makes it quite evident that I was right. Before I put one or two points to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who, I believe, is going to answer the Question, I should like to express my sympathies to the farming world, to the farmers and stockmen, who have suffered so grievously in these recent months. This has been the worst outbreak for nearly a hundred
990
years, and the losses to the farming world are, of course, far more than cash. It really is a heartbreaking experience, both for farmers and stockmen and for their families, to lose a herd which they have built up over many years. Happily, the epidemic seems now to be drawing to its end, and this is perhaps the time to make one or two points with regard to the Inquiry.
I should perhaps say one personal word to the Chief Veterinary Officer, Mr. John Reid, and his veterinary officers who have done such a tremendous job. I would pay my warmest tribute to them and to the contractors who worked so hard for them. I am sure the Minister is right to set up this Inquiry, and to set it up on the basis that he has already indicated, as an Independent Inquiry. It might be thought that it is a bit soon to have another Inquiry after the Gowers Inquiry of 1953, which reported in 1954. That was a very good Inquiry and was very comprehensive in the hands of the Chairman, Sir Ernest Gowers. It made a first-class Report which has been of the greatest possible value to this country in the interim years.
But although that Report was quite emphatic, that the balance of advantage then was to continue the slaughter policy here as against the vaccination policy, in the last 15 years there has been a great deal of experience in Western European countries of wholesale vaccination as a method of controlling this disease. Of course, those countries, being attached to each other, could not perforce use a slaughter policy, and they have adopted a vaccination policy which has, in the event, turned out to be a great deal more successful than I think most of us expected it to be. Both the techniques of doing it, and the vaccines used with more than one valency have turned out to be a good deal more effective than any of us expected. Therefore, I am sure it is now right to look at this subject afresh and to weigh up again the pros and cons of whether or not a slaughter policy is paying us better here than would a vaccination policy. To put it in simple terms, we have had this devastating experience of the last few months. Should we sleep easier in our beds if we continued with the slaughter policy, or do the Western European countries sleep easier in their beds?
I think a good many of the community are coming to the conclusion that the logic of a slaughter policy is so strong, and that if you continue with a slaughter policy you should ban imports from countries with endemic foot-and-mouth disease, that this is a point which I hope the Committee of Inquiry will look at very closely. Last autumn I was visiting the American Foot-and-Mouth Research Station at Plum Island, and it was a very interesting experience. It was set up with our assistance some 15 years ago. They have no doubt at all that a slaughter policy worked for them, because they had a 100 per cent. ban on the importation of meat from infected sources. So this is the first point that I hope the Committee of Inquiry will look at.
At this late hour, I feel that I should not discuss one or two of the points of the epidemic which I should have liked to discuss, but I wish to make the point that during this epidemic the number of outbreaks rose to the appalling figure of 70 a day—490 in the last week of November. The Minister, quite rightly, then equipped himself with a stock of vaccine in case it was thought necessary to make ring vaccination in order to check the spread of the disease.
A further question which I hope the Committee of Inquiry will examine and answer is: If we continue with a slaughter policy in this country, at what level of outbreaks, when an epidemic has struck us, should the Minister decide that he will start ring vaccination in order to protect the rest of the livestock of the country? There must be some level at which the amount of infection let loose by this huge amount of outbreaks becomes uncontrollable, and when the slaughter policy really fails. I think we were very near it during this epidemic. This is a point which should be examined. In the meantime, this prudent step of getting a stock vaccine and holding it as a last line of defence having been taken, I ask the Minister that this stock should be preserved in being until such time as the Committee of Inquiry has reported. The existing stock, of course, has a limited life; its efficacy will end some time during the summer months. I would therefore ask the Minister whether he will ensure that this stock is then renewed,
992
so that we have on hand a supply of vaccine in case we are unlucky enough to be struck again.
Finally, my Lords, there is the major question of the continuation of the temporary ban on meat imported from countries with endemic foot-and-mouth disease. I am sure the Minister was right—and I congratulate him—on making the ban; but the whole of the farming world is now asking that this ban should continue throughout the period that the Committee of Inquiry is investigating and making its Report. I believe the Minister has instructed his veterinary officers to make a report to him as to the course of the disease, the probable causes, the agents which affected the spread and so on; and I imagine that that report will soon be in his hands. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether he would ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider very carefully the report that he gets from his veterinary officers before he takes his decision about the future of the ban on imported meat. I cannot help feeling that that report is almost certain to advise that the ban should be continued for the time being, in the interests of the livestock of this country. Certainly this is my hope; but the Ministers have heavy burdens on their shoulders, and I should not like to put it higher than that.
The view that I would express, in conclusion, is that we have suffered an epidemic of a kind which we should not wish to see repeated; that the slaughter policy is not sufficient to control an epidemic of this size; and that the gigantic losses and the crudity of the methods have really affronted the whole community. We therefore look to see the control arrangements for protecting our livestock against this devastating disease strengthened in one way or another.
6.53 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has asked this Question, because our discussion on it is in no way parallel with the debate that took place in another place last week; it is complementary to it. In fact, we begin at the point at which they ended. They asked the Minister of Agriculture what he was going to do about his Inquiry

993
and what its terms of reference were going to be, but the Minister was then unable to give an answer. The noble Lord has raised this Question to-night, and I hope that the Government will be able to tell us exactly what they want to do.
I was also extremely glad to hear that the noble Lord is not among those who are pressing for an inquiry to take place at this very instant, before we have had time to think about it. There has been a lot of pressure for this; but there is a question that must be decided, not by a Committee of inquiry, but by the Minister of Agriculture, before that Inquiry takes place; that is, whether or not he is going to relax the ban on imported meat. This is not a question for the Inquiry: this is for the Minister. It is a difficult question to discuss—there are many difficulties involved in it, and I hope to touch upon them—and yet it must be settled before the Inquiry is put into being.
Furthermore, one cannot put an Inquiry into being suddenly, without being able to choose the right men for it, and, in particular, the right chairman. Often the right men are not available at the time they are wanted. Do not let us Forget that there are a great many things that they have to discuss, some of which the noble Lord did not touch upon: not only what has happened this time, in this last outbreak, and what is at present known about the latest evidence on this very difficult disease, but what should be done in the future. And there are not only the questions about the disease itself, but questions about all the sideeffects—taxation, questions of rehabilitation and of compensation. These are questions which I think the Inquiry ought to consider very closely.
My Lords, I take the view—as, I think, do professional bodies such as the Veterinary College, and so on—that the ban should not be relaxed. But, as I say, this is a question which the Minister and not the Inquiry has to decide. The important thing about the Inquiry is that the right men should be chosen, even if this takes some time, and that they should take a fairly long time to decide what we should do I agree that this subject was investigated very fully by the Gowers Committee in 1953, but there has been a certain amount of evidence since then, and all this must be mulled over before
994
we decide what we are going to do. It was suggested that the ban was temporary but I do not think this necessarily means that the intention cannot be reviewed. No pledges were given, either in this country or to countries overseas, which alter this situation. It was hoped that the ban might be temporary, but if it cannot be temporary I do not think that this matters very much.
What are the things that this Committee of Inquiry must examine? First of all, there is the one which the noble Lord raised—the slaughter policy. I should be very surprised indeed if, after considering all the relevant evidence—and, indeed, all the latest evidence on new vaccines, and so on, that come front Western Europe—this Committee changed its mind on what the Gowers Committee suggested. All the present evidence seems to me to point to the fact that to go back on our slaughter policy and to adopt a policy of vaccination would be an acceptance of defeat. I agree with the noble Lord that there comes a point when one must accept defeat; and this again is a question into which I hope the Committee will inquire.
At what point are we defeated? The noble Lord suggests that we were very nearly defeated this time. I do not think we were, my Lords. The epidemic spread over a wide area, and it was bigger than any that had happened before. But even if we count all the compensation that has been paid, and all the compensation that we should like to pay but cannot, because it is consequential, it still does not amount to the sum of money which most countries with this problem endemically in fact have to face in terms of loss of meat production and loss of milk production. Nor, in fact, strangely enough, does it amount to the cost of the vaccines, and, as we know anyway, the vaccines are effective only to certain strains, not to all of them.
But I agree with the noble Lord that if this Committee of Inquiry comes to the conclusion that we should go on with the slaughter policy—and, as I say, I shall be very surprised if it does not—then we shall have to consider very seriously making the ban on imported meat permanent. Such a step would have a number of effects which I think the Committee of Inquiry ought to

