Lords Sitting of 23 July 1971

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

LIBYAN THREAT TO B.O.A.C. AIRLINER
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 if they will make a statement on the further situation arising from international incidents which led to the forced landing of the B.O.A.C. aeroplane at Benghazi.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): As your Lordships will be aware, a B.O.A.C. 'plane on a scheduled flight was forced to land at Benghazi by the Libyan authorities early yesterday morning. The Libyans had threatened to blow the 'plane out of the sky if the pilot did not obey their instructions. When the 'plane landed the Libyan authorities instructed two Sudanese citizens who were aboard to disembark. When it was made clear to them that, if they refused, the safety of the other passengers would be at risk, they left the 'plane, which then returned to London with the remaining passengers.
Her Majesty's Government take a very serious view of this incident, and the Minister of State summoned the Libyan Ambassador as soon as he had received a report of what took place and told him that the action taken by the Libyan authorities had been outrageous. He demanded that the two Sudanese who had been removed from the 'plane should be released at once and made it clear that we expected an apology from the Libyan Government for their inexcusable behaviour, which was bound to have a serious effect of our relations with Libya.
1280
The present situation in the Sudan is confused. My latest information is that General Nimeri has resumed control but that there has been further firing around the Presidential Palace this morning. However, I should like to make it clear that the success or failure of the recent coup in the Sudan is totally irrelevant to the substance of our complaint against the Libyan Government. We regard it as intolerable that a British 'plane should be forced to land in the circumstances I have described, and that passengers, of whatever standing and of whatever nationality, should be removed from the 'plane under threats. Her Majesty's Government will take energetic action to secure the early rease of the two Sudanese concerned.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that there will be agreement on all sides of the House regarding the seriousness of this incident? May I ask him these further questions for information, and not in a partisan way? First, has there been any investigation of the Libyan statement that the 'plane was brought to Benghazi because the Khartoum airport was closed? Can the noble Marquess give us any information regarding the negotiations with Malta, which first agreed to take the 'plane but subsequently declined to do so? Can he, on the last point that he made, continue the utmost pressure for the release of Colonel al-Nur and his projected Prime Minister, in view of the fact that they were arrested on a British 'plane and surrendered in order to save the lives of other passengers?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we will make the most strenuous efforts to secure the release of these two gentleman, as indeed we should have done whoever they are.
Regarding the situation of the Malta air traffic control, it is not quite clear at the moment exactly what happened, and I do not think it would be right for the House to jump to any conclusions about this. It appears possible that there was a genuine mistake and that the 'plane was still in Libyan air space at the time, but I should not like to go any further than that at the moment because the situation is not quite clear and we are

1281
trying to find out exactly what did happen.
Regarding the Libyan statement about the airport at Khartoum, the House must realise that so far the Libyans have not even admitted that the two Sudanese were taken off the 'plane at Benghazi. So we cannot place very much reliance on what they tell us about the situation in the Sudan.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Parliament has on many occasions expressed its deep concern and abhorrence at hijacking, and I hope the noble Lord will agree that this is perhaps one of the most scandalous acts in that, clearly, it has been conducted by a Government of a sovereign Power. While recognising that the noble Marquess is unable to make a statement in regard to the position in Malta, it would appear from Press reports that there may have been connivance between the air authorities in Malta and the Libyan authorities. If that is not the case, would the noble Marquess undertake, in one way or another, to make a statement or to give the House information on the matter? Quite clearly, the confidence of airline operators and passengers is involved.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Certainly, my Lord. I should like to say in reply that at this stage, there is no indication that there was any connivance; but I certainly undertake to keep the House informed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was very careful in the phrasing of my supplementary question. I was referring to the reports, from which it is clearly indicated that there was connivance. If there was no connivance, in fairness to the Maltese authorities, a statement should be made in Parliament on the actual position.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, quite apart from what may result from further investigation, would Her Majesty's Government express to B.O.A.C. their admiration and thanks for the conduct and calm judgment of the captain and crew of this aircraft?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Of course I will undertake to do that.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government any intention to by-pass Libyan airspace until the security of passengers travelling by British aeroplanes can be assured?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can assure the House that we shall be very careful in this regard until we find out exactly what the facts of the case were. It is a very serious case.

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
11.12 a.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, as Chairman of the Select Committee concerned with this Bill I feel that, prior to the Bill's being read a third time, I should say a few words on behalf of the Committee. The proceedings were short, but gave rise to a difficult decision by the Committee at the end of the day. We were asked to examine Clause 24 of the Bill, against which a Petition had been lodged.
Under the Public Health Act 1936, local authorities have power to collect trade refuse from premises within their district. This refuse is distinct from the usual household refuse collection paid for by way of the rates. If they do exercise this power, they are required to make reasonable charges for this service. Clause 24 of the Bill sought to alter the general law in its application to district councils in Hertfordshire by substituting for the obligation to make charges a discretion to do this. The Secretary of State for the Environment in his report recommended that the clause should not be allowed.
The Committee heard evidence and were fully satisfied that a good case had been made out by the promoters of the Bill for this clause, in that in many cases it was not economical, for various reasons, to charge for this service. Hence the clause was reasonable and necessary for the protection of the ratepayer. The Petitioners, on the other hand, claimed

1283
that the clause would be of detriment to their business of collecting refuse under contract. The main issue of the decision of the Committee was the question as to whether it was wise for a local authority, in private legislation, to alter the law unilaterally in the circumstances of this Bill.
The proposal in Clause 24 had been advocated by a Working Party set up by what is now the Department of the Environment in a report published in 1967. We were told that the Working Party's recommendation would be considered by the Secretary of State when consulting local authority associations and others about the recently published Reports on Refuse Disposal and on the Disposal of Toxic Wastes. These two Reports were also laid in evidence before the Committee. It was never suggested that either of these was in conflict with the proposals in the Bill. From the evidence, it was clear that some local authorities had already taken the law into their hands and were exercising a discretion whether or not to charge for collecting trade refuse. The Minister's report emphasised that the collection of trade refuse should be properly dealt with, if at all, by general legislation. It was felt in the Committee that a unilateral decision of one council might lead to a flood of legislation, which would be undesirable.
In striking out the clause, the Committee felt strongly that it is vitally important that a decision should be come to forthwith and I am bound to say that the Government proposal to await yet another review looks like a never-ending process, which is highly undesirable. The Government have admitted that the proposal put forward by Hertfordshire County Council is the very one proposed by the Working Party set up in 1967. The Committee feel it is not reasonable that local authorities should have to wait for four years, only to be told that general legislation will follow"in due course ". It was therefore with reluctance that the Committee, by a majority vote, came to the conclusion that in deference to the views of the Minister, Clause 24 should be struck out of the Bill. I speak for all the Committee in urging most strongly that there should be no further delay
1284
in the consideration of this matter, and that legislation should be brought forward urgently and should not be held up until after the completion of the review of local government. There can be no doubt that the law as at present constituted is not being adhered to and I urge immediate action.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I am glad to respond to my noble friend's remarks and grateful for the urgency which he has introduced to this subject, which is certainly needed. My noble friend raised two questions. First, he asked why the Government have so far failed to implement the recommendation the Working Party on Refuse Collection made in their Report in 1967. Many of the recommendations made by the Working Party were addressed, not to the Government, but directly to local authorities, who have been in a position to implement them without recourse to legislation. They range from matters such as the economics of salvage to the use of paper sacks in place of dustbins, and many local authorities have found the Report very useful. One or two recommendations concerning dumped cars and other bulky rubbish were dealt with in the Civic Amenities Act 1967, and the recommendation concerning research has been implemented by the Department in setting up its Standing Committee on that subject.
The remaining recommendations requiring legislation were few in number. Refuse collection is but one aspect of the whole complex business of waste disposal. At the time the Report of the Working Party on Refuse Collection was published there were two other investigations taking place, by the Technical Committee on Solid Toxic Wastes and by the Working Party on Refuse Disposal, both of which have now been received. Moreover, it is now clear that whatever is done in respect of this important local service has to fit in with the impending reorganisation of local government. Our present proposals for local government reform include the allocation of the refuse disposal function to the new county councils and refuse collection to the new district councils. We believe that in the future

1285
refuse disposal must be co-ordinated and controlled over reasonably large areas. This will call for a new relationship between the functions of collection and disposal and for a new appreciation of practice and purpose which has regard to regional as well as local circumstances.
The Secretary of State said, in a circular published at the end of April with the Report of the Department's Working Party on Refuse Disposal, that in his consultations on that Report and on the Toxic Wastes Report he will also want to discuss with the various bodies concerned this question of the obligation or the discretion of local authorities in relation to trade and industrial refuse. With these consultations in view, and having regard to local government reorganisation, it would seem undesirable for the matter to be settled in a particular area by virtue of a clause in the Hertfordshire Bill.
My noble friend raised a second point on the merits of this particular issue. The Report of the Working Party on Refuse Collection set out the arguments for and against a discretion to charge for removing trade refuse. On the one hand, it would be in keeping with modern attitudes to local government for local authorities to have discretion; but against this is the important argument that the cost of removing trade refuse is a proper business expense, and there should be no risk at all of any part of it falling on the general body of ratepayers. Again, some local authorities find that charges made to small shopkeepers for single bins are just not worth the trouble of collection, and the enforcement of such charges can lead—and sometimes does lead—to undesirable practices, such as the illicit dumping of refuse on vacant sites or burning it in back yards.
Issues like these can most conveniently be considered in the forthcoming consultations to which I have referred. Local circumstances can, of course, influence events. In Inner London, for example, by virtue of the London Government Act 1963, there is an obligation on the Inner London Boroughs to collect trade refuse on request and an obligation to charge. But this was achieved by general legislation, and I suggest that in the light of all these considerations the matter which we are discussing today—which is by
1286
no means peculiar to Hertfordshire—is, on balance, not one which should be dealt with in local legislation applying to just one area.
My Lords, I hope that what I have said demonstrates that we are not satisfied with the status quo. We are anxious to get on, but we wish to take advantage of the availability of the three Reports that I have mentioned—the last of which was published only three months ago—and of the impending new organisation of local government in order to achieve a waste disposal service in this country which will be really effective. We believe that this will best come about by legislating comprehensively on a national basis which is, so far as practicable, acceptable to all concerned—local authorities, trade, commerce and industry. Meanwhile, there is much that local authorities and others concerned can do to ensure that the present practices are carried out to the highest possible standards.
11.23 a.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is satisfied with that reply. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would agree that there is considerable concern throughout the country on the danger to our environment of refuse and garbage, whether it be of a private character or industrial. There is no disagreement between the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that this should be done not by private legislation but by national legislation introduced by the Government. It seemed to me that the noble Lord was unable to give any indication as to what sort of time scale the Government have in mind for the introduction of such legislation. Can the noble Lord give us any indication whether we may expect legislation in the next Session, or whether we shall have to wait until the comprehensive legislation for local government is introduced?
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, too, should like to add a word of dissatisfaction at the Minister's reply. Here was an instance of a highly progressive local authority being opposed by organised commercial interests: they found themselves faced by one opposition, and by

1287
no one else. It was most unfortunate that in this instance the organised commercial interests were able to triumph—in my view against the public interest—and I would urge upon the Government that it is not enough merely to say that they are considering the Reports of the Working Parties involved there has already been a delay of four years in an attempt to eliminate what is a recognisable public nuisance on a large scale. I strongly urge the Minister to give a definite date by which the anxieties of these progressive local authorities can be to some extent relieved.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, as one who has spent some time in local government, I should like to add my comment to the Report and the statement by the Chairman of the Committee which investigated and arrived at a decision against the Government's proposal. I think the Committee did a very good job in deleting this clause. The Minister, in the course of his reply, overlooked one thing. Local authorities in various parts of the country, even where one may not have all grades of local authority, have what are termed direct labour schemes operating within their authority for the collection of refuse and other services, and shopkeepers and business people and business premises are covered by the rate poundage which comes into their particular funds of operation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd in asking the question so pointedly as to how long we shall have to wait before we get a lead from the Government, with regard to the proposals for the reorganisation of local government, that will bring this operation within its ambit.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I would suggest to the Government that they should consider bringing in a short measure to deal with this particular matter. It could be passed through fairly quickly and later incorporated in the major legislation. This has been done on a number of occasions in the past. I am thinking particularly of company law, in which short Bills have first been introduced, to bring into law the proposals of important Committees on company law, and very shortly afterwards—indeed, within a few months—
1288
a major Companies Bill has been introduced. This happened in 1947 and 1948, in Bills with which I, as a junior Minister at that time, was concerned. The 1947 Act was incorporated within a very few months in the great Companies Act of 1948. I should have thought there was a possibility of dealing with this situation in that way.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, your Lordships may think it strange that I should rise to take part in this brief debate. You may think it even stranger when I tell you the reason why. Fifty-two years ago, I was head of the costing department of the refuse disposal department of the Birmingham Corporation, and this question of trade refuse was constantly a thorn in our side. We compulsorily collected trade refuse and we compulsorily imposed a charge. But the question of trade refuse, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will understand, is hedged around with all kinds of complicated legal decisions. I remember that on one occasion there was a High Court case concerning the collection of trade refuse from hotels. The local authority had collected the refuse from the hotel, and regarding this as one of the legitimate business expenses of the hotel, had imposed a charge. The case went to the High Court. I believe the decision was that whereas when collecting refuse from an ordinary domestic residence there was no charge, a hotel could be interpreted as being a conglomeration of domestic residences and, consequently, was entitled to have its trade refuse collected free of charge. That is all by way of reminiscence.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has suggested to us that when the local government reorganisation comes about, the collection of refuse will be entrusted to the lesser authority and the disposal of refuse to the major authority. I would just mention to him that in the refuse disposal world, if I may so call it, there is a very severe difference of opinion. The preponderance seems to be that the local authority which collects the refuse should also be responsible for disposing of it. There are many economic arguments which I could lay before your Lordships to show that there is a lot of sense in that view. In the meantime, I hope that something will be done,

1289
because the uncertainty is disturbing to local authorities. The sooner this question is seriously tackled, the better it will be.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, just before my noble friend answers, I should like, with the leave of the House, to say just a word. It never entered my head, as the noble Lord, Lord Segal has said, that anyone triumphed in this matter. There was no real question that the matter before the Committee was whether unilateral legislation should be used. I hope that my noble friend will be able to think of a date. The discussion that we have had has certainly cleared the air on what the Government's thoughts are on this situation, and I do not think there is anything to prevent this Bill from going forward.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I should like to raise one point which I think is of general interest in this matter, and is an example of why it is desirable to have national legislation. Generally, I am opposed to national legislation being required in order to get something through a local Act, because local Acts usually lead to national legislation. In this particular case, there is possibly a legal problem in that if a local authority have once collected trade waste free, it is very difficult for them to impose a charge subsequently. I think there are certain cases where this has not proved to be possible. Therefore, if the question is going to be a wide one it is highly desirable that there should be national legislation and that it should come very soon. May I take the opportunity to say that I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Leatherland that the major authority should be the refuse disposal authority.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if the House would give me permission to speak again, I should be happy to reply. A universal sense of urgency about the matter emerges clearly from the debate, which is extremely welcome to Her Majesty's Government. The eight speeches we have listened to also demonstrate that the matter is not quite so simple as it may appear. We already have two or three sets of disagreements before us, but Her Majesty's Government nevertheless are anxious to address themselves to this matter with as much
1290
expedition as is possible. Without notice, I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, directly, except to say that the first instalment of legislation that will be helpful in this field is local government reform.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would it help if we were to arrange for a Question, and then perhaps he might be able to provoke his Department to action and satisfy some of my noble friends?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, indeed, my Lords.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
11.34 a.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved, as an Amendment:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

(1) The Authority may pay to any person displaced from any land acquired by the Authority under the Act of 1963 for any purpose in connection with the performance of any of their new functions such reasonable allowances as they think fit towards any loss or in respect of any personal hardship which in their opinion he will sustain or be put to by reason of his having to quit the land.

(2) In estimating any such loss or personal hardship the Authority shall have regard to the period for which the land occupied by that person might reasonably have been expected to be available for occupation by him and the availability of other land suitable for occupation by him.

(3) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any enactment or any rule of law relating to compensation for disturbance.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment before you, which I am moving, is a new clause. It is the same

1291
clause which was passed in the House of Commons but which was struck out in your Lordships' House by the Committee on unopposed Bills. This clause gives discretionary powers to the Trent River Authority to make better provisions for compensation than would otherwise be available for those who are displaced from their land by reason of the making of a reservoir. I do not propose to say very much about compensation, because I think it is agreed on all sides that there is something seriously wrong with our laws on compensation and that something should be done about them. Too many people are inadequately compensated for the loss of house, buildings, land and, indeed, even their living
Probably no one is more inadequately compensated than the small tenant farmer of land which is taken for a reservoir, whose compensation does not enable him to set himself up again in business. This has very serious repercussions of a personal nature. This sort of man is probably more seriously under-compensated than anybody else; and, as I say, there is no shade of opinion in your Lordships' House which does not accept the fact that we are seriously under-compensating a great many people. I shall not labour that point.
I think that the noble Lord who answers for the Government will tell your Lordships that a great deal of thinking has been going on about what can be done in order to improve our provisions of compensation in this, and other, fields and he will probably tell you that the Government will, sooner or later, have propositions to put before us. The provisions of this particular clause go some way towards mitigating the bad effects of the inadequacies of our law of compensation and its deficiencies, by allowing the acquiring authority, in certain circumstances, to make better provision for compensation. I do not see that a great many of your Lordships have before you this rather large sheet which almost looks as if it were a manuscript Amendment but in fact is not.
May I read out the first subsection of this clause, which is self-explanatory. It says:
" The Authority may pay to any person displaced from any land acquired by the Authority…such reasonable allowances as they
1292
think fit towards any loss or in respect of any personal hardship which in their opinion he will sustain or be put to by reason of his having to quit the land."
This provision, which was the old Clause 6 in the Bill and which passed through the Commons, has the full support of the Association of River Authorities. I believe that the President of that Association, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, may join in this debate, and I understand it may well be that he is not in complete agreement with the Association of River Authorities. Nevertheless, the Association of River Authorities fully support this clause. They do not take the view that because the Trent River Authority may have these powers, it is unfair that other authorities should not have them. The Association of River Authorities take the view that, quite apart from natural justice, it would be a very good thing if this particular kind of power were made much more widespread. They have always felt that it expedites the course of their operations in making reservoirs and, hence, make it cheaper, and that instead of leaving broken and disgruntled men in its wake, it leaves satisfied people who feel that they have been reasonably compensated, not ruined in the public interest.
Also, I need hardly say, this provision has the full support of the agricultural community, who feel that some of their number are very ill done by. If adequate compensation cannot be paid for public works, then, surely, those public works should not be undertaken. It is no good crying in aid the public interest if you render that public interest nugatory by seriously damaging individuals when you need not do so. These provisions are not unprecedented. They exist in some measure in the Liverpool Corporation Act 1957; they exist in the Great Ouse Act 1961, and they exist in the Clywedog Joint Authority Act 1963. So far as I know, in all these cases they have worked very satisfactorily and the authority operating under these Acts has found them most useful. These were Acts for specific reservoirs and the only difference with regard to the Trent River Authority is that it is a general powers Bill asking for these powers for any reservoir that might be built.
This clause, with these more flexible powers to give compensation for people

1293
who are dispossessed of their land, has been thrown out and it seems to me that the reasons for having thrown it out are bad. It will be argued, my Lords, that it is unsuitable for the Trent River Authority to be able to pay better compensation than other river authorities. I have already said that this is not the view taken by the Association of River Authorities. Secondly, this argument is tantamount to saying that because justice has not been done in one part of the country, it should not be done in another part of the country. That argument is pretty poor, and speaks for itself.
Thirdly, it will be argued that it is unprecedented. I have shown that it is not unprecedented. Fourthly, it will be argued that it prevents, or disturbs, the uniformity of provisions of compensation. There is no uniformity, except with regard to local authorities and cognate bodies. In all other fields there is no uniformity. The old water companies were not at all restricted in the powers that they had for paying compensation. They could make what bargain they, as acquiring authority, chose to make with the people whom they were proposing to buy out. This also applies over the whole field of wayleaves for gas and oil.
My Lords, it will be argued that it is prejudicing the review, mentioned earlier, that the Government may be bringing out with regard to the whole field of compensation. Let me say first that the clause does not seek to alter the code. It merely seeks to be able, in certain circumstances, to offer additional payments. Moreover, the review which the Government have in mind, and about which I hope a White Paper dealing with the question of compensation is to be produced, has, to my knowledge, already occupied at least four years. I have sat on committees drawing up suggestions for Government Departments as to how this kind of thing should be accomplished. Even supposing that the work being done on the question of revising the law of compensation is ready to present to your Lordships in a White Paper tomorrow, I can see no possibility of legislation on this issue being passed for the next three or four years. Even if there were, it could not be retrospective, and what happens in the meantime will merely add to the injustices that are now occurring. Lastly, it may be
1294
argued that this clause would be inconsistent with any new proposals that the Government might bring in. If that is so, what is put forward in this clause with regard to methods of compensation can be repealed by any legislation introduced by the Government, implementing their own ideas.
The Commons presumably decided that the urgent need for enabling adequate compensation to be paid far outweighs the theoretical objections which I have adumbrated to your Lordships. Why, therefore, are we in this House proposing to throw out this clause which the Commons passed? They did not look at it lightly. They looked at it closely; they amended it, and they sent it forward in the amended form that is before your Lordships. Why are we throwing it out? All the arguments I can think of, and have mentioned so far, and that the Government may well argue, are inadequate.
There is a further argument that the Government will put before your Lordships—probably the most interesting of them all. If Her Majesty's Government can satisfy me that their arguments in respect of this further point are correct, I should be willing not to press my Amendment. The argument is this: that there is already on the Statute Book adequate provision for dealing with this proposition. There are three Acts that deal with the point, but only one with which I need bother your Lordships: the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963, Section 22. No doubt the noble Lord has looked at it closely. This Act enables—again in certain circumstances—acquiring authorities to pay additional compensation where they think fit. This section of the 1963 Act is wider in some respects than the clause which I am asking your Lordships to put back into the Bill, allowing greater flexibility to an acquiring authority to be able to do what I am asking your Lordships that it be allowed to do.
In farming and agricultural circles, it is held (and I am hoping that the Government will put me right on this point) that the Act of 1963 does not operate very effectively. It is held that district valuers regard it as having been superseded by the 1968 Act, and that because the 1968 Act allowed district valuers to give up to six years' rent to a displaced