995
examine. It may be said that they are not immediately connected with this disease; but they are the side-effects, and it is these side-effects that make the problem so difficult.
First of all, there is the effect on our balance of payments; and the to some extent conflicting interests of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food, which are together, and the Ministry of Agriculture and exporting industry. Secondly, if it can be shown that the outbreak is attributable to imported meat—and we must remember that at present we still know that only something like 56 per cent. of all the outbreaks that have taken place can certainly be attributable to imported meat; that is strong evidence, but it is not conclusive—then a slaughter policy is difficult to maintain without a ban on imported meat.
If we have a ban on imported meat, there are other things which we have to consider. How are we to mitigate the adverse effects on our trade with, shall we say, the Argentine? So far as we are concerned, we import from the Argentine something like 10 per cent. of all our beef, a negligible amount of our lamb and none of our pig. It is not really a very desperate problem so far as we are concerned; we could make it up by increasing our own production. But so far as the Argentine is concerned, they import large quantities of manufactured goods from this country. If I were speaking solely as a farmer I would say: "Let that go, let us make up the difference, so far as our own production is concerned". If we ban meat from the Argentine, we must try to find means of mitigating the damage to them so far as trade is concerned, and, next, we must try to do something to help them to overcome their own foot-and-mouth problem. This, I think, is probably a question of research. Pirbright is doing this. We are researching into vaccines and manufacturing them for places where the disease is endemic and where they have to inoculate.
Lastly, if we do not have a permanent 100 per cent. ban on all meat, it seems to me that there is one slight variation which we might do well to think about. That is the question of importing only that meat which has been deboned and from which the offal—heart, liver, kidneys and
996
so on—has been removed. The evidence seems to point to the fact that the virus does not live indefinitely in the meat itself, but that it remains in the bone, the kidneys, the liver, and so on. It seems to me not impossible that we could come to some arrangement with countries like the Argentine by which we import only boned meat and no offal. These are the sort of things in connection with the question of imported meat that I hope this Committee of Inquiry will look into.
Next, I hope it will look into the problem of compensation, because if we are going on with the policy of slaughter—and I think it more probable that we shall than that we shall not—there are a number of problems which I think must be looked at fairly closely and which must be resolved with, shall I say, some degree of fairness. Some of these problems have already been looked at, and I think we may find some of them easier to cope with than was at first thought. They are those things like compensation for people who lost their stock many months ago. Prices have risen since then. What are we going to do about those people? There is the difficult question of replacement value or market value. I do not want to enlarge on these, perhaps, technical difficulties. Other noble Lords may wish to do so. This is an extremely difficult problem and one on which, I think, a committee of inquiry could probably help us.
There is also the question of consequential loss. Some consequential losses you can insure against. You can insure against loss of profits, for instance; but you cannot insure against be so short of cash that you cannot pay your expensive stockman and you have to ask him to go elsewhere. The Government may be able to help in this matter, and this, too, is the sort of question that a committee of inquiry could look into. I admit that there are a number of similar consequential losses which I think this Committee probably cannot look into and which a Government cannot deal with: those kind of consequential losses which occur to persons like myself whose stock has not had the disease, but who were totally unable to sell a lot of stock when they should have been sold. I must keep them over the winter at an expense to myself that I had not envisaged. I shall have to sell them at markets which are

997
not suitable at a date when they ought not to be sold. I am in a difficulty here. This is a consequential loss against which I cannot insure, and over which the Government cannot help me.
LORD KILBRACKEN: The noble Lord may get a better price for his cattle than if he had sold them earlier.
LORD HENLEY: I am hoping that some of my losses may be recouped in that way. But I shall not recoup them all. I shall have to buy hay at inflated prices in order to keep stock which I would not otherwise have kept. I shall have to sell them at markets they were not meant to be sold at. As your Lordships know, certain kinds of cattle are sold at certain markets. If you go to another market at the wrong time of year you will not get what they are worth. These are the sort of consequential losses about which I am afraid no Committee of Inquiry can help us. The same applies to auctioneers, hauliers seed merchants, and so on.
The Committee of Inquiry may possibly help us over things like rehabilitation. The Government have two minor schemes of rehabilitation. There is the ploughing grant and early payment of improvement grant. Both will help in a small way. I believe we are to talk about the ploughing grant later this week, so I will not enlarge upon it now. These are the sort of things which a committee of inquiry can look into, because they are the kind of things the difficulty of which is not realised until they are upon you. And this applies most of all to the question of taxation. I am rather encouraged to think that the question of taxation may be a little less difficult than we in the agricultural world thought it would be some months ago.
I will not go deeply into the question of taxation as I have spoken long enough and other noble Lords have yet to speak. But there are taxation problems of an extremely difficult nature with regard to compensation for stock and setting certain expenses against income tax, and so on. The encouraging thing is that the inquiries to the Inland Revenue on this problem have been fewer than one would have imagined. I think it is possible that this may be because the problem will prove less intractable than we had
998
feared. Nevertheless, this is the sort of thing that this Committee of Inquiry should be looking into.
Lastly, my Lords, there is the question of future containment of these sorts of outbreaks. I am basing my argument on the assumption that we shall go on with present policy, that no new evidence will come to light which will change the vaccination policy, that we shall go on with the slaughter policy. There is the question of what are we going to do next time, when the next time arrives—because the next time will arise; you cannot prevent it altogether. In 1839, when the first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in England, it swept over the country and there was neither the means nor the know-how to contain it. In the course of the century the disease became endemic. Then towards the end of the century the sort of policy was adopted which has led to our present position, in which the disease is more or less controlled. But when this last and worst outbreak struck us, we had to improvise all the means by which we did contain and control it. It seems to me that there are certain routine matters which a committee of inquiry could establish by which we could do better next time. When I say "better", I mean no criticism of the Ministry or of the veterinary profession in this, because I think that in the circumstances they did a magnificent job. But there is no doubt that were this laid out as a drill, we could possibly do it even better next time. It is not only a veterinary problem; it is a political and tactical problem is well. Which market do you close, and when? At what point do you ban people going on farmers' roads and so on?
Lastly, there is the problem which always terrifies me, and which nobody has really considered closely and which I hope the Committee will consider—the question of hill sheep. On an unenclosed hill which may stretch from Cumberland to Derbyshire, with no fences or hardly a road in between, sheep will wander. But they will not wander fir because, like your Lordships, they are hereditarily trained to the ground. They move surprisingly small distances, and for that reason it is possible to keep them in a certain defined area, to shepherd them and look after them. But let us suppose they are all slaughtered because

999
of foot-and-mouth disease. Where do you stop? Normally, you stop at the next farm. But if the next farm is not fenced you may well consider that you have to go on from Cumberland to Derbyshire. What happens? If you take the sheep off that land you can put them on again only by shepherding them extremely closely for approximately five sheep generations. The expense of doing that is so prohibitive that nobody would attempt to do it and the land would go to forestry, which would be the only answer. There may be ways to decide how this may be contained, but none has been thought of, and so far as I know there is none. That is the sort of thing that this kind of Inquiry could undertake.
In conclusion, my Lords, I wish to press strongly that this Committee of Inquiry should not be appointed in a hurry, because the Minister has the awkward problem of deciding about banning or not banning meat imports in future. The members should be chosen very carefully and enabled to work very slowly. The Committee should consider all the problems, not only the extremely difficult problems relating to the virus itself and what we know about it, but also problems of taxation, rehabilitation, compensation and other allied matters. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will be able to give us some idea that this is what is in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that he will appoint his Committee on those lines.
7.11 p.m.
LORD HIVES: My Lords, as a "new boy" addressing your Lordships for the first time, I ask for your indulgence. I have been in your Lordships' House long enough to realise my shortcomings as a speaker. I also realise that there are many Lords on both sides of the House who know a lot more about agriculture than I do. But, as a full-time farmer, I hope that I may contribute something to this discussion. As your Lordships may guess, I have given a lot of thought to what I should say. After reading all that has been said in this House and in another place on the subject, I decided that it would be useless to weary your Lordships with a repetition of it. But I should like to make a few points which I hope will be
1000
included within the Inquiry's terms of reference.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has mentioned, the Committee of Inquiry will first consider the banning of meat imports from South America. If it was right to impose the ban, it would be wrong to remove it until it is certain that the suspected danger is non-existent. Regarding consequential loss and compensation, I suggest that the Inquiry should consider whether an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease should be considered a national disaster. To do so would result in action being accelerated, and compensation to losers would be underwritten. I hope that the Inquiry will also consider the advisability of a vaccination policy, which again was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and whether the time is right to look at that matter again.
Then, more scientific research should be carried out at the research centres into the movement of the virus due to wind, birds and wild animals, and into the best methods of disinfecting vehicles and people. This industry, my Lords, to which I am proud to belong has an outstanding record of rising productivity. During the last war, and since, it has met all the demands made upon it, and more. It has a labour force whose loyalty and interest in the job is second to none. I say that it is up to all of us to do all in our power to see that the industry is not made to suffer a second disaster.
7.15 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, it falls to me to express to the noble Lord, Lord Hives, the congratulations of this House upon the excellence of his maiden speech and upon the way in which he has acquitted himself in the awesome experience of addressing your Lordships for the first time. I am only sorry, on his behalf, that the noble Lord's maiden speech had to be made upon such a sad and unhappy subject. However, this House always appreciates a speech which comes from the heart and the experience of a particular noble Lord, and therefore, for that reason especially, we appreciate the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hives; and we hope that we shall hear him very often in the future. My Lords, I must express a personal word to the noble Lord who will be replying to the debate.