1295
tenant in compensation, as opposed to the one or two years allowed under the 1948 Act, that of itself rendered the 1963 Act superseded. There is nothing in any Act since 1963 which specifically, expressedly or impliedly—and I repeat, impliedly—repeals the 1963 Act. I shall want an assurance from the noble Lord that the 1963 Act, which, in certain circumstances, allows compensation to be paid by acquiring authorities in the way in which I am asking for it to be done, contains nothing which has in any way been superseded or mitigated.
On the other hand, the Government may say that Section 22 of the 1963 Act is no longer operative. If they say that, then they must admit that my Amendment asking for Clause 6 to be put back into the Bill is perfectly logical and reasonable. I agree that the argument may well be put that it was foolish on my part to move an Amendment to put into a private Bill something which already exists in a public Act.
This, as I have said, is the most interesting and significant part of the argument, and the one on which I am expecting a definitive answer from the Government. I want to know whether Section 22 of the 1963 Act is superseded—and I hope that the noble Lord has that Act before him. Alternatively, whether that section still is on the Statute Book, and operational? If he can satisfy me that it is still on the Statute Book, and operational, I may well feel that the provisions of the Amendment are no longer necessary. If, on the other hand, he intends to tell me that the 1963 Act is no longer operative, I should feel inclined to press my Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I say that I greatly admire the knowledgeable and clear speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I was in this House some ten years ago when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, piloted the Rivers Board Act through the House. Indeed, I took part in many debates from this side of the House. I was under the strongest impression that that Act satisfied the House, the agricultural and River Board people generally, and industry, that there was a compensation clause in it which covers the whole country. We were, in effect, nationalising water, and we made provision, where water was extracted
1296
or alterations were made to the detriment of farmers, industry or others, that compensation should be paid. If that was so, is this matter not covered by national legislation?
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, may I put the noble Lord right in this respect? Water may indeed have been nationalised, but the land which is used for putting the water on was not.
LORD MACANDREW: My Lords, with regard to this new clause, this matter has been considered. I was not on the Unopposed Bills Committee, but they heard evidence from both sides, from the Petitioners and from the Promoters, and they came to the conclusion that it should not be included in the Bill, and I cannot see why it should.
11.52 a.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships have listened with very great interest to the important points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Subject to what I shall say a little later about discretionary payments allowed by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963, to which the noble Lord has referred, there are, I think, two great objections to the new clause which the noble Lord wishes to insert in the Bill, and which is exactly the same as a clause that was disallowed by the Unopposed Bills Committee of your Lordships' House, as the noble Lord who has just spoken pointed out—and as a Chairman of Ways and Means he is a great authority on procedure on Private Bills—after they had heard the evidence submitted both by the Promoters and by Government Departments.
This clause, as I have said, is identical with a clause in the Bill which was disallowed. The Secretary of State for the Environment had objected to it in a written report submitted by him to the Committee on the Bill. His objection was on two grounds. In the first place, he considered that it would be wrong for the Trent River Authority to be empowered to pay more compensation than other authorities, of which some—for example, the local planning authorities—would be operating in the same area. This could lead to anomalies and injustices.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to injustices, but I do not think they

1297
would have operated in one way only. There could easily be injustice if this were to happen because sums paid in compensation to tenant farmers incurring the same loss could vary according to the authority acquiring the land, whether it was a local authority or a river authority. In the second place, the Departmental representative told the Committee that the Government were engaged in a review of the compensation code, the result of which would be published shortly in a White Paper. It would clearly be undesirable to amend the existing code locally before the results of the review were known.
The requirement of compensation for disturbance is nation-wide. It affects tenant farmers all over the country, and is not peculiar to tenant farmers in the Trent Valley. It has therefore been dealt with by the provisions of a code of compensation for disturbance contained in the general law. If the code is defective and requires alteration, this should be done by amending the general law.
There is another important consideration rendering this Amendment undesirable. My attention has been drawn to Section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963. That section is confined to land used for agriculture by way of trade or business, whereas Lord Henley's Amendment is not so confined; it is rather wider. In other respects, Section 22 of this Act is similar to the clause proposed by the noble Lord. I am advised that the powers sought by the Trent River Authority under the proposed new clause are already available to the Authority, so far as they concern agricultural land, under Section 22 of the Agriculture Act 1963, and, so far as they concern land other than agricultural land, under Section 30 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which relates to persons displaced from a house or other building.
I would therefore advise your Lordships to reject the Amendment on the following three grounds. First, it is unnecessary because discretionary compensation payments for disturbance can be made by acquiring authorities under the general law. Secondly, a local amendment of the law relating to compensation for disturbance is undesirable because if amendment is required it
1298
should be made in the general law. Thirdly, the clause proposed anticipates the result of the Government's review of the code of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, and of the policy in this matter that will be set out in the proposed White Paper.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I have for some years been concerned with the Trent River Authority and with the possibility of flooding some of the loveliest hill farming districts in Britain. I have been concerned, too, with this big question of compensation. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment has a point. I apologise for being a little late this morning and I hope the House will bear with me for a minute or two, but no longer, for that is all I need. There are cases where tenant farmers, for example, have been on land for some 400-odd years. There may be a justifiable difference in the compensation that is paid because of discomfort caused to a whole family, or for other difficulties some of these hill farmers in the Upper Trent Valley have.
Before this question is brushed aside, I hope the House will give it some care. I know that later on we shall have an opportunity to deal in depth with the problem of the reservoirs, and so on, that are talked about in the valleys. I sincerely believe that this Amendment deserves some attention and consideration before it is brushed aside, despite some of the previous Acts. I myself sat on the Water Resources Board and on some of the Bills in another place that dealt with this problem. That is all I wish to say this morning. I owe the House an apology in so far as I was not here at the beginning. Consequently, I think it would be unjustifiable of me to take any more time of the House, except to draw attention to the fact that some of us do support the noble Lord's Amendment.
11.58 a.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think it would be right if I intervened at this point to explain rather more fully why my right honourable friend reported against Clause 6. First, as the House knows, the Government on coming into power instituted a thorough-going review of the law relating to land compensation. A review was already under way, but in my right honourable friend's view it was not nearly far-reaching enough. The

1299
Department of the Environment has been pressing ahead with the utmost speed with the review into what is a most complex subject. I confirm that as soon as it is finished the next step will be the publication of a White Paper as a prelude to legislation.
Compensation payments to farmers have been very much in my right honourable friend's mind and, although he respected the motives of the Trent River Authority in bringing forward their clause in their Bill, deposited last November, he felt that it would be quite wrong, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has just explained, to prejudge the outcome of the review in this important respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has already explained that the Authority attach importance to the provision, because they have in mind a number of reservoir schemes which will take farming land. But the Trent River Authority cannot seriously suggest that in this respect they are in a different position from other river authorities. Even if they were, the matter would still, in my right honourable friend's submission, be one which should be dealt with generally by means of general legislation. This clause would have had implications not only for other river authorities, but, perhaps more importantly, for the many local authorities exercising powers to acquire land for various purposes within the area of the Trent River Authority. The Secretary of State, therefore, thought it right to ask Parliament to say that the Promoters should wait for the Government to come up with their own proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, mentioned precedents, three in number, in three separate Private Acts for the clause we are discussing this morning; but as he said, they are not really precedents because they relate to specific proposals for individual reservoirs and not to all the proposals of the authorities in question, as would Clause 6. Nor was it the case that when they were passed the Government were right in the middle of a review of the whole law relating to land compensation.
I have one further point. I cannot to-day indicate to the House what conclusions
1300
the Government will come to about this question of compensation to tenant farmers. It is, however, true, and noteworthy on this occasion, that when Parliament legislated as recently as 1968 in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to improve the position of tenant farmers, it did not then make provision on the lines of the proposed clause. Many representations have been made to us about the position of tenant farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has just drawn our attention to them. I confirm that we are giving most serious consideration to them. I also confirm, though I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has already done so, that Section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963, empowers authorities to make discretionary payments to persons displaced from agricultural land and is available for use by the Trent River Authority. This was the point that the noble Lord. Lord Henley, asked me to make, and I would not dispute it.
The policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of discretionary powers is that they should be used only to provide compensation equivalent to the statutory compensation where no statutory entitlement exists. Section 22 provides for making payments to persons who have no statutory entitlement to compensation or to the additional payments under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. In view of all that, I, too, would say that it would be quite wrong to allow a change of this importance to come about as a result of a Private Bill promoted by one authority in respect of one part of the country. I urge the House to support the decision of its own Committee not to allow the proposed new clause.
12.3 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, before the House reaches a conclusion, may I thank my noble friend for the partial satisfaction which he has given me in his words about the reviews that are taking place. First, I should declare an interest in this matter, as President of the Association of River Authorities, and, contrary to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I have great sympathy with the Trent River Authority. It is in the same position as every other river authority to-day, facing