1001
I must ask him to excuse me if I have to leave before the end. I came from Cheshire especially to take part. I have to be back in Cheshire to-morrow and we have lost the one really good train which would have enabled me to stay until the end of the debate.
My purpose in addressing your Lordships on this subject is to express the hope that when the Committee of Inquiry is set up it will look into this epidemic on the broadest possible lines; that it will consider not only the scientific aspects of the matter but also the social aspects, and the impact which it has had upon people. In this hope I am joined by my right reverend brothers, the Bishop of Lichfield, who would have wished to be here had that been possible, and by the Bishop of Derby, because it is our three dioceses, with Flintshire, which are most deeply involved. Of the three dioceses my own has suffered the worst. Of the 2,320 outbreaks confirmed by January 26, 1,012 were in Cheshire and 715 in Shropshire. In Cheshire, the farmers have lost 32·5 per cent. of their cattle, 16·2 per cent. of their sheep and 32·9 per cent. of their pigs. This loss has included a great many fine prize herds, and a number of herds that were the subject of scientific experiments, the results of which will largely be lost because of the slaughter.
Cheshire has a wonderful and lush countryside which has been made hideous by the experiences of the past months. There has been the smoke of the fires, the stench of burning flesh, the obscene sight of blackened limbs of the carcases protruding from the flames. Everywhere there has been a sense of frustration which has fallen as heavily as anywhere on the clergy. They have been unable to carry out their pastoral duties of visiting and bringing some comfort, help and encouragement, because they knew that if they visited infected farms they might well be the cause of further epidemics.
As so often happens with tragedies on this scale, there has been called forth a volume of service for which we all ought to be grateful. I know that the farmers concerned are particularly grateful to the Ministry and to the veterinary service, but we should not forget also what has been done by the Army, by the Police and by the Fire Service, all
1002
of whom have carried out their very unpleasant duty with efficiency and understanding.
But it is upon the people immediately concerned that the main burden of this disaster has fallen. For so many people a life's work concerned with the rearing and care of animals has suddenly been broken. This work creates a special and intimate bond between man and beast. It may be a bond of scientific research. It may be a bond of a lifetime of planning, which has created a splendid prize herd, of which its owner is rightly proud. It may be the bond of livelihood, in the possession of a small herd. It may be the bond of a stockman who has reared a particular beast and known it for three, four or five years and has a special affection for those animals in his care.
Think what it means when suddenly this disease is discovered, and within a few hours the horror of slaughter has descended upon a farm and the fires of destruction have been lighted. There follows a week of complete isolation, in which the farmer and his family are immured in their home. The children may not go to school. Then follows a long period of segregation, for anyone who has been on an infected farm is not welcome elsewhere. It means the closing down of all kinds of social contact and activities. This has been almost as bad, even worse, for those who have not had the epidemic in their farms but who have the agony of waiting, day after day, to know whether or not this is to be their lot. Indeed, there have been stockmen who have not left their farms for three or four months, so that there should be no possibility of infection. It is no surprise, therefore, that accompanying this awful epidemic there have been cases of illness, of break-down and of despair, which should call forth from as all the depth of sympathy. For the hand of death has been laid upon the afflicted countryside.
The Committee of Inquiry will have the duty of restoring confidence to those who have suffered in this way. On the evidence that I know I should not myself agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said about the immediacy of appointing the Committee. I believe that there is a very real ease

1003
that this Committee should be set up as soon as possible. I know that the Minister concerned is very anxious to get the best possible people to serve on it. In another place he has talked of the difficulty he is having of getting exactly the right people. Nevertheless, as my friend the Member for Chester said in another place—and he has himself wide experience as a farmer—time is not on our side in this matter. For soon turning-out time comes; the cattle will be going out into the fields, and there will be the danger of a recurrence of infection. Indeed, I think it is desirable that, so far as possible, the members of the Committee should have some opportunity of seeing what it has meant to the countryside to have this affliction laid upon it. So I think that the first thing that will restore confidence is that a really effective and powerful Committee should be set up as soon as possible and set to work as soon as possible.
Secondly, there is the question of the continuance of the ban on the import of meat from countries which have uncontrolled foot-and-mouth disease. I know that Her Majesty's Government have great difficulty over this. On Tuesday I listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister in another place. He did not say, Yes; he did not say, No; but he gave the impression that he was doubtful about continuing the ban. I found the logic of his argument difficult to understand because, as the noble Lord has said, if it has been right to impose this ban at all, surely it ought to stay on until there is abundant evidence that these meat imports are not the source of infection. I should have thought, again in some disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that this is a matter which ought to be considered by the Committee of Inquiry, and that it ought to be done as soon as possible.
The third matter which will help the restoration of confidence is that of compensation, a matter that has already been touched upon by noble Lords. I hope that this compensation will be upon the basis of replacement rather than some notional form of payment. I hope that there will be some way in which those who first suffered from this disease will not be worse off than those who have contracted it on their farms later. I hope
1004
that there will be some adjustment about the difficult matter of taxation. I hope also that, so far as possible, consequential losses will be taken into consideration. I know that there must be some limit to this. Nevertheless, the main business of the livestock farmer has been clamped down during these months, and losses have been very heavy.
I know that in Cheshire especially there is anxiety about the position of the stockmen on the farms. The Minister said in another place that there are other schemes, such as giving temporary employment in forestry work and elsewhere. He mentioned the figure of only 40 men who have come into the labour exchange in Chester during the epidemic, but I am told that in Cheshire there is a fear that the figure may be much higher. Also, a number of people are doubtful about the policy of giving temporary employment elsewhere, lest the very valuable and experienced stockmen should be lost for ever from the work for which they are so well fitted.
This has been a national disaster. Nothing can compensate for the personal strain and tension through which those immediately concerned have passed, and are passing. But the nation can share the burden by carrying the responsibilities of compensation and by making available all those resources necessary for investigation and research, so that we can ensure, so far as is humanly possible, that never again will an epidemic on this scale befall our countryside.
7.28 p.m.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I am privileged indeed to be able to follow the right reverend Prelate in what was a moving and most constructive speech. I have a common local interest, and if I may I shall refer in a moment to some of the things which he said. I would follow the right reverend Prelate in adding my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hives on his maiden speech. It is refreshing indeed to listen to a speech from a practical man who really knows what he is talking about and who puts it so clearly and concisely. In agricultural debates in your Lordships' House in future we shall benefit greatly from my noble friend's contributions.
I would express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for having put down this Question and so

1005
given us the opportunity of a short discussion about this problem. This is not the moment for a full examination of this great calamity. When the Committee of Inquiry reports, then we shall have concrete evidence which will enable us the better to judge all the circumstances of what, as the right reverend Prelate said, has been a national disaster.
Over the last month, at Question Time, I am afraid I have been inflicting myself on the House rather often on this subject, and I would respectfully thank your Lordships for the patience that you have shown to me, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, also, for the understanding of my feelings about this subject which he has always shown to me. I am afraid your Lordships must be only too well aware by now that I come from Cheshire, too. I have lived through and in the middle of the two worst outbreaks of this century, first as a young man in 1923–24, and again now. So I have had an opportunity at first-hand to see a little, although not a great deal, of the awful consequences: the blow to the national economy; the losses of the farmers—and I think Particularly of the smaller tenant farmers, of whom we have so many in Cheshire—the sick anxiety of waiting for the blow to fall, and the helpless anger when it does. These things leave their mark on those who suffer.
My noble friend dealt fully with the Inquiry, and I do not think there is much about it that. I would add generally, although there are one or two points that I should like to mention in a moment. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about the urgency of the matter. In my view, the Committee should be set up as quickly as the Minister can possibly arrange for it to be set up. I realise that he has had difficulties. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it needs to be a strong Committee. I am glad that it is to be public, as I understand that it is, and I should like it to have, if possible, a tinge of the judicial about it. It should be presided over by a senior member of the legal profession. I may be told that these eminent gentlemen do not know very much about foot-and-mouth disease. But who does? They do know, however, the right sort of question to ask, and they know how to
1006
assess the value of evidence. Therefore I hope the door is not closed to the possibility that the Committee may be presided over by a lawyer.
It is certainly not for me to tell the members of the Committee their business, but I am sure that in their deliberations they must examine the present regulations for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, with a view to having framed a new set of emergency regulations which can come down anywhere like a safety curtain the moment an outbreak takes place. I think we must be even tougher and more stringent in the future than we have been in the past. This I believe to be one of the most important general lessons that have come out of the present outbreak.
I should now like to make two or three small points about the Committee itself I hope very much (I have spoken privately to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about this) that among the members of the Committee there may be some representatives from Cheshire or Shropshire, or both: people who have experienced this outbreak at first-hand—a practical farmer, perhaps, for one—and, what I regard as most important, a senior veterinary officer who has actually done field work in this particular outbreak. I think this would add greatly to the usefulness of the Committee.
Secondly (and I raised this at Question Time about two weeks ago), should not the secretariat which is to serve the Committee be set up now? I know that the Animal Health Division of the Ministry are doing certain preparatory work, but over the last four months they must have been just about the most overworked of any Government Department. They have laboured magnificently, and I should like to pay a most warm tribute to what they have done. But memories are short. Is there not a lot to be said for having a secretariat body at work now, which can build up a dossier while memories of events and experiences are still green, which can sift truth from rumour—and, goodness knows!, there are plenty of rumours—and provide authenticated instances of things which have happened and perhaps should not have happened, or risks which have been run which should not have been run? This might save a lot of time in an inquiry which is going to take many months, and I think

1007
it would prove useful to the members of the Committee.
I had intended to say something about the taxation problem (the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, may remember that I raised this with him about two months ago), but at this late hour I will not do so. I would, however, ask the noble Lord whether he can say anything definite about it, because it would be helpful.
Lastly, I pass to the vexed question of imported South American meat. Other speakers have already mentioned this, and no doubt it will be referred to again. A short time ago, in discussing this, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, spoke of a balance of odium over the retention or the removal of the ban. I accept that there are real difficulties here, but in all my experience I have never known the farming community as united as now over the retention of the ban. In addition, there is strong evidence, which convinces me, at any rate, that we really ought to keep a free hand in this matter, at least until the Committee has reported. There are the percentages; and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, mentioned 56 per cent. This may not be conclusive evidence, but it is a very high figure. There was the Gowers Committee in 1954, and on the subject of imported meat, your Lordships may remember, they said:
"This is thought by the Ministry of Agriculture to be responsible for more primary outbreaks in England than any other single cause."
Then there is the evidence of the disease-free countries which do not allow the import of meat. Perhaps the most interesting case is that of the Republic of Ireland, who banned imports of meat in 1940, and have not, I think, had an outbreak since 1941.
As the right reverend Prelate said, the noble Lord's right honourable friend in another place undertook that he would listen carefully to points of view and any arguments about this matter. I urge on the Government that, in spite of the difficulties—and I acknowledge that they exist—they should retain the ban until the Committee has reported. After all, the question of imported meat relates only to the primary outbreak of the disease, not to the consequential effects or to the spread of the disease. Would
1008
it not be possible, therefore, for the Government as it were to isolate this particular part of the problem and give it priority for immediate inquiry, so that an early report could be made? Meantime, as a matter of general policy, and within the limits of our present knowledge—and I think it is important to qualify it in that way—I believe the Government are right to continue with this sort of policy. No one who has seen all the slaughter and what follows it, or who realises the waste involved can think of this without sadness, and without a feeling almost of nausea. But I believe it to be right, if we are to have any hope at all of preventing this disease from becoming endemic in this country.
My Lords, it is a mistake, in trying to take a cool look at a disaster like this, to allow one's feelings to be one's guide, and I hope I have not been guilty of that. But may I finish by saying just this—and this really relates to the opening part of the right reverend Prelate's speech? When we are thinking about the material losses of the farming community and the nation, let us remember too the suffering and the heartbreak of so many farmers. There must be many of your Lordships who have been in a cowshed—in Cheshire we call them "shippons"—at milking time on a winter evening like this. It is a warm and friendly place. To-day far too many of them are cold and empty, and that is what so many farmers have to contemplate every time they open the doors of their houses. And that is the sort of thing I mean by "suffering". I suggest that this should only harden our determination to see, so far as lies in our power—by the encouragement of scientific research, by a refusal to accept risks, by the establishment of new and comprehensive emergency regulations which can come into action anywhere at the click of a switch, so to speak—that ravages on this scale do not happen again.
7.42 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I should like first of all to congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Hives, on his maiden speech, and I am quite sure that, not only on agricultural subjects, of which he is such a master, but also on other subjects, we may hear him on many occasions in the future.

1009
We were struck by the practical value of his approach. And who could have listened to the moving speech of the right-reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chester, without being moved himself? I should like to save time by associating myself with every word he said.
I do not believe that we can afford to put off this inquiry; it must be done at once. We are coming into another season on the farm, and there are many people who will have to decide the future of their methods of farming by the compensation they are paid and the possibility of getting back into the industry those stockmen who have left because there is no job for them. It is going to be a big problem and one not easy to settle. The sooner we get down to the job of investigating the whole question, the better it will be for us. There is one more thing I should like to say. I hope this inquiry will be an open inquiry to which the public can have access. I should like to stress the importance of allowing any evidence to be brought before it for discussion. We cannot afford to put aside any idea, however "haywire" it may appear, because it is not always the clever solutions that solve the problem; it is very often the simple things that work.
I remember my own experience when I started giving magnesium to stop grass tetany some fifteen or twenty years ago. Even now many people do not realise the simplicity of it. During the past fifteen or twenty years I have simply sprayed my pastures with 28 lb. of magnesium sulphate at the beginning of the season, and I have lost only one cow, and that occurred when my dairyman failed to carry out instructions about waiting until the spray was on before he turned a newly-calved cow into new lush pasture. I was called all sorts of things. I could go on talking on this subject for a long time, but that is not the problem to-day. However, I want to emphasise that some things which appear utterly futile and silly none the less work, and we must keep an open mind on this problem and not turn things down because they are not felt to be worth investigating.
The hour is already late, but this is an urgent problem. We cannot afford to wait. Those who have been deprived of their livelihood for the past four months
1010
must get a start—and immediately—if this industry in Cheshire and those other fertile parts is to get back to normal again. So I hope that the Committee will be appointed at the earliest possible moment and that they will be given priorities, or will establish priorities for themselves. One of the first priorities should be the question, which I hope they will decide in the right way, of retaining the ban on imported meat from countries in which the disease is endemic, until at least we have conclusive evidence that imports are not the main cause of the disease. It would be disastrous to have another epidemic such as we have just gone through; in fact, it would shatter the agricultural industry, and it would take many, many decades to recover.
7.48 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am the first to speak on this side of the House following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hives. As a result of my association with Derbyshire, I knew his father; he was very much "Rolls-Royce". I spoke with him on a number of platforms but, I can assure the noble Lord, not on a political platform. But it was always a delight to hear him, and I am sure it is a delight for us to hear the present Lord Hives and we shall (although it is a bit of a cliché, perhaps, I really mean it) look forward to hearing him again.
Unlike many noble Lords who have spoken to-day, I have no immediate association with Cheshire; I do not live there. But I took advantage of a period in the Christmas Recess when I was staying in Cheshire to go and see what was actually being done there. I looked to see what they were doing about carcase disposal—a very important matter—and on the veterinary side I had a look at diagnosis and control generally. I must admit that I was enormously impressed, and I am not easily impressed by the things see, and certainly not by glib talkers, although fortunately I did not meet any of them in this particular field. On the disposal side, I found the operation in charge of a river board engineer who had been seconded to the Ministry for the purpose of carcase disposal: an excellent arrangement because he knows the height of the water table in the county of Cheshire and he was able to bring to the task of carcase disposal his knowledge of where

1011
earth-moving equipment, and the sources of supply of that sort of equipment, were.
The operation was based at Winsford and run as a very efficient Army operation would be. Indeed, some Army personnel and their techniques were used in this connection. Having regard to the emergency nature of the task this man was carrying out, he appears to have been given a free hand, and at one period he had accumulated at his disposal something approaching £1 million worth of equipment. This was in order to ensure that no carcase was left above ground, or in some cases unburned, for a moment longer than was necessary. There was no stint by the Ministry on this engineer's operations.
I also saw the work of the Crewe centre, where an emergency headquarters for the veterinary side had been set up. Here there was a group of highly efficient professional men engaged in an emergency operation. Two months after the outbreak in late October there had been built up an organisation which, except for the "scratch" nature of the premises, might have been used had it been a permanent feature of the work of those engaged.
My Lords, it may well be the case that there is a need for some kind of emergency regulations and a system available for putting into operation immediately—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, about this. It was inevitably something of the nature of an operation of a "scratch" type initially, but by the time I got there and had a look at it, I found it really was working extraordinarily well. I imagine there were difficulties at the outset, which had been overcome by this time, and some of these difficulties might have caused trouble and might have added to the spread of disease in some cases. I cannot quote cases, but there was a suspicion in my mind that it had taken some little time to get to the point which this operation had reached when I arrived.
There was one most unusual feature, the international character of the veterinary surgeons that I met. There were men from the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. In most cases these qualified
1012
men came wholly at the expense of their own Governments. In one or two cases, I think, we were paying their expenses here, but certainly not their salaries. Admittedly they were learning here, but I was satisfied by the veterinary officer in charge of the whole operation in Crewe that they were greatly assisting him in his work, in addition to learning the job of how to handle outbreaks of this sort.
I talked to these men, and in no single case was any doubt thrown on the policy of slaughter stamping out. Not a single one of these veterinary surgeons had any doubts about stamping it out by our method. Each said that, faced with our island conditions, he would have no hesitation about recommending the slaughter policy to his own authorities concerned. I remember one of the veterinary surgeons from the United States of America saying that he not only favoured the policy but deplored the fact that in the United States of America they had not adopted a similar policy 60 years ago to stamp out what he called "hog fever", what we know as "swine fever".
Incidentally, on asking one of them about the spread of the disease I found that he strongly favoured the "wind-borne" theory. He said that, watching one of the infected animals slavering at the mouth in a high wind, one could see the globules of sputum being carried away, but I think he would agree with the note I saw in The Times to-day, which read:
"Points for further investigation include the physics of airborne spread …"
This aspect needs looking into, and of course it would be one of the tasks of this Committee to look into it particularly, because this is one of the things we shall have to find out: how to prevent the spread of the disease if it strikes here again.
Perhaps I should have declared an interest a few minutes ago, for I am an honorary Associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Your Lordships might think that, because of that, I am biased: but biased or not I came away from Crewe with a feeling of pride in my association with the profession, and also with a feeling of our indebtedness to those who made it possible for these overseas veterinarians to be here at such

1013
a time. Our thanks are due to them as individuals, and to the countries and organisations they represent.
My Lords, we have heard a lot to-day, and rightly so, about the unfortunate people whose livelihoods have been affected by this awful catastrophe. Farmers immediately spring to the mind, and here I strongly support those who have said that we shall have to look carefully at the compensation being paid and to the difficulties which the farmers are experiencing as the result of the taxation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott. It is obvious that those who were compensated very early on may not find it easy to replace cattle, because, as a result of slaughter and the lessening of the number of cattle available, the value of cattle is bound to go up. This is inevitable when we have slaughtered so many animals. It is something that the Ministry will have to look at, and I hope they will look at it sympathetically. But, of course, there are other people who are suffering difficulties as a result of this epidemic. For example, veterinary surgeons are finding themselves without their livelihood. Animal slaughter makes it inevitable that their income will be going down. There are many people involved.
As to the cause of this severe outbreak, no one seems to venture what might be called a well-grounded opinion. It will be one of the tasks of the Committee to try to find out just how it happened. When I heard that it seemed to have started with pigs at Oswestry I immediately thought "Unboiled swill", only to be told that this was not the case because they had not fed unboiled swill at that particular time. Whatever the cause was, imported meat is bound to be heavily under suspicion. I am not going to mention the points that have been raised in this connection, except to say that if anyone looks at the reports of the Animal Health Service through the years, and also at the Gowers Report, it has been made clear that always imported meat comes under suspicion as being the source of primary infection in so many cases. I am sure this is so. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the infection is merely in the marrow in the bone. It is not. The Pirbright Institute looked into this, and as a result of precise experiments they said that there is
1014
equal risk of other tissue, including lymph nodes, blood in the large vessels, liver kidneys and the rumen, remaining infective for very long periods.
I need not say any more about this matter, except that I have a tremendous sympathy with my right honourable friend who has to take a decision in it. The Minister is under pressure to lift the ban on meat imports. He is under pressure because inevitably prices will go up, and if this happens he will be under severe criticism from a large section of the people in this country—and perhaps rightly so. But I believe that, despite that criticism, having regard to the catastrophic nature of this outbreak which has hit Britain, he must resist the pressures which are being brought to bear on him at this time to take off the ban. I will support him strongly if he continues this ban, at least until there has been a careful examination as to the source of this last outbreak and of the possibility that it did in fact come from imported meat, and in the conviction that we ought never to allow it again.
Of those veterinarians to whom I talked—I have mentioned all their names—not a single one of them has experience of foot-and-mouth disease. Why? Because not one of the countries concerned imports meat. It is true that we import 10 per cent. of our meat from the Argentine, and if that is the source of the disease we just cannot afford to go on importing meat and suffering the sort of expensive catastrophe which the country has suffered during these last three months.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, the noble Lord said that 10 per cent. of our meat comes from the Argentine. I think he meant beef. I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is correct in saying that we import hardly any lamb or pork.
LORD CHAMPION: I agree.
8.0 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should like at the outset to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for having put down this Unstarred Question and enabled this debate to take place. It has certainly been extremely interesting. I would also offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hives on his maiden speech. As so many noble Lords