1301
enormous difficulties in promoting any water conservation scheme, opposed by almost everybody, although it is known that the authority is setting out to get the extra water which the nation badly needs. As soon as we have a dry summer and a dry year, we shall find ourselves seriously short of water in many parts of the country.
My noble friend will find himself in closer contact with this situation in future. Since he has, so wisely, amended the 1963 Act, river authorities will proceed by Statutory Order instead of by Private Bill. Several river authority schemes have been frustrated by the process of the Private Bill being defeated, and it has appeared to be through a failure by the river authority. I suggest that this will come very much nearer home when river authorities proceed by an application to the Minister for a Statutory Order and they fail because of the weight of public opinion given at the public inquiry which the Minister then has to decide upon.
As noble Lords are aware, here we have an extremely difficult situation where conservationists will oppose almost every scheme to develop fresh sources of water. I suggest to my noble friend that it is highly desirable to try to remove at least one source of opposition—that is, the landowners and the tenants, who could be conciliated if they were given rather more generous terms of compensation. This is a matter of great national importance, and I hope that the few words that I have added will give greater urgency to my noble friend and his right honourable colleague to get on with this review and to publish the White Paper. It is most urgent that there should be national legislation on this matter.
12.6 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, first of all, may I thank those two noble Lords who supported me in my contention, which is one generally agreed, that compensation is most inadequate, particularly for tenant farmers. No one knows better than the noble Lord. Lord Davies of Leek, how very badly done by some of the poor (I use the word advisedly) Welsh tenants can be. I am also grateful for the kind words on the same subject from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who also recognises how the building
1302
of new reservoirs is held up because of the difficulty in persuading people that they will not be ruined, when they can see before their very eyes that they are being ruined.
I need not go into any of the arguments, except one. As this is not a Committee stage, it is extremely difficult to argue individual points, and in my opening speech I said what I thought was wrong with the argument which I knew the Government would put forward. That leaves me with the third point, which I said was the most interesting of all. First of all, I have the statement from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the Chairman of Committees, that my Amendment is unnecessary, because the provisions are available under Section 22 of the 1963 Act. He said categorically that the powers were available. That is a very important statement, coming from the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, with all the legal advice available to him.
When I put this same point to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who answers for the Government. I received a rather equivocal answer. He admitted, as did the noble Earl, that the Act was still in force and had not been superseded; he admitted that it was available for use, and that it was available for use for all the points that I wanted it for. However, he qualified it by saying that it was only for making compensation, equivalent to statutory compensation, where compensation was otherwise not available. My Lords, I do not agree. The whole point of Section 22 of the 1963 Act was that it enabled discretionary payments to be made where they were not otherwise statutorily possible. That is what my Amendment is about—to do exactly the same thing. All noble Lords agree that compensation is inadequate and that something must be done about it. My Amendment is a small attempt to do something about it in the meanwhile, before the Government's suggestions bear fruit in five years' time. I am told that I need not move my Amendment, because these powers are already available, and this has been made absolutely clear, beyond possible doubt, by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
I want to know—and possibly this is not the moment to argue it out—on what authority the noble Lord, Lord Sandford,

1303
says that it is only for giving compensation equivalent to what the statutory compensation would be where it was not otherwise available? On whose"say so "? On whose interpretation of the Act? Is it the interpretation of the district valuers? If so, this seems to me to be a most astonishing statement. Is it on the"say so"of the Department of the Environment? That would be an even more astonishing statement. Is it a direction from the Treasury? What is it?
I remember at an earlier stage in your Lordships' proceedings, on a question rather divorced from this, on the Compton Bassett issue, it annoyed me and my friends that Treasury directions were being passed to Departments to interpret the law in a certain way, without Parliament ever hearing about it. Here is an Act which states in terms exactly what discretionary powers are available and the noble Lord tells me that that is not what the Act says. I am quite certain that the noble Lord will need more advice on this point. It may well be that it had not occurred to him before. The court is now open, as it were, and no doubt we shall be able to raise this point again. But I am left in a difficult position. I think it would be foolish to press my Amendment, if the powers already exist as I am told by the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, that they do. That being so, it would obviously be nugatory for me to press my Amendment, asking in a Private Bill for exactly the same powers.
So let us leave it that the Government will look very closely indeed into the meaning of Section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963. On the understanding that that will be looked into very closely, and that these powers are available to river authorities, and indeed to anybody else, I am prepared not to press the Amendment. This is not a Committee stage. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to give me that assurance, but I think that perhaps I do not need it, since I have had a categorical assurance from the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees. If that is so—and I see that the noble Lord nods his head—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
12.13 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 122 as first printed for the Commons.]
[No. 1]
Clause 3, page 3, line 1, after"owner"insert"nor any person performing salvage operations with the agreement of the owner ".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The Amendment adds to the paragraph exempting a servant or agent of the owner from liability for oil pollution a salver, acting with the agreement of the owner. If proceedings were possible against the owner's servants or agents, behind whom an owner would normally have to stand, a way would be open indirectly to further proceedings against an owner. A salver who carries out salvage operations with the agreement of the owner is in much the same position as a servant or agent of the owner, but as an independent contractor he might not come within the meaning of the phrase. As the Bill stands—that is, as it left your Lordships' House—salvers run the risk of unlimited liability

1305
for oil pollution. As noble Lords will recall, the maximum figures for ship-owners' liability for oil pollution contained in the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and reflected in the Bill, represent the maximum available insurance cover.
We have been told that salvers are consequently finding it impossible to obtain cover in the insurance market for their potential oil pollution liability when assisting tankers. If an oil spill results, liability could attach both to the tanker and to the salver. The insurance market is not prepared to put itself at double risk and therefore excludes oil pollution liability from the salver's cover. This leads salvers to seek to cover themselves by means of a full indemnity from the tanker owner which, in effect, means from the tanker's insurers. But this is likely to be refused, since the insurers are not prepared to increase their cover for oil pollution damage in this way.
The general objective of the Bill, as noble Lords are well aware, is to ensure that adequate compensation is available to those who suffer from oil pollution. Important as this objective is, however, it is even more important, where possible, to prevent the damage from being caused in the first place. One major way in which this can be achieved is by prompt action to salvage a damaged tanker and so to reduce the escape of oil to a minimum. Marine salvage is a service provided voluntarily by those who are equipped to do so, on the basis that they can expect high rewards if they are successful, but will get nothing if they fail. The situation I have outlined could mean that at best valuable time could be lost in 'starting salvage operations because of arguments about liability and, at worst, that salvage of a damaged tanker would not be undertaken at all. Consequently, the oil pollution damage might be much greater than it would have been, if salvage operations had been undertaken.
This Amendment to Clause 3 gives a salver protection if, but only if, he is carrying out salvage operations with the agreement of the owner, since it is only in such circumstances that he can be regarded as in an analogous position to the owner's servant or agent. We think that this Amendment is not unreasonable
1306
in itself and will help to remove a serious impediment in the way of salvers taking on a job. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 2]
Clause 3, page 3, line 2, leave out from"cost"to end of line 4.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall, with permission, discuss this Amendment with Amendment No. 9, to insert a new clause after Clause 15, These Amendments make it clear that where owners or their insurers have paid out for oil pollution damages as a result of the new liability imposed by the Bill, their right to recover against those persons who actually caused the damage by their negligence will not be prejudiced. Examples might be the right of an owner to recover in tort from a negligent charterer, or the right of an insurer to recover in contract from the owner, if the relevant contract of insurance so provided. This and the next two Amendments give effect to an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when he put down what he described as a probing Amendment to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 5. I hope that this brief explanation will help to clarify the situation for him to some extent. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 3]
Clause 5, page 4, line 19, leave out"a person"and insert"the owner of a ship ".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This Amendment and Amendment No. 4 go together and, with permission, I will deal with both. Perhaps I should first explain the effect which it is intended that the Bill should produce. Although a claimant will be free to sue

1307
the owner under Clause 1, or any other person, such as a negligent charterer, under normal rules of law, the total liability should not exceed the owner's limitation figure set out in Clause 4.
The reason for this is that these figures represent the limits of insurance available to the ship as a whole. To give effect to this intention, where the owner's limitation fund is set up under Clause 5 and consequently claimants have an actual fund available to them, two provisions are included in the Bill. In the first place, proceedings other than those against the owner for a share in the fund are to be stayed, by virtue of Clause 7. Secondly, if a person other than the owner or his insurer has actually made a payment in respect of oil pollution damage, then he will have a right to prove against the owner's fund. This right is given by Clause 5(4). However, as it was drafted at the time when the Bill left this House, this subsection was too wide in its scope, since it would have allowed any person who had made a payment for oil pollution damage to prove against the owner's fund, including, for example, the owner of a ship which has been in collision with the tanker and had been guilty of negligence. It is not intended that the owner of another ship should get any benefit from this subsection in these circumstances and the Amendments are designed to make this clear. Nor will a negligent charterer of the tanker itself, who is guilty of actual tort or privity, and so not entitled to limit his liability, get any benefit from this subsection. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible limitation of the right conferred by subsection (4). I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
12.21 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4]
Clause 5, page 4, line 40, leave out from"extends"to first"the"in line 41 and insert—
" (a) by the owner or the person referred to in section 12 of this Act as ' the insurer '; or
(b) by a person who has or is alleged to have incurred a liability, otherwise than under section
1308
1 of this Act, for the damage or cost and who is entitled to limit his liability in connection with the ship by virtue of the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act 1958,"
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 5–8]
Clause 10, page 7, line 21, after"of"insert"subsection (2) of ".
Clause 10, page 7, line 23, leave out"£15,000"and insert"£35,000 ".
Clause 10, page 7, line 23, leave out from"£15,000"to end of line 25.
Clause 10, page 7, line 26, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
" (7) If a ship fails to carry, or the master of a ship fails to produce, a certificate as required by subsection (5) of this section the master shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.
(8) If a ship attempts to leave a port in the United Kingdom in contravention of this section the ship may be detained."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, which I will, with permission, deal with together. The first is simply a drafting Amendment. As to the others, noble Lords will recall that as a result of the strong expression of opinions by both Government Members and Opposition, the Government decided to raise the maximum penalty for illegal discharge of oil and other related offences in the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, now an Act, from £5,000 to £50,000. It was also argued in another place that the penalties under this Bill of £15,000 for failure to have the requisite certificate of insurance, and of £200 for failure to produce the certificate, were inadequate. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, argued it in this place, too. As a result of the views expressed, the Government undertook to look at the level of fines. The Government had, of course, to consider the penalties in the Bill in the light of penalties relating to other offences over a wide field. While stressing that the offence of failing to have insurance cover

1309
must be distinct from the offence of deliberately discharging oil in the sea, the Government were able to accept an Amendment raising the fines in the Bill to £35,000 from £15,000, and to £400 from £200. These are the maximum limits and would be imposed only in the most extreme cases.
We have also attempted to make the punishment fit the crime more closely in another way: the serious offence of not having a certificate in force, and thus not being adequately insured, will now carry the high penalty of £35,000 on summary conviction, or an unlimited penalty for conviction on indictment. That is Amendment No. 6. The more technical offences of not carrying a valid certificate, or of not producing it on demand, will now carry the penalty of £400 on summary conviction. Only the master will be liable in either case, since there would not be the danger, as there would be with the first offence, that claimants for large amounts might find the shipowner uninsured. However, the ship may be detained if it attempts to leave port in contravention of any requirement under this subsection—that is, if it does not have a certificate or is not carrying it. My Lords, these are the effects of Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
Saving for recourse actions
". Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any claim or the enforcement of any claim, a person incurring any liability under this Act may have against another person in respect of that liability."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. I spoke to this Amendment on Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 10]
Clause 17, page 10, line 36, leave out"internal"and insert"external ".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This is an Amendment to correct a slip which passed through this House unnoticed.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DIPLOMATIC AND OTHER PRIVILEGES BILL
12.26 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Diplomatic and Other Privileges Bill be now read a second time. I think your Lordships will agree that this Bill, which was passed last week in another place, is a Bill of relatively minor importance. Its four clauses are concerned with the privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions, international organisations and Commonwealth representatives. Most of its provisions were in fact contained in a similar Bill which had its Second Reading in another place over a year ago, under the previous Administration. Your Lordships will no doubt have observed, on studying the Bill, that it will not make any significant changes in practice or policy in this field. It is a useful tidying-up measure.
Clause 1 is intended to put on a statutory basis certain refunds which are already made administratively. It provides for the refund of the customs duty element in the price of hydrocarbon oil—that is, petrol and oil for heating—bought by diplomatic missions and certain members of missions and by the Commonwealth Secretariat. If these persons and bodies imported hydrocarbon oil directly for their own use, they would be entitled to exemption from customs duty under the provisions of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966. But this is impracticable, and so refunds of the duty are made instead. At present these refunds are made under the authority of the Appropriation Acts

1311
alone, but it is an accepted principle that statutory authority should be obtained for regular payments of this kind. Such authority has already been obtained in relation to similar refunds made to entitled persons connected with consulates and international organisations by the Consular Relations Act 1968 and the International Organisations Act 1968.
This clause will amend the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966 so as to bring them into line in this respect. On this clause becoming law, we intend to transfer the administration of all these refunds from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Department of Customs and Excise. They will then be made out of revenue, instead of out of voted money. I should emphasise that our missions in other countries are of course accorded the privilege of duty free petrol, with consequent overall financial savings to the United Kingdom. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 will allow us to withdraw the privilege from any country which is no longer according us reciprocity in this matter.
Clause 2 of the Bill will enable us to accord privileges and immunities to the Caribbean Development Bank, which was established early last year. All the present members of the Bank are States and territories within the Commonwealth. The Bank provides capital for development projects in the countries in the Caribbean area, and it is a project which Her Majesty's Government wholeheartedly support. The United Kingdom ratified the Agreement establishing the Caribbean Development Bank on January 23, 1970, subject to a reservation concerning privileges and immunities. This Agreement requires members to accord limited privileges and immunities to the Bank. Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968, however, applies only to organisations which have at least one"foreign"member, so a Bill is required. Clause 2 will extend Section 1 of the International Organisations Act to the Caribbean Development Bank. An Order in Council to give effect to the privileges and immunities provisions of the Agreement will then be laid before Parliament and will require the Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. Clause 2 will, of course, have
1312
no effect on the privileges and immunities enjoyed by other international organisations, whether or not their members are all Commonwealth countries.
Clause 3 will amend Section 2 of the International Organisations Act 1968 to provide statutory authority for granting exemption from vehicle excise duty to the senior staff of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. As your Lordships may know, IMCO is the only United Nations specialised agency with its headquarters in London. Its activities include the securing of international agreement on measures to promote maritime safety and reduce pollution of the sea by oil. Section 2 of the 1968 Act was intended to accord financial privileges on a diplomatic scale to members of the staff of IMCO whose status is comparable to that of a diplomatic agent. There are 36 such officers in IMCO, of whom four are United Kingdom citizens or permanently resident here and so do not benefit from these privileges. However, Section 2 failed to make provision for exemption from vehicle excise duty. There was an understanding between Her Majesty's Government and IMCO that such an exemption would be accorded and as a matter of good faith this has until now been done administratively. The duty involved amounts in total to about £800 a year. If this clause becomes law, the Headquarters Agreement between the United Kingdom and IMCO will be amended to include a reference to vehicle excise duty. A draft Order to give effect to the Amendment will then be laid before Parliament.
Clause 4 substitutes for Section 12 of the Consular Relations Act 1968 a revised Section 12 set out in the Schedule to the Bill. This will enable an Order in Council to be made which will confer on Commonwealth representatives performing functions of a consular nature, and on their staffs and families, privileges and immunities on the same scale as is enjoyed by foreign consuls under the Consular Relations Act. The intention of the original Section 12 of the Consular Relations Act was to enable this to be done, but in some minor matters the powers are inadequate, or there is some doubt as to whether they are wide enough. For example, the existing provisions do not clearly cover goods imported or hydrocarbon oil purchased for the official

1313
use of a Commonwealth post. Nor do they cover members of the families or certain private servants of members of a post. The section has therefore been clarified and this has made it possible to repeal the remaining part of the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act 1952. No change of policy is contained in Clause 4.
Foreign consuls and their staffs have been enjoying their privileges and immunities since the Consular Relations Act came into force on January 1 of that year and for reasons of reciprocity and good faith we are anxious that there should not he too long a delay before Commonwealth officers are brought into line. Our own posts in Commonwealth countries are already enjoying privileges and immunities on a scale comparable with that which will be accorded to Commonwealth representatives in the United Kingdom if this clause becomes law.
My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will accept that this Bill is an uncontroversial measure which makes necessary amendments to our existing legislation in this field. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
12.34 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for explaining the provisions of the Bill, and for introducing the Second Reading. I note that there are no changes of practice of policy involved in the Bill. It is, as he has said, a non-controversial measure, although of course not an unimportant one, because any matters affecting diplomatic privileges in this country must be of importance to all of us.
We accept on this side that it is wise to have statutory provision to cover what are accepted and necessary administrative procedures. This, it seems to me, is the effect of Clauses 1 and 2. Clearly the extension of the appropriate privileges and immunities to the Caribbean Development Bank is something to which we on this side could not possibly take exception. On the question of Commonwealth consular servants, it is right and equitable that this area should be tidied up so that the consular servants of Commonwealth
1314
countries should enjoy the same privileges as others. It is, as the noble Marquess said, a non-controversial Bill. It does not bring about any changes of practice or policy and we on this side welcome it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ANGUILLA BILL
12.36 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I feel that I ought to apologise to your Lordships for inflicting yet another speech upon the House this morning. I think it would be helpful, before going into the provisions of the Bill, if I were to indulge in a little pre-history, so that the Bill may be set in perspective. The association between Britain and the three islands of St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla goes back to the early days of the 17th century. Indeed, St. Kitts makes the proud claim to have been the mother colony both of the British and of the French Caribbean. Anguilla was colonised as early as 1625. In 1871, the Leeward Islands Federation was created, with St. Kitts and Anguilla as one of its units, and in 1882 St. Kitts, Anguilla and Nevis were united into a single presidency. In 1956 the Leeward Islands Federation was dissolved and each of the presidencies became a single colony. In 1958 St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla became a unit of the West Indies Federation, but reverted to being a Crown Colony on the collapse of that Federation.
At the Constitutional Conference for St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla, which was held in London in May, 1966, it was agreed that the colony should become an associated State under which the State Government would have internal independence while Britain would retain responsibility for external affairs and defence. The Conference Report was signed by representatives of all three islands and the signatories retained their seats in the Legislature at general elections held in July, 1966. St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla duly became a State in association with Britain in February, 1967, at the same time as four other former colonies in the eastern Caribbean.

1315
I now come to an account of the more recent history of Anguilla and of British involvement in the problem. Only three months after statehood the St. Kitts police contingent on Anguilla was ejected by the islanders, who claimed that they would not be ruled by St. Kitts and wished to be able to decide their own future. They complained of past neglect. My Lords, I would add at this point that it is not only in relation to Anguilla that accusations of past neglect can be and have been made. Before the last war, the economic conditions of much of the Caribbean left a great deal to be desired, and it was only with the enactment of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts from 1940 onwards that systematic efforts began to be made to effect a radical improvement of these conditions. Much has already been done, but there is a great deal yet to be tackled.
It was with this end in view that a British Development Division was established at Barbados in 1966, and there has been a striking improvement since that date. But it takes time to achieve significant progress. One of the ironies of the situation is that the Anguilla action of May, 1967, took place at a time when the bulk of the St. Kitts public works department equipment was engaged in Anguilla on projects there. I mention this in order to make the point that it would not be fair to assign the responsibility for economic neglect of Anguilla solely to the authorities in St. Kitts. The need in that island was recognised, but there were equally pressing needs elsewhere in the State, and shortage of funds, equipment and manpower made it impossible to satisfy all the needs at the same time.
In July, 1967, the independent countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean held a conference in Barbados with delegations from the United Kingdom, as well as from St. Kitts and Anguilla. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as the then Minister of State, attended that conference on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Its Report was published as Command 3433. Unfortunately the conference did not lead to any solution of the problem.
In December, 1967, two Members of another place, Mr. Nigel Fisher and Mr. Donald Chapman, visited both St. Kitts
1316
and Anguilla in an attempt to find a way forward. As a result of their visit, the two parties in the dispute agreed to proposals placed before them for an interim arrangement, and a British official, Mr. Tony Lee, took up residence in Anguilla in January, 1968. In October, 1968, the then British Government invited the State Government and the Anguillans to send delegations to talks in London. Those talks were not successful in their attempt to find a more lasting solution. In January, 1969, the Anguillans made a further declaration of independence and Mr. Lee, who had discharged his difficult assignment with patience and tact, was withdrawn from Anguilla, although he continued to visit the island.
In early March, 1969, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. William Whitlock, after discussions with the State Government, visited Anguilla in an attempt to persuade the islanders to accept the installation of a British Commissioner to administer Anguilla. That visit unfortunately did not meet with success, and Mr. Whitlock was forced to leave the island. Later that month, on March 19, British troops and police were landed on Anguilla and a British Commissioner was installed under the authority of an Order in Council made under Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act 1967.
I would recall that the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in his Statement in another place on March 19, 1969 said:
" We have, however, a responsibility under the West Indies Act. We took action because conditions in Anguilla were such that it was impossible for us to discharge our constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs ".
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, repeated that Statement in your Lordships' House on the same date (cols. 902–905 of Hansard). The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, also said (col. 879):
" Anguilla is certainly constitutionally a part of the associated State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla: but the authority of the State Government has not been effective in Anguilla since May, 1967. There are no lawfully established courts functioning on the Island. It was therefore, in the view of the Government, not possible for them under the circumstances to discharge their constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs."
I would also recall that in the Statement of the then Secretary of State for Foreign