1015
have said, that speech came from someone with immense experience in this industry, and we look forward to other occasions on which he will address us.
This particular disease has had the most devastating effect to farmers throughout the country. Not only have they lost their cattle and their income, but very often they have lost also their livelihoods. Some of these farmers who have had this disease on their farms are not going to be able to start up again for a variety of different reasons. I was glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester pointed out the other very important thing, which is that this is a very human problem as well. I was talking last week-end to somebody who came from a district infected with foot-and mouth disease, and he said that in his area five farmers were already in a mental home. This gives some indication of the devastating effect which this disease can have.
Of course, when it comes, the first thing to do is to get rid of the disease and stop it spreading. This has very largely been achieved now, thanks to the excellent work of the people in the Ministry and the co-operation they have received. A great tribute should be paid to them. But what does one do afterwards? Does one say, "Now we have got rid of the disease let us hope it does not come again"? The Government have said they are setting up a Committee of Inquiry. I think they were right to do so, but there is one reservation to be borne in mind, and that is that there is a tendency to think that Inquiries are a panacea for all evils and if one sets up a Committee of Inquiry it will provide many of the answers. There is one great danger about this. Committees of Inquiry enable you to get the facts, but often their very existence is an excuse for, or a cause of, inaction. One has to try to balance the desirability of having the full facts with the necessity of taking action, and I believe taking action is extremely important in this situation.
Like so many other noble Lords, I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He did not find many friends in his argument that the Minister should choose the Committee slowly and take plenty of time to pick
1016
the right persons. I think it is imperative that this is done with speed. We want to know when the Committee will sit; we want to know when it will report; we want to know whom it will consist of, at least who the Chairman is; we want to know what its terms of reference are and indeed what kind of Committee it is. All we know from the answer the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, gave to a question earlier is that it will not be a Royal Commission.
I press upon the Government that there is a degree of urgency. We must have this Committee, if it is to be set up, set up quickly so that its members can get down to their work with great speed, because the material which they have must be hot, it must be readily in people's minds, and the material must be fresh. The Inquiry needs to be quick and to be concise, and of course it needs to be impartial. I think I am right in saying that the Inquiry is going to be public. This is very important, and, like my noble friend, Lord Oakshott, I should like to see a tinge of the judiciary about it. If it is not presided over by a judge, at least it should be somebody of substantial legal stature.
It must surely inquire into the actions that have been taken and the effects that they have had over this last outbreak. Did the rules and regulations which were necessarily imposed work? If they did not why did they not work? The right reverend Prelate said that these disasters bring out a volume of voluntary service. They also regrettably bring out a volume of criticism. I think it is extremely important that this Inquiry should look into the facts to try to see, if the rules and regulations did not work, why they did not work, and not in any way to try to apportion blame. After all, many decisions were taken. They had to be taken in a hurry. Of necessity, many of those decisions must have been wrong. If they were wrong, let us know why, so that the mistake cannot be made again, rather than just apportion blame for mistakes that may have occurred.
For instance, many restrictions were put on people going to race meetings and so forth, and yet people were allowed to attend football matches. Is this kind of thing sensible? I can give a case I know of where a person in Lincolnshire, where there was an outbreak, was not

1017
allowed to go to Norfolk to shoot, but he was allowed to send his cattle, because they were not in an infected area, to Norwich Market. It is ridiculous when a person cannot go to another county to shoot but can send his beasts to the local market. These regulations may be correct in intention, but obviously there were some shortcomings somewhere. I hope that this Committee will look into what was done to combat this disease when it broke out and how successful it was. Like my noble friend Lord Oakshott, I should like to see it produce a set of rules that would be brought into action should another outbreak occur.
The right reverend Prelate suggested that compensation should also be considered and that it would be a pity if the people whose animals got the disease at the beginning were worse off than those whose animals got it at the end. I do not know whether this should be considered, but I could not help being slightly amused that the right reverend Prelate's cloth did not persuade him on this occasion to accept the parable of the labourers in the vineyard.
This Committee must also consider the advisability of the slaughter policy. If this inquiry is to be as far-reaching and as comprehensive as it should be, it must inquire into the slaughter policy if only to vindicate it, and I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, could say whether this will be one of the points to be considered. I personally have strong feelings that the slaughter policy is the correct one, but there are others who take a contrary view, and I think it would be advisable for this to be considered.
To put it in its perspective, I would venture to tell your Lordships something I was told when I was reading Agriculture at university, which was that over the years the cost of the slaughter policy had averaged about a quarter of a million a year, whereas to adopt a policy of vaccination, with its expense and its lowering of production, would in fact not have cost a quarter of a million a year but £20 million a year. The lecturer who told me that is now, oddly enough, one of the most senior people in the Ministry of Agriculture at Tolworth. If he should read these words he may be pleased that something he said had been retained by one of his pupil-s, but I am bound to say his enthusiasm must be mellowed by the
1018
fact that not all his remarks received such ready retention.
Obviously what caused the outbreak must be of prime concern for the Committee of Inquiry. But should we as a matter of policy import from countries where this disease is endemic? I must also add a plea to those already made that this ban on imports should be continued. After all, why was the ban put on in the first place?—because there was a possibility that the infection came from abroad. The Minister said that the ban was imposed because he was frightened of another primary outbreak. I think this is important. I believe that he was quite right to be so frightened. But the ban itself did nothing to control the existing outbreak; it was merely imposed to prevent the possibility of a further outbreak.
This outbreak has cost us nearly £30 million. Can we risk another outbreak? Everyone would say, "No". But if the ban is removed, that same possibility of infection which caused the ban to be imposed in the first place will return, and I believe that we should be most unwise to allow it to do so. The Minister did not give a firm reply in another place the other day. He was frightened of breaking a pledge, which of course is entirely understandable. The pledge was to review this ban after three months; it was not a pledge to lift it. The impression which the Minister gave was that this ban would be removed. I would ask the noble Lord opposite to impress upon the Minister that, in spite of the real feeling that many people have that this ban should be lifted, in fact he will not be breaking his pledge if he does re-impose it. The pledge was to review it, and I think that the Minister would be entitled to say that this outbreak has been so serious, that the consequences of re-infection are so dangerous, that we cannot really import meat until at least the Inquiry has reported. Therefore, I hope that the Inquiry will get started quickly, and that it will report quickly.
8.12 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I think that this debate has come at a most opportune moment, and I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent for initiating it and giving us a

1019
chance to express our views on the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth and on the ban on imported meat from South America. I want to say but little about the way the present outbreak was handled, and what I hope the Committee will look into in this respect. I personally am quite convinced that the slaughter policy is right, and I should like to commend the Minister of Agriculture and his Ministry for sticking to this policy when the number of cases was running at between fifty and seventy a day. It was extremely brave of him to do this and I think he deserves our thanks for so doing. I am sure the present figures have shown that his decision was right.
I should like to say a few words about the mechanics of the slaughter policy. What worries me is that people are paid, and rightly, extremely high sums of money for burying the carcases; but nearly always these people take on the job as a part-time job. There are some who are doing it whole-time, but quite a number are doing it part-time. I heard of a milk tanker driver who was so engaged. Quite soon after he had done this work, a village to which he regularly drove his milk tanker got foot-and-mouth on their common land. The whole village is quite convinced that this was due to the milk tanker driver's doing a part-time job burying the carcases.
Obviously, this is an attractive part-time job. As I have said, it is highly paid—and probably, although I do not know, it is not returned in everyone's tax return. Therefore I can see the attraction of it. But I should think that one thing the Committee might consider in future is that the military should do this; that people subject to military discipline and only people who do nothing else, having no other normal job which takes them travelling round the countryside, should do this work. I should like the Committee also to look into the question of whether there might be issued special clothing which could be burned afterwards. I believe that nowadays ladies' dresses can be made of paper, or the near-equivalent of paper. Possibly some such uniform might be issued to people who are disposing of carcases. I personally am quite convinced
1020
that much of the carrying of foot-and-mouth is due to the human element.
May I now say a word about disinfectant? I feel that, as in everything where this disease arose, we have lacked guidance on the type of disinfectant to be used, the strength at which it should be used and the way it should be used. Exactly the same applies to salmon disease. Anglers were asked thoroughly to disinfect their wading boots and their rods and reels after fishing an infected river. They were never told what sort of disinfectant to use, or how to mix it. I should hope, therefore, that the Committee will look into the type of disinfectant that should be used and its effectiveness, because I believe that it is no use using a disinfectant which is not 100 per cent. effective. I believe commercial firms are working to produce a 100 per cent. effective disinfectant. I think this is a point which the Committee should look at. I hope it will.
Now a word about the straw baths which are put at the end of each farm road. Most people thought straw baths absolutely useless. I do not think they do any good at all, because I do not see why the virus should be on the tyres of a vehicle any more than on its body, or even possibly on the boots and shoes and clothes of the people inside the vehicle. I think the Committee might give us guidance on that. Straw baths cost a lot of money, and a lot of trouble arises in seeing that they are full of disinfectant. Also, if there is a disinfectant which is effective. I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture will keep a large stock of it, because one of the difficulties in dealing with this outbreak was the difficulty of getting a suitable disinfectant. We in our area were told that we were a long way from the outbreak, and that sheep dip would do. I strongly doubt, even if the disinfectant does any good—of which I am not absolutely convinced—that sheep dip would be any use at all. But it is a nice psychological idea.
Now I should like to refer the noble Lord to the way they dealt with the clearing of tsetse fly from Kariba in Rhodesia. To me, this was a more thorough way than anything we did with the foot-and-mouth disease. I, and I know many people in Scotland, are most