1317
and Commonwealth Affairs to which I have already referred, and in an earlier statement the previous day the Secretary of State said:
" It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration they do not want."
In May, 1969, Her Majesty's Government held discussions with the State Government in London, and it was then agreed that a Commission should be jointly appointed by the two Governments to examine the Anguilla problem. This Commission was headed by a former Chief Justice of Trinidad, the Right Honourable Sir Hugh Wooding, and its Report was presented to Parliament in November 1970 (Cmnd. 4510). That Report, which contained a valuable analysis and history of the problem, made certain recommendations which included the election of a Council in Anguilla with wide-ranging legislative, executive and fiscal authority, functions and powers the establishment of a coordinating Council on which each of the three islands of the State would have equal representation and greater participation for Anguilla in the government of the State through increased Anguillan membership in the House of Assembly and Anguillan representation on the public and police service commissions.
These recommendations might have produced a settlement of the problem in an atmosphere less charged with emotion and distrust than that which existed between St. Kitts and Anguilla. However, such a state of affairs did not exist, and the Anguilla Council, who had continually repeated their demand for a complete break with St. Kitts, rejected the recommendations in the Report. The St. Kitts Government, for their part, said they accepted the Report and its recommendations as a basis for discussions. In view of the Anguillan rejection of the Wooding Commission recommendations, and also in the light of the assurance given by the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which we had reaffirmed on taking office, that it was not our intention that the Anguillans should be forced to live under an administration which they did not want, it was not possible for us to use these recommendations as the basis for a settlement. We were obliged to find some other way in which to proceed.
1318
In December, 1970, at discussions in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right honourable friend Mr. Godber, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, put to the St. Kitts Government proposals designed to bring about an interim settlement of the problem. The basis of these proposals was that the State Government should delegate to Her Majesty's Government powers which would enable Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla to conduct an effective administration on that island for a period of years. The proposals were designed to restore a full administration of the island by authority emanating from the British Government, but at the same time to maintain the basic integrity of the associated State. It was our hope that after a period of time it might be possible to achieve a permanent solution by bringing the two sides voluntarily together again.
Although a measure of agreement on a number of points was achieved in our discussions with the Government in St. Kitt, they were not prepared in certain important respects to accept the minimum delegation of powers which we considered essential to enable Her Majesty's Commissioner to conduct an effective administration in Anguilla. After six months of discussions it became evident that there was an unbridgeable gap between what the State Government were prepared to offer and what the Anguillans were prepared to accept. Mr. Godber was therefore reluctantly obliged, during his discussions in St. Kitts on June 11, to inform the St. Kitts Government that, since we could not allow this problem to continue indefinitely, Her Majesty's Government would reluctantly have to obtain Parliamentary approval for proceeding unilaterally with our proposals for an interim settlement.
I should mention at this point that the State Government had been advised as early as February of this year that should it, unfortunately, not prove possible to reach an agreement in our negotiations, we should be forced to take unilateral action. The Anguillan Council for their part, after seeking certain assurances accepted our proposals on June 22.
My Lords, that is a very brief history of the problem and of British involvement in it. We have made it clear to Commonwealth Caribbean Governments

1319
that should similar circumstances arise in the future we would not be prepared to intervene in this way and would expect them to deal with the problems themselves. But on our assumption of office we were involved in the matter and we felt it essential to find a solution of it. As the course of the negotiations has made clear, we should have much preferred to proceed with the full agreement both of the State Government and of the Anguillans; but for the reasons which I have given this unfortunately was not possible.
In our view, the present situation cannot be allowed to continue. Although a British Commissioner has been resident in Anguilla for over two years, it has not been possible for him to establish a fully effective administration because he has lacked certain essential powers. Moreover, although one of the original purposes behind the installation of a British Commissioner was to restore the rule of law in Anguilla, it is a fact that no regular court of law has been able to function there for over four years. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is intolerable that such a situation should obtain in an island on which a British commissioner and British troops and police have been established. It is for these reasons that we have introduced the Bill which is before your Lordships' House to-day.
The Bill has the merit of being short and clear. It is an enabling Bill which, if enacted, will permit Her Majesty in Council to make detailed provision for the administration of Anguilla. The first subsection of Clause 1 provides for this. The second subsection makes provision for the appointment of a Commissioner in Anguilla. The third subsection of Clause 1 provides for Her Majesty by Order in Council to direct that Anguilla would not any longer form part of the territory of the Associated State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, in the event of the introduction into the Legislature of that State of a Bill for a law terminating the status of association of the State with the United Kingdom. Were such a law to be introduced into the State Legislature and the necessary constitutional procedures to be gone through, the associated State would of course become fully independent. This subsection makes
1320
it clear that the British administration of Anguilla would not be affected by such an event and that, should it in fact happen, Her Majesty by Order in Council would have powers to provide a constitution for Anguilla.
The fourth subsection of Clause 1 makes consequential provision in the event of the use of subsection (3), to enable any constitution provided for Anguilla under that subsection to be altered or replaced as may be expedient from time to time. The fifth subsection of Clause 1 makes provision for this legislation to have effect notwithstanding anything in the West Indies Act 1967 or any Order in Council made under that Act I would, however, emphasise that in our opinion this Act is not inconsistent with the West Indies Act 1967. The sixth subsection of Clause 1 contains the declaration which is necessary under Section 3(2) of the West Indies Act 1967 that this legislation is required to extend to St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla in the interests of the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom relating to defence and external affairs. We consider that such a declaration is justified by the facts of the case.
It would clearly not be possible for the British Government to discharge its responsibilities for the defence and external affairs of the Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla if there were no settled administration in the island of Anguilla. Were a vacuum to be created by the withdrawal of the British presence on Anguilla there would be a risk, which some would put as high as a probability, of conflict between St. Kitts and Anguilla. There would be instability and incertainty and an absence of government and law and order which must make it impossible for any British Government to discharge in a meaningful way its constitutional responsibilities in the area. The Bill before the House to-day will, if it is approved by your Lordships, ensure that this does not happen. It will enable an effective administration to be established in Anguilla in consultation and co-operation with the people of that island. I hope your Lordships will recognise the need to bring an end to the events of the last four years and to provide an opportunity for a fresh start. The Premier in St. Kitts has accused us

1321
of attempting to break up the existing State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla. Our reply is that that was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government when we embarked upon these long and difficult negotiations: nor indeed need it be the final outcome.
The Order in Council which we propose to introduce under this Bill, once it has the authority of law, will be designed solely to provide the British Commissioner on the island of Anguilla with all the powers he has so long needed and so long lacked. Those powers will derive directly from Her Majesty's Government in United Kingdom. This means that not only will new courts of law be able to sit, but new laws where necessary can be enacted on the island. The Commissioner, for instance, will then be able to recruit and train local policemen to take the place of the London Metropolitan Police who have been tilling the gap so admirably since March, 1969. But no step will be taken at this stage to remove Anguilla from the State, unless St. Kitts decides to move to independence, in which case Clause 1(3) can come into operation in the manner I have already described.
Our intention is to provide effective administration for a period of years to enable tempers to cool. My right honourable friend Mr. Godber has told the Anguillans that we should be willing to reconsider the position after the new arrangements have been working for three years. When the time comes to move forward it is our intention that the wishes of the Anguillans shall be ascertained. If they should wish to revert to their links with St. Kitts, that can be done. If, on the other hand, they wish to continue with a greater degree of devolution of authority to their own elected representatives, that also should be possible. On the other hand, ideas are still developing among the various independent and associated Commonwealth States in the Caribbean. It is possible that new groupings of States will emerge and that Anguilla may wish to participate in one of these. The final test must be the wishes of the Anguillan people themselves.
I know that certain noble Lords and others outside have advocated new federal groupings in the West Indies. On this I would only say that in the present
1322
post-Colonial era in the Caribbean, any new initiatives in this field must spring from the Caribbean itself and gain the willing acceptance of the Governments and peoples of the area if they are to be crowned with success. Our earlier efforts and their outcome are a matter of historical record. Faced with the present situation on Anguilla I believe that we have found the only tolerable solution, at any rate for the time being. We have had to look to the future, and not only to the past, and the Bill before your Lordships to-day does, I believe, point the way to a settlement of this problem.
The Caribbean, as many of your Lordships are well aware, is a complex area full of strong personalities who have many conflicting ideas and views. From the time when the West Indies Federation began to break up the problem of fragmentation has been there. This latest stage of it has led some at least in other Caribbean countries to think again about the future of the whole area. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said at the conclusion of his speech on July 16 in another place when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill there:
" If the Anguilla problem turned out to be the catalyst which helped to bring about a reversal of present attitudes, it could prove a blessing in disguise for the whole area "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 16/7/21, cols.900–1.]
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
12.55 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, once again I am thankful to the noble Marquess for introducing the Bill on Second Reading. I am grateful to him also for his review of the events leading up to the introduction of the Bill. I must confess that my heart sank a little when he talked of going back into pre-history, but in the event he went back no further than the 17th century, which by the standards of your Lordships' House might reasonably be called"yesterday's events ". I should like to commend also the extraordinary speed with which he moved from 1625 to 1966, although the four years that followed occupied a little more time. It might be as well at this