1021
disappointed that the Secretary of State turned down the offer of Scottish Command to man posts on all the Border roads. It may not have done any good, I do not know, but psychologically I think it would have been most comforting to the Scottish farmer. From that point of view I am sure that it would have done some good.
I turn to what I regard as the most important part of this debate because it is most immediate; namely, whether or not this ban should be kept on meat from the Argentine and other South American countries. I think I am right in saying that this affects only the Argentine, because Brazil is a net importer and not a net exporter of beef. There have been odd outbreaks outside the infected areas in the Midlands. I am thinking particularly of one near Coventry, and one in Northamptonshire. These were all fairly recent, and the suggestion was—I do not know; the noble Lord can confirm or deny it—that some deep frozen Argentinian meat was released in Birmingham just before this time, and that the disease came from this meat. I have seen this suggestion in the Press. It may well be wrong. I have no personal knowledge of it. But if this were the case, I think every effort should be made to trace where the meat came from and that the people who produced it should suffer due penalty for so doing. But if it was the case, I think it makes it abundantly clear that it is essential to keep this ban on, at any rate until the Committee have reported.
As we heard from the right reverend Prelate, whose speech I admired enormously—I think I approved of everything he said—psychologically the farmers are near breaking point in the areas affected by foot-and-mouth disease. I think that one of the things which might tip them over the edge would be if the ban were lifted. Presumably, there are three reasons why the Government are considering lifting the ban. First, possibly they have given a pledge to the Argentine in much more detailed terms than they have so far admitted. If this was the case, it is only right that they should have told us they had done so and not try to pretend that they had given the pledge for three months and would look at it again. We have had so many pledges broken in the last three
1022
months that I should not have thought one more would matter, when it might do some good and might be popular with a large number of people in this country. Secondly, they are probably frightened of Argentinian reprisals, but as I said in a Question I asked of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, we have already incurred much of the odium that we are likely to incur in putting on this ban. If we take it off and reimpose it, we shall incur even more odium when we reimpose it and remarkably little credit when we take it off.
We have already suffered considerable loss of bloodstock sales to the Argentine, which happen to be the most immediate thing they could strike at after the ban was put on, and I believe that they are not going to buy any bulls at the Perth bull sales this week. But I believe that we can survive these things. I refuse to believe that the rather horrifying stories in some of the newspapers to-day about the amount of trade that we are likely to lose with the Argentine over the next three years if we keep on the ban are really true. The Argentinians are as commercially-minded as any other nation. If our prices and our delivery dates are right for our manufactured goods, then they are going to buy from us rather than pay more and buy from America which also has a ban on their meat. Therefore I do not think that in the long term this will cost us a great deal of trade.
The third reason, presumably—and I see the Government's difficulty—is the rise in the price of meat. I would point out that this has compensating factors. We are saved a certain amount of foreign currency through not being able to buy our 10 per cent. of beef from the Argentine. The Government have been saved quite a lot of money in deficiency payments through the price of meat in this country having risen way above their figure for paying deficiency sums. And if we go into the Common Market there will be this rise in the price of meat anyway, and perhaps we are just anticipating going into the Common Market. I think that possibly it is a salutary lesson for housewives and the people of this country to realise how much it costs to produce the beef and the lamb which they take for granted and which is undeniably the best in the world. I think that now our people are beginning to realise that they

1023
have been very lucky to have their meat so cheaply in the past, and possibly they will be prepared to pay a certain amount more for it in the future. I beseech the Government to keep on this ban. Psychologically it would be the last straw that broke the farmer's back in the areas which have been affected by foot-and-mouth disease if the ban were to be lifted. I very much hope that the Government will keep it on.
8.24 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hives, on his maiden speech. Thirty years ago in my maiden speech I introduced a debate in this House on foot-and-mouth disease, so I have every sympathy with him. I will not go into great detail in what I have to say to-night, but I read in the Horse and Hound (which may not be read on the other side of the House very much) a very good article by George Forbes. He gave various reasons for the spread of the disease one of which was rats, which are more likely to carry the disease than birds. He based his argument on migratory birds from South America not introducing foot-and-mouth disease into North America. Therefore, if rats are one of the main carriers I would urge the Minister to ginger up his ratcatchers, or pest controllers I think they are called, to go to work throughout the country and do their job, and if necessary perhaps the numbers of control officers could be increased. Another point that George Forbes made in his article was the fact that infection can be airborne. He suggested that helicopters should be sent up over an infected farm after the carcases had been disposed of and that the air should be sprayed until a sufficient quantity of disinfectant was in the area to kill the virus.
I will not talk about deboned meat or offal, because that has already been mentioned, but I should like to appeal to the housewife to boil all the bones from her meat, whether it be for the dogs or whether she is going to throw them into the dustbin. Also she should boil offal, so that the rats cannot take it out of the dustbin and carry it away. This applies to imported offal or bones, or whatever it is. If we urge the housewife to do
1024
this, I think it would be beneficial. There is one final point I should like to make. As store sales have now been introduced in non-infected areas throughout the country, farmers can go to them and buy by licence, and bring back the stock to their own farms and not move them for twenty-one days. I wonder whether this order could also be extended to the fatstock market, because all cattle going to a fatstock market have to go to the slaughter house.
8.28 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I should like to start by commending the speech of my noble friend Lord Hives. He and I both come from the same part of the country. We have both had outbreaks of foot-and-mouth on four sides of us, and I know how strongly he feels, and rightly so, about this particular subject. I hope that we shall be supported by him in debates on this subject again.
Important as it is to trace the cause of this outbreak and to act on it promptly, it can be said that the only good thing that can come out of this outbreak is that it affords a golden chance for a completely new reappraisal of the whole situation and an opportunity to put wrongs over a very long period right once and for all. I feel that it is wrong to criticise this particular Administration at this stage. We have for far too long exposed ourselves to this plague. We have risked the lives of millions of cattle, sheep and pigs and the livelihood of countless thousands of families.
The farm livestock of this country is one of our greatest national assets. We are the stud farm of the world. The Ayrshire, the British Friesian and the Channel Island breeds are renowned milk cattle throughout the world. Perhaps even better known are our Herefords and Aberdeen Angus. It is impossible to go, as I have done recently, to the Panhandle of Texas and other such areas and see 30,000 head of Hereford cattle in one feed block, without a feeling of pride that these animals all stem from this country; and it is extremely satisfactory to remind the Americans of this as well. Strains of sheep and pigs have been carefully bred over hundreds of years in this country and are unequalled anywhere. So much for the animals.

1025
We have heard about the people involved. The plight of those farmers, stockmen, pigmen, shepherds, veterinary surgeons, and so on, cannot be too strongly emphasised. But as well as those directly affected by this plague, many other thousands of farmers have had their lives and businesses disrupted. Add to them the vets, the auctioneers, all those connected with National Hunt racing, for whom I have a particularly high regard, the Hunt servants, the blacksmiths, the woodmen and so on—these are the yeomen of England.
Yeomen service has meant something stalwart and substantial for many hundreds of years. These people are the most uncomplaining, the least demanding members of the community. They have no shop stewards. The word "strike" never comes into their vocabulary. I cannot help being reminded of Gray's famous words when he said:
"Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife
Their sober wishes never learnt to stray."
We here should and could put their case. We must have the most searchng inquiry possible. Some foreign meat is clearly suspect, and I believe that any trade conducted by this country which involves the possible import of the foot-and-mouth virus as part of the package cannot possibly be viable, particularly if we stick, as we should, to the slaughter policy.
I end by asking the noble Lord who will reply to the debate whether, when the present vets' inquiry has been completed, if concrete evidence is produced, the Minister will be able to act immediately upon it.
8.34 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, when the Minister comes to read this debate to-morrow he ought to be very grateful to this House for its understanding, and also for the very firm message which it is sending him. At least three former Parliamentary Secretaries of his Department have spoken during the debate, and they may be expected to have special understanding of his problems and responsibilities, not just as Minister of Agriculture, but also as Minister of Food—and I am glad to see one noble Lord nodding his agreement. I have very clear recollections of responsibility during a previous outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
1026
At this late hour I want to follow up only one point, and that is what the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, described as the safety curtain, because the Ministry of Agriculture does attempt to operate something in the nature of a safety curtain. Yet I think it is very nearly impossible to guarantee that in each and every circumstance that curtain will fall in such a way that nobody will be given any grounds for criticism. I remember visiting the headquarters during a previous outbreak and being greatly impressed by its efficiency and the way information and instructions were passing quickly and confidently. On the perimeter, the impression was less impressive, and understandably less impressive, because of the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has referred.
A great many people and a great many authorities are involved. Action has to be taken very quickly, and there is no time for the sort of consultation which one would like to have in order to avoid the small rubs which are always given such prominence. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, paid tribute to the many people who are involved, but there is one group I was very sorry he left out, and that is the Territorial Army. They have done good work in some places, and I should like to think they were going to continue to be able to help if this or similar disasters befall us again.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I mentioned the Army personnel, and of course I included all Army personnel in those two words.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I stand rebuked. None the less, I think that the Territorial Army who have come in for so many knocks recently deserve at least a special word of commendation. Noble Lords will know that this safety curtain does not fall just once—it has to fall twice. It is quite easy to say that the infected zone will be a radius of, I think, ten miles around an outbreak. But a circle of ten miles on a map is a very different thing from defining the actual line on the ground which all the local inhabitants, people passing through and everybody who has to go about his business in the area, will recognise at sight and will observe because he appreciates that it is fair.