1323
stage to point out that in his admirable resume of the events leading up to his introduction of the Bill, he did not mention, although I am sure that he would agree, that disputes among the islands forming the Colony have been taking place for many years. In the days of the first white settlers in the area disputes between the islands began, and they have been going on ever since. It might be worth recalling that the constant conflict in this area cannot be laid exclusively at the doors of contemporary political leaders in the area.
Before saying anything about the actual clauses of the Bill may I take this opportunity to echo something said by the noble Marquess on the conduct of the Armed Forces and the police in the area during the last difficult years. We on this side wish to express our appreciation and admiration of the way in which the Armed Forces and the Metropolitan Police have conducted themselves during this difficult operation. We should not forget, either, the succession of public servants who have discharged their duties with dignity and efficiency, sometimes in extremely difficult circumstances. I should like also to mention—although he has had to leave his place at the moment—the efforts made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd when we were in office. It is probably not sufficiently recognised that his efforts to try to bring this matter to a successful conclusion were most energetic and vigorous.
My Lords, we on this side would agree with Her Majesty's Government that the present situation is unsatisfactory. We accept, too, that there is nothing in the Bill, at least on the face of it, which is inconsistent with the West Indies Act. In this context, I was grateful for the assurance of the noble Marquess—at least, I took it as an assurance—that the Bill does not imply any permanent fragmentation in the area. It is not, as he said, an attempt to break up the Colony; it is an attempt to buy time, to allow tempers to cool. If he rises to speak again, I should be grateful for his assurance that no possibility regarding future constitutional structure in the area is foreclosed. I was grateful for his assurance that after the three years of what might be called a"cooling-off period"the views of the Anguillans will be sought. As he has said,
1324
we must bear in mind not only the interests of the Anguillans but their express wishes. On the basis of those assurances, we on this side accept the necessity for this Bill and its provisions.
1.0 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the Bill certainly gives reality to the wishes of some 6,000 inhabitants of the island of Anguilla. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, the result of the common effort of all Parties—the noble Lord's Party when in office and the present Government. Because the wishes of the islanders must always be the main factor, I wish to raise one point which I feel the right honourable Member in another place, Mr. Stewart, who was then Foreign Secretary, would himself wish to raise. We have received to-day from the Minister assurances that the wishes of the people of Anguilla will be paramount. The right honourable gentleman, speaking for the Opposition in the House of Commons, said:
" The right honourable gentleman "—
he was referring to the Minister—
" gave us to understand that after an interim period consideration may be given to what comes next."
He then used these words:
" The wishes of the people of Anguilla will be an extremely relevant factor "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 16/7/71; c. 906.].
The point that I want to raise concerns the words"relevant factor ". I suggest that the wishes of the people of Anguilla must rather be the determining factor. I think the Minister has given us that assurance, but I feel it is necessary to bring to your Lordships' attention the particular words spoken, not, I hope, on behalf of the Opposition in another place. If they were so spoken, I am quite sure the ex-Minister who said them would wish not to be misunderstood by using the word"relevant"instead of"determining ".
My Lords, it is modern fashion for past colonial territories to launch off into self-government at the earliest possible moment. I am reminded of Arthur Balfour's statement when he said that people prefer self-government to good government. That has been the tendency, I think, in the disintegration of our Colonial Empire. But, here is an

1325
island clinging to Britain for justice, peace and progress, and we must respond. In the past, those of us who know the Caribbean have felt that we have some measure of responsibility for things that ought to have been done and were not done, but, in this new Associate State relationship we have a great chance to forget the past in the progress of the present and future welfare of the people. My plea would be for Parliament and the Government not just to pass this Bill and then forget Anguilla but to see that Parliament obtains progress reports on the results of the Associated State development. I should like there to be an annual White Paper, giving a report of progress. I suggest that there should be a biennial Parliamentary visit by members of the main Parties so that we could watch the progress arising from the passing of this Bill, with the feeling that Britain had well justified the trust Anguillans put in us and our responsibilities to them.
1.5 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships, and particularly to the Minister, because I did not hear the whole of his speech. I had taken great care to be within the hearing of the loudspeaking apparatus so that I might come in immediately, but, unfortunately, for some reason I did not hear that this Bill was now before the House. It is possible that some of the points I shall raise were already dealt with in the opening speech; if so, I apologise to the Minister and to the House.
My Lords, I find it almost incredible that I should be supporting this Bill, because, on the surface, it is a colonialist measure, giving all power to the Government here and to the Commissioner in Anguilla. I was similarly surprised, earlier in the course of events, to find myself supporting the presence of British troops in Anguilla, which, again, is contrary to my general record. However, I want to join with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in tribute to their behaviour in Anguilla. It has been a constructive contribution. The way in which, during their period there, they have developed the island is something for which all of us should pay tribute.
It is possible that the Minister in his opening speech dealt with this matter,
1326
but I should like to know how far the Representative Council in Anguilla has endorsed the proposals in this Bill. I should like to see included in the actual terms of the Bill definite suggestions that the Representative Council in Anguilla should be associated with all the functions which are here described. For example, in Clause 1(2) the Commissioner is given great powers. I hope that he will be exercising those powers in association with the Council. Then, in subsection (3)(a) there is the decision that Anguilla shall not any longer form part of the Territory. Again, in certain circumstances which are mentioned, I would ask very strongly that this should be done in association with the Representative Council. Finally, there is the proposal of a new Constitution and, once more, I want to emphasise strongly that that should be applied only in consultation with the Representative Council.
Lastly, I wish to urge upon the Minister that the problem in this grouped Associated States is not likely to be the last among Associated States in the Caribbean. I mentioned this earlier in a speech; Hansard made me refer to Bermuda when, in fact, I was referring to Barbuda, but the noble Lord will know that these problems are arising in other grouped Associated States. I would repeat the plea I made earlier that there should be a conference of Caribbean countries, particularly those which are Associated States, to seek to prevent the kind of situation which has arisen in this Associated State from arising in other States as well. The solution would probably have to be on the basis of confederation rather than the unity which is now prescribed. May I, in conclusion, welcome the suggestion that we should have regular reports regarding development and also that there might be Parliamentary visits so that the Houses of Parliament might be kept in touch with developments there.
1.10 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for the welcome they have given to this Bill. I would echo what they have said in their tributes to the British forces, the police and the public servants who have held

1327
the field for so long in Anguilla. I think the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Balfour are very valuable. I will certainly take note of them and pass them on to my right honourable friend. I do not wish to detain the House any longer—we have another Bill in front of us—but I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because I think he may have missed a part of my speech, that the people of Anguilla accepted these proposals—I think it was on June 22. I should also like to assure him that I am certain the Commissioner will exercise his powers in collaboration with the Council.
The noble Lord raised the rather wider question of what may happen in similar circumstances in the Caribbean. It is true that the countries out there are worried about this. It may well be that we shall see conferences and further developments. I would only repeat what I said in my opening speech: we feel that this is something which the islands must sort out for themselves. With that, again I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I hope your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (MILK) BILL
1.12 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I beg to
move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is introduced into your Lordships' House at a time when the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the measures which were announced last Monday to stimulate the economy has been made possible by the major changes in public expenditure which were announced last October.
it was part of the White Paper New Policies for Public Spending published nine months ago that the Government announced a saving of £9 million in a full year by the provisions of the Bill before the House to-day. That is a significant sum, but what is of far greater importance is that this saving forms part of an overall design to discontinue, or
1328
reduce, public expenditure which benefits many people who may not need the subsidy that it contains and to concentrate Government help where it is most needed, and to reallocate the savings in scarce public resources to priorities which are crying out for attention. As part of this overall policy my right honourable friend has particularly announced record allocations to replace or improve old primary schools, while at the same time, as I hope to show the House, measures have been taken to protect those who might suffer from reallocation of resources.
The present situation for the supply of milk to schools is that local education authorities have a duty to provide milk to pupils in nursery and primary schools, to junior pupils—that is, those up to the age of 12—in middle schools, and to all pupils at special schools. Under this Bill the duty towards special schools remains quite unchanged; and pupils elsewhere will receive milk free up to the end of the summer term after their seventh birthday; that will mean up to an average age of seven years, six months; this is a lowering of the age for milk as of right, but the Bill expressly requires the supply to continue as before if the school medical officer recommends this. I have said"as before ", for essentially the same age groups of pupils will continue to have free entitlement on medical recommendation as were entitled when, in 1968, the previous Government restricted free milk to primary schools. Thus primary pupils will continue to be covered on medical recommendation, and so will those at middle schools up to their 12th birthday. In other words, the Bill follows the principle that those sectors of the school population now receiving free milk should, where their entitlement does not continue automatically, be eligible to receive it free if their health requires it.
While arrangements obviously differ from area to area, children are medically examined on their entry to school, or soon after, and this will provide the first check on a child's needs which can be re-examined at later stages; in this process all those who normally come into contact with pupils—that is to say, teachers, educational and other welfare officers, family doctors, school nurses—will be able to make representations to school medical officers about particular pupils who might be at risk. I do not want to minimise any of the devoted work which is done

1329
by the school medical service, nor do I want to minimise the initial work in this particular field; but I suggest that pupils are under pretty constant surveillance, for the reasons that I have just referred to, while they are at school. We on this side of the House do not see that this process under the Bill should become anything other than a normal part of the processes by which school medical officers identify children for special treatment for literally any one of a number of reasons.
Because the Bill makes provision for milk on health grounds, and thereby safeguards children who might be at risk if free milk were withdrawn, my right honourable friend did not engage in formal prior consultations, but the Chief Medical Officer was consulted informally and subsequently his Committee, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (known as COMA), endorsed his advice that it was not possible to predict whether or not the withdrawal of free milk from older primary school children would have any adverse effect on their health.
Three years ago, when the previous Government withdrew free milk from secondary schools, COMA had also been asked for its advice, and the Secretary of State at that time made it clear in the other place that evidence did not allow COMA to say whether the abolition of free school milk would affect health, and that that advice referred to all schools. However it is obviously vital that future standards of nutrition should be monitored; to effect this, COMA'S subcommittee on nutritional surveillance has suggested steps to be taken to check nutritional standards in widespread areas of the country. This is in addition to surveys already being undertaken in Kent, Newcastle and Birmingham. The Department of Health and Social Security, with the approval of COMA, is initiating dietary surveys of school children in a number of areas; and the data obtained from the National Food Survey will in future be analysed to find out how far milk no longer taken at school will be replaced by extra milk consumed at home, or in other ways.
In addition, we have the Chief Medical Officer's Annual Report on the State of the Public Health which reports on the general nutritional condition of schoolchildren, as well as other sectors of the
1330
population. This, together with the annual reports of local authorities' principal medical officers (which were referred to both in Committee and on Report in another place), shows that, generally speaking, the health of our children is of a high order, and lends weight to the view that our national worries on malnutrition are, mercifully, a declining factor.
Clause 1 of the Bill therefore restricts free milk but continues to safeguard children with a medical requirement. But this clause also gives local authorities a new power to sell milk in all their schools, secondary as well as primary. At present local education authorities have no such power, although they can sell other drinks. This anomaly stems from the 1968 Act which abolished the provision of milk in secondary schools. I think it is absurd that milk may not be sold at schools, although the range of suitable other drink and food can, legally, be obtained in this way. Therefore a power to sell milk is being given to the local authorities in this Bill; exactly how they use it will be for their discretion, but certainly neither this Bill nor the regulations to be made under it will place any new duties or responsibilities on teachers.
My Lords, I have described the content of Clause 1(1) and (2) of the Bill. Subsection (3) continues the power of L.E.A.'s to provide milk in the new age range in non-maintained schools; subsection (4) repeals Section 3 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act, which governs the present arrangements for milk in schools, and the 1970 Act, which removed the anomaly in the 1968 Act which excluded junior pupils in certain middle schools. This point is taken care of in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 2 imposes similar restrictions, and provides similar powers for Scotland. If your Lordships have questions on this clause I will endeavour to reply to them at this stage, and, if your Lordships agree to the Motion for Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton will undertake this clause in Committee. Perhaps I may now clarify two points which affect the drafting of the clause. First, the Scottish Education Acts lay powers and duties in regard to the provision of milk and meals directly on education authorities, not requiring, as the English Acts do, those powers and duties to be imposed by the Secretary of State