1027
Even more difficult is defining the wider safety curtain which forms the boundary of the controlled areas. I should like to think that, in the light of the experience we have just had, if needs be we risk pushing such boundaries further out and bringing more people under the control if in so doing we are going to save the risk of confusion and uncertainty around the perimeter. I say this with some experience, because during one of the outbreaks since the war such a boundary ran through a small hamlet at the opposite end of the parish from where I live, and right across some fields which I was farming at that time. It was a corner of England where the parish boundary wobbles from one side of the road to the other, and I think it even leaves the road in one place to take in one field on the other side of the road. No farmer knew for some days whether he could take his cows across the road or not and we had a new police constable who with the best will in the world did not know exactly what he or we ought to do in those circumstances.
I mention this not in any sort of unreasonable criticism, but just to follow on what two noble Lords have said about how these difficulties are bound to happen in the early stages, particularly if the Department commendably tries to disturb the life of the minimum number of people. Parish boundaries are very deceptive. Roads and rivers are probably better.
There is one further point which affects the safety curtain, and that is the nature of our farming when so large a proportion of our livestock is permanently on wheels or passing through auction markets When a primary outbreak has been recorded it is the duty of the Department to try to trace the movements of all cattle which may have been contacts. I can distinctly remember one case where a group of cattle from an infected area was traced to an auction market in the Midlands, and before we could catch up with them they had gone through a second auction market a few miles away during the afternoon of the same day. This is not a very good farming practice and it does not do stock any good moving it about in that way.
We have so many part-time dealers as well as professional dealers who are out
1028
to buy animals and sell them a day or a week later if they think there is a small return that it makes the Ministry's task in these circumstances particularly difficult. I can remember, too, how a railway truck full of cattle was lost. It was routed while we kept our fingers crossed. It was routed from Northumberland to somewhere in East Anglia and was found near Aberdeen, yet it managed to reach its destination without, I think, the popular Press discovering, or in fact any unhappy results.
Having mentioned this question of all this stock moving about, I turn lastly to the question of farmers moving about. There has already been a reference to some meetings being banned while others were allowed. In my part of England, the North-West, we are reopening store markets, and there have been unhappy feelings among our people that some of those who come to the marts—maybe to do business; maybe just to see what the business is now like—have come from heavily infected areas. An appeal has been put out, I think, asking them to stay away for the time being. I mention this again, not with any nasty feeling of unpleasant criticism but just to show the sort of difficulties that arise all the time. The safety curtain has to control the movements of stock and to a certain extent the movements of men. If the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, or any other noble Lord can devise improvements to avoid criticism, it will indeed be a remarkable achievement, and welcome.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, that is precisely what I want this high-powered Committee to suggest.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I was coming to that point. I do indeed hope that they will look into the matter and see whether they can in fact find ways of improving on the present system, if need be inconveniencing more people, where it can be shown as in the interests of the whole.
8.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I should like first to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hives on his most knowledgeable and temperate speech. We all hope to hear him again, and very often. As one who is no stranger to farming in Shropshire, I can sympathise very much with what he said, especially as, fortunately, I gather that

1029
he, like mystelf, has so far, by the grace of God, been immune.
I do not think that I should have trespassed on your Lordships' time at this hour of the night had it not been that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester decided, most fortunately, to speak. I think the honour of Shropshire demands that I should say one word or two tonight, particularly as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, we were told, whose diocese covers the North of Shropshire, is not able to be here. Because, my Lords, the main course of the epidemic has covered not only the best part of Cheshire but also most of the northern part of Shropshire; or, in other words, the southern part of the Cheshire Cheese country. Our experiences in Shropshire were broadly the same as those in Cheshire. The type of farming affected was the same, the only difference being that we had the hill sheep problem, which Cheshire had not, but fortunately that problem was prevented from escalating to any serious proportions.
I should like, as other noble Lords have done, to echo the praise which was given to the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture in the field, who spared no effort to discharge their most unpleasant task with the greatest friendliness and helpfulness to those affected. And also, of course, to the soldiers, Regular and Territorial—not forgetting the members of the Civil Defence, who have not been mentioned yet—who did so much, under expert guidance, to carry out work which was so much better left in expert hands instead of being handed over to contractors employing labour, who might easily have made matters worse.
That, my Lords, is all I think I need say on the general points, because they have been covered so fully in this debate, so may I go back to the terms of reference of the Inquiry, which are in fact the subject-matter of the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford? There seem to me to be two important things. The first is that, as so many noble Lords have said, the Inquiry should start soon, while the scent is still hot and while the members of the tribunal, however it is constituted, can obtain first-hand evidence, and not second-hand. They can obtain it now,
1030
but they will not be able to obtain it very much longer, let us hope—certainly not in the same volume.
The second thing, my Lords, is that the members of the tribunal, and particularly its chairman, should be people who have the determination and the ability to obtain the whole truth about the matters into which they are going to inquire. That may sound rather a brutal thing to say, but let us face the fact that while, on the one hand, there will be considerable vested interests setting out to secure that all the truth comes out in one direction—the National Farmers' Union and, no doubt, the National Union of Agricultural Workers will be very much concerned that their side of the case is brought out. Here perhaps I may say how glad I was that in Shropshire the affairs of the Shropshire Branch of the National Farmers' Union were in thoroughly competent hands during this particular year; it helped us a lot—on the other hand there will be other interests which, though perhaps one should not say so, may equally be at work to see that evidence in certain directions is not given the same highlight. One has only to take the problem of importing Argentine meat, which has been talked about so much to-night. We all know that the agricultural interests have a strong case for banning such imports. We equally know that other Departments—not the Ministry of Agriculture—have good arguments why such imports should not be banned; and it will take a fairly strong tribunal and a fairly strong chairman to make quite sure that the evidence is all collected.
There are other things, too. There are what one might call the "hard-line" stories. Many "hard-line" stories have been told about the foot-and-mouth scourge, not all of them representing the real facts as they appear to most people. To take one example, there have been "hard-line" stories about people sacking their herdsmen. To my mind, that is a deplorable thing to do. But, equally, I think that the vast majority of farmers have looked after their farmworkers properly, in the interests of both master and man, and that the cases in which herdsmen have been stood off wrongly are indeed in the minority. Then there

1031
will be what one might call the fringe effects—not the effects concerning the actual farmers and farmworkers themselves, but all the consequential effects concerning the auctioneers, the merchants and the ordinary shop people in the small towns. Every kind of effect will arise, because in the districts badly affected the whole of the life—not only the whole of the agricultural life, but the whole of the life—has been completely seized up.
This is going to be a long and hard task for any Inquiry. That is why I agree so strongly that it should be started at once. I think that it will be a long time before the members of the Inquiry are in a position to make their Final Report. But I hope that it will be possible, when they reach conclusions, when they reach some finality about certain matters, for them to make Interim Reports so that the Government will be able to act on them without delay.
8.50 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I am moved to rise because comment was made about the situation with regard to the farmworkers in the industry. I would certainly agree with the noble Lord opposite that we ought not to boost this problem to proportions which are unrealistic. On the other hand, it is true that we have been advised of a number of cases where farmworkers have been dismissed from their jobs. We know that in Cheshire alone there could be over 1,000 farmworkers who might be affected in this way. The situation, so far as my union, the Agricultural Workers' Union, is concerned, is that we have evidence that 42 farmworkers have been dismissed up to the beginning of the week before last. I had a letter from my Cheshire organiser last week advising me that a further 18 had been dismissed and that three of them were involved in tied cottages, and that application had been made for the tied cottages.
I think this is not the full extent of the problem. It is also true that a number of farmworkers have had their earnings reduced, in the sense that they are put back on to minimum wages and that overtime has ceased. There is an issue here which goes beyond the present crisis of foot-and-mouth disease and which affects the national interest and, in particular,
1032
the interest of the dairying industry. It is that if these men leave the land, it is certain that they will be gone for good. This is disadvantageous both to the industry and to the country, in the situation in which we now find ourselves. And there is, of course, another problem involved, one to which at the moment I have not been able to find an answer. We have suggested to the Minister of Agriculture that in the circumstances farmers should be encouraged not to dismiss their men, and not to reduce wages, but to keep them on.
There is, of course, a money issue involved here. Farmers certainly get compensation and should get insurance. There is the £10 ploughing grant which they also receive. I hope that this House and the Minister will plead with farmers not to dismiss their men, because they are going to need them later on when restocking their herds. There is a further problem which I shall mention briefly, since I am on my feet. A grant is made for disinfection services and cleaning-up operations. The evidence that we, as a union, have is that in different counties different rates apply. I have been informed that 13s. 6d. is payable by the Government to farmers and contractors who use men for this operation, but that the rate paid to the men varies from county to county. The variation has been between 8s. 6d. and something like 6s. This cleaning-up operation helps the industry retain the men it is going to need in the future, and I think it is rather unfortunate that there should be a situation where varying rates can be paid and where contractors pay varying rates. I have written to the Minister about this problem and have seen him twice, but if my noble friend who is going to reply can add anything to help, then I should be most grateful.
8.54 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent has initiated an important debate. It was also at times a moving one. It was understandable, fair-minded and constructive. I hope in the end it will be considered to have been useful. Most of the matters raised are essentially questions which the Committee of Inquiry itself will have to consider. I know that the noble Lord will not expect me to give him answers

1033
on all the points raised. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hives. Hitherto, I am bound to say, I had associated the name with another love of mine, the aero-engine industry. But from now on I shall think in terms of agriculture, and I congratulate the noble Lord. I hope I will hear him again on this and other subjects.
If I may, at the outset, I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and all noble Lords who expressed their thanks and admiration for the work done in the field by the devoted servants of the Ministry of Agriculture and also the Armed Forces, including the Territorial Army, the police forces, the fire service, the contractors and all who in this very difficult period have lent a hand. I express my admiration to the farming community for the way in which they have borne themselves. There has been no question here of anybody begging for charity. They have in every case expressed the desire for fair treatment, but they have never, so far as I know, been plugging the hard luck line.
There are one or two points which were asked of me and with which I ought to deal before going on to the two more important aspects of the discussion. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, about the advisability of renewing stock pending the report of this Inquiry. No decision has been made, but the suggestion that he made has been noted and consideration will be given to it. There was also the question of consequential loss raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, by Lord Henley, by my noble friend Lord Champion and by others. Here we are dealing with a most difficult problem. Of course, the Government understand the concern over the losses incurred by a larger number of people, both inside and outside the livestock industry, as a consequence of this outbreak. Some of them have been named. There are the contractors, the merchants, the auctioneers, the hotel owners, the meat traders, the jockeys, the bookmakers and so on. All have suffered in some way as a result of this outbreak. The fact of the matter is that no Government, I believe, can accept the principle that compensation should be paid from the Exchequer to all those who suffer consequential losses. Once we start down this road there can be almost no
1034
chance of stopping. For this reason the Gowers Committee came down so firmly against the principle of compensation for consequential losses, and since that time successive Governments have accepted this view. I hope the House will recognise the force of these arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Collison, mentioned another consequential loss, one which, to those concerned, hits most grievously; namely, the loss of employment and the possibility also of the loss of the homes in which the people live. It is not possible here to consider separate compensation by the Government, but I echo his plea to the farmers to stand by the men who helped them. And in the main the response among the farmers has been notable. Very few farm labourers have been stood off; the figure I have is about 40, the same as Lord Collison. I trust that the best interests of all concerned, the farmers and the farm workers, will be served by keeping on these skilled men until they are needed again.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that this is not quite the same as consequential loss? It might possibly be a field in which the Government could help. Consequential loss, I agree, is something for which no Government can compensate. But the problem of having to stand off labourers is not quite within the field of consequential loss. This is something which the Committee of Inquiry might well look into.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is something which the Committee of Inquiry might well consider they should look into, but in the sense in which I was talking about it I think that it could be regarded as a consequential loss.
There is also the question about equity of compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to this, as did my noble friend Lord Champion. It is clear, as they and others have said, that since the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak began on October 25 the levels of valuation of some types of stock have risen significantly. I believe that dairy cow prices have increased by the order of about 30 per cent. since the start of the outbreak, and this clearly places those farmers whose herds were affected early at a disadvantage in competing for replacement.

1035
Here there has been a good deal of useful help, notably from the National Farmers' Union, with their restocking scheme. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are doing all they can to improve supplies of replacement stock; there is the £10 rate ploughing grant scheme, and other actions which will reduce the demand on the livestock market. I hope that these measures will do much to take the pressure off livestock prices and consequently make re-stocking easier and compensation go further.
My Lords, there still remains the question of equity and the Government are considering very carefully to see whether there is anything else that can be done. I hope that a further statement on this question will be made shortly. I was asked about taxation. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, asked about it and its effect on compensation. This is a point which I hope, with good will, will be solved satisfactorily. The problem is being discussed at present with the N.F.U. and with the Inland Revenue, and I hope that these discussions will shortly be completed and that an announcement can then be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, asked about fatstock sent to the market, which if it did not fetch the price the farmer hoped for, nevertheless still had to go to the slaughterhouse. I agree with the noble Lord that this is a point which ought to be looked into and is now being considered. I will write to the noble Lord and let him know the outcome of that consideration.
I was asked about the composition of the Inquiry and when it will be established. May I make it quite clear, my Lords, that the setting up of this Inquiry is being considered as a matter of urgency? Indeed, I hope that the appointment of the Chairman may be announced in the fairly near future. But I would also make clear to those noble Lords who seemed to think that the issue of compensation to be paid as a result of this outbreak must depend on the recommendations made by the Inquiry that of course that is something quite separate, and there will be no delay, so far as compensation is concerned. Moreover, there is also the inquiry by the Ministry's staff
1036
to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, now looking into the immediate causes of the outbreak. A report from these veterinarians should be in the hands of the Minister before very long, and although, obviously, one cannot say what will be in it, and I cannot comment on its likely outcome, I am sure that my right honourable friend will take into account the information available to him from this report when reviewing the temporary ban.
As to the Committee of Inquiry, the precise terms of reference have not yet been decided. It would be wrong to make a decision about them until they have been discussed with the chairman. But the Minister has already made clear that he intends the Committee to be independent, and it will make a thorough investigation into the present epidemic and the lessons which we can learn from it. The terms of reference are likely to be similar to those given to the Gowers Committee. Noble Lords will remember that the terms of reference of the Gowers Committee required the Committee:
"To review the policy arrangements for dealing with foot-and-mouth in Great Britain, and to advise whether any changes should be made in the light of present scientific knowledge and the technical and administrative experience gained in recent years in this and other countries."
If the Committee works to these terms of reference, I think that all the points which have been raised will be covered satisfactorily.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, whether it would be possible to include on the Committee a veterinarian with experience in the field during the current outbreak. Almost certainly a veterinarian of experience will be included on the Committee, but it is essential that he should be independent of the Ministry, and I understand that those who served in the recent outbreak were either members of the Minister's staff or employed by him for this outbreak. Evidence will almost certainly be taken from them, and I hope that it will be agreed that their experience could best be made available as witnesses rather than as Committee members. The noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, made another very constructive suggestion, to the effect that a secretariat ought now to be established,

1037
so that the work of the Committee could go ahead as early as possible after its appointment. I am glad to say that a working party has already been set up, and it is now collecting and collating evidence, and at least one of the secretaries of this working party will act for the proposed Committee of Inquiry. A working party is not exactly a secretariat, but I think that it will serve the very relevant purpose to which the noble Lord referred.
On this matter of the import ban I understand, and indeed I sympathise with, the feelings of noble Lords who have spoken on this very contentious matter. As several noble Lords have said there are differing views in the country (this was brought out very well by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman) about whether the ban should be lifted before the findings of the proposed Committee of Inquiry. A number of conflicting interests are involved. In this or in any other issue Her Majesty's Government have to consider all the interests and make a decision which reflects the right balance.
To-day we have heard in the main the point of view of the producers. I would say that it was a very persuasive, even compelling, argument that was used. Nevertheless, we must recognise that there is another point of view, not least that of the housewife who is now paying some 30 to 40 per cent. more for beef, partly—only partly, of course—as a result of the ban. And this temporary change in our import arrangements has caused considerable difficulty and disruption not only to our overseas suppliers but also to traders. It has been accepted by them as a justifiable short-term measure.
The House will remember that when the Minister introduced this change on behalf of the Government he stated in good faith that it was only a temporary measure, designed to avoid our desperately overstretched veterinary resources from being overwhelmed by a new primary outbreak while we were still struggling to get the original epidemic under control. The undertaking was given that we would remove the ban once the outbreak was under control, and in any case would review the position in three months from the date of its introduction—namely, December 4 last year.
1038
The Government recognise the absolute tragedy this epidemic has been for areas of the farming community, and accept the importance of doing everything feasible to avoid another major outbreak. However, in considering future policy in relation to imports, Her Majesty's Government must take into account wider considerations of policy, including the interests of consumers, both in the short and in the long term, and the important issues of national commercial policy that are involved.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord make that slightly clearer? Did he say that it was an undertaking to review the ban, or to remove the ban? I thought that he said both.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I said first that it was only a temporary measure. This was made quite clear. The ban would be reviewed within three months of its imposition—"reviewed" was the term used. But it was only a temporary ban; it was not there permanently. It was accepted by the trade on that assumption.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, about the report of the veterinary advisers. I have already said that when that report is received, as it will be quite soon, it will be considered by the Minister. I was also asked about the possibility of controlling imports, if they are allowed again. Of course, we have arrangements with all our overseas suppliers to ensure that any animal health risks from imports are kept at the lowest possible level. These arrangements are reviewed from time to time, and this is something which we shall need to have very much in mind when the time comes to remove the temporary import ban.
I regret that I cannot give the assurances that noble Lords would like me to give on import policy. I know that they will understand why. But I assure them that I will do all I can to ensure that what they have said is properly considered; and I trust that the discussions we have had will be thought to have been useful.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past nine o'clock.