1331
by regulation. Second, it happens that the Scottish Education Acts do not use the expression"school term ". It was therefore necessary to use a fixed date for the start of the new milk arrangements in Scotland.
Since the pattern of school holidays is rather more constant in Scotland than in England and Wales, it was thought possible to settle on August 1, which I am advised will fall within the summer holidays of all Scottish schools. I might add that since most English and Welsh schools break up for the summer holidays towards the end of July, the practical effect of the two clauses will be virtually the same in the respective countries. Clause 3 is in common form and enables the Secretary of State to make the necessary adjustments to rate support grant which will be necessitated by savings from the Bill.
I know that the House will wish to study carefully the effect of the Bill on those with different incomes. For several years now there has been a recognition—I think on both sides in politics—that some benefits have gone to people who do not need them, and that this process has deprived education of opportunities to tackle urgent priorities. We believe that the right way to tackle nutritional and health needs for individual primary pupils over seven is through the medical provision in the Bill. For other children, local education authorities will be able to provide daily milk on payment of about 10p per week. In this connection, it will be recalled that for parents who are taxpayers the new increased child tax allowances, worth about £15 in cash per year for each child, announced in the Budget, came into effect this month. For those families on low incomes, the family income supplement of £4 per week starts operating next month. At about the time that the new milk arrangements start to have effect in September, further increases in social security will take effect, not only for married couples on social security but for unemployment, for sickness and for widows' benefit. These increases, together with the family income supplement, will automatically bring more children into entitlement for free school meals. All these measures, the Government are convinced, will make it possible for families to buy milk without hardship
1332
for their children, who no longer get it free, that is to say for children who will not get it anyway on a medical recommendation.
This Bill will continue to make milk available free to the very young, to those who need it for health reasons, and, on payment, not only to primary pupils but also to the secondary schools who have been deprived of their supplies since 1968. The Bill implements the relevant part of the Government's White Paper New Policies for Public Spending. The savings arising from it will be £5·9 million this year and £9 million in a full year. These sums, however small some may think them, play their part in the general reappraisal of public spending with which the White Paper was concerned. They are part of the Government's plans for ensuring that users of social services who can afford to contribute rather more towards their cost should, in the public interest, do so, while those who need more help should be given it as of right. I would ask your Lordships to see this Bill against the background of the many substantial improvements announced by the Government in all forms of social benefit, some of which I have referred to in this speech, and in the context of my right honourable friend's priority for old schools, which is being so faithfully carried into effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Belstead.)
1.26 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the exposition he has given of the contents of this Bill. Had the Government wanted to put a gloss on it they could not have chosen a better speaker. We respect him greatly for his unfailing courtesy and for the very great care he takes in presenting whatever case he is asked to take on behalf of his Department. But, my Lords, I say right away that, despite anything he has said, and despite the fact that this is only a small Bill, we regard it as a highly controversial Bill, a destructive Bill, unwanted and unloved. If he could have produced any evidence of support in the country for it, he would have done so; and he has not been able to do so. It is a Bill that is pretty universally condemned.

1333
In listening to the noble Lord I was confirmed in the view I have been forming since this Government have been in office that if they are determined to do one thing, almost more than anything else, it is to dismantle the Welfare State. This Bill is fitting into a pattern. At the end of the day, when it has been fully realised, we shall have a situation which will make a mockery of the splendid services that were built up in the years following the war. What this Bill does—and it ought to be called Education (No Milk) Bill—is to take milk from the mouths of the 7 to 11-year-olds. If one is to interpret the claims made by the noble Lord towards the end of his speech with regard to replacing old primary schools, it is taking milk from the mouths of the 7 to 11-year-olds to make bricks, and the Government will try to claim some credit for the building. I should have thought it was generally recognised that good health was almost a prerequisite for obtaining maximum educational advantage in young children. As one would expect, the food value of milk has been established and recognised for a very long time, covering calory intake, protein intake calcium, iron, Vitamin A, thiamine, niacine, riboflavin and Vitamin C. It is quite the best kind of food that can be supplied, particularly to younger children.
The noble Lord told us that £5·9 million would be saved this year and £9 million in a full year. It became quite clear during his early remarks, when he spoke about expenditure, that that saving was intended not to provide new buildings for old but to help pay for the tax relief to people with incomes in excess of £4,000 per year. If the Government save what they hope to save on the two items, reduction of milk and increase in the price of school meals, they calculate that they will save altogether £38 million; and they need exactly £38 million in order to give tax relief on these higher incomes. That is the price that is being paid by little children for the relief that people in excess of £4,000 a year will enjoy as a result of income tax reduction. They will lose their free daily milk, unless the school medical officer says they need it.
The noble Lord has said that there is here no financial means test. He may not have used those exact words, but
1334
that was the general implication of what he was saying. Let us face it, despite all he said, however poor the family, there will be no free milk for the 7 to 11-year olds unless the school medical officer certifies need. It matters not if the breadwinner of the family is unemployed; if the child is to have milk at school it will have not merely to pay 10p per week, but it will have to pay 10p per week on the very small income. If there are two children in the family, that means an addition of 20p—which perhaps does not sound as much as 4s. used to sound in the old currency. Four shillings a week is an awful lot of money for the wife of an unemployed worker to find. I really should not like to be defending this Bill.
My Lords, I appreciate, and I think that the House will appreciate, what the Minister said with regard to the introduction of monitoring with regard to the effects of these proposals. But if the Government were sure that there would be no ill-effects, there would be no monitoring. The very fact that they feel it necessary to have a monitoring service indicates beyond question that they are not so positive on the point as they would have us believe. I want to ask the Minister a question, and I should like him to reply to it. If the report which they receive as a result of the monitoring system is adverse, will they reintroduce free milk for the whole of the age group? It is important for us to know this.
Why do we have to take risks? Why do it at all? I want to refer to the inquiry by members of the Social Nutrition Unit at Queen Elizabeth College. London, by Dr. George Lynch and Dr. Sylvia de la Paz. They have thought it desirable recently to publish an article in the New Scientist; they issue relevant findings of the primary data of their survey in regard to the food patterns of 4,382 schoolchildren. Dealing with primary schoolchildren, they say:
" Of primary children, 18 per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively were estimated to be at risk in terms of insufficient intakes of calcium and riboflavin. We calculated that in the event of the withdrawal of school milk, and on the assumption that no compensatory changes in dietary habits occurred, the percentages of inadequate intakes referred to would increase to 34 per cent. and 39 per cent. Subsequent investigations of the 2,471 primary children included in the sample have shown that of those consuming milk drinks, 39 per cent. depended entirely on school milk for this source of nourishment."

1335
My Lords, on monitoring, they have this to say:
" The monitoring of children who are no longer able to obtain free school milk must be based on the acknowledgment that it cannot be known how they would have developed if the milk had been available."
It would be interesting to have the comments of the Secretary of State on that particular point.
I realise that some effort was made in the other place to cast doubts on the qualifications of Dr. Lynch and Dr. Sylvia de la Paz. It did the Government very little credit. If the Government were sure that there was no risk, they would not have introduced the monitoring service, and that these two doctors have voluntarily drawn attention to the risks involved makes us very greatly indebted to them.
I would have spoken on the advice that was the subject of a good deal of discussion in the other place at Committee stage—on what the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy had to say in 1968. May I, without going into too much detail, say that I am very impressed indeed by what is set out in column 104 of the proceedings of Standing Committee A for June 24, 1971, where my right honourable friend, the former Secretary of State, made clear the steps which the previous Administration took to get advice when they decided to deprive secondary schoolchildren of milk. I say quite plainly that I will not defend, as I never have defended, the decision to deprive secondary schoolchildren of milk. I believe that it was a tremendous mistake, and if we want to learn that lesson, the way in which we have been addressed to-day ought to be an encouragement to us to learn it and to learn it fast.
The noble Lord has said that the Government are doing nothing that their predecessors did not do; that they deprived children over the age of 11 of secondary school milk, and all the Government are doing is to continue the process by depriving the 7 to 11-year-olds. He could equally well stand at that Box and defend in that same kind of way depriving all schoolchildren of school milk. I hope that my Party, and those for whom I speak, will take full note of the way in which, if they make a slip
1336
or a mistake, the Party opposite, when it comes to office, will exploit it and take full advantage of the situation that has been created. General opinion in the country, professional and lay—and lay opinion in this field is important—is of the view that milk for this age group is valuable; that it ensures the avoidance of unnecessary risk. Having in mind the full sum of national expenditure, we are taking that risk for an amount of money that cannot be regarded as large or significant. I appreciate that the noble Lord has said that all these things add up and that all play their part. My Lords, we have not taken milk from the mouths of the 7 to 11-year-olds before in order to balance the budget. In any event, surely in an area where there is so much doubt, research should have preceded decision.
May I now turn to the issue of local authorities who believe that the proposal to cut milk for this age group is so wrong that they wish to pay for the milk themselves. The least the Government can do is to make it quite clear that they may do so if that is their desire. If some local authorities were doing that, it would at least provide a most useful basis for comparison for the monitoring exercise that is to be undertaken. Some wish, and some have indicated that they intend, to continue to supply milk to this age group. May I interpose a point here? If we cut off this supply of free milk for this age group, let the Government be quite sure that they will be able to obtain supplies of milk for the children in the lower age group, because it becomes less attractive to supply when there is such a substantial reduction as will be involved under this Bill.
If the Government refuse to permit local authorities to supply milk free to this age group. I can only say that it comes ill indeed for a Government which has talked about greater freedom for local authorities. It is no answer at all for the Government to say that they are giving local authorities greater freedom by allowing them to sell milk; that they have never been able to sell milk before and so this is an extension of freedom. May I ask the Minister to tell us who in the education service he thinks is going to sell this milk? I am sure that he knows that in our primary schools we do not have too many hands for all the things which need doing. We have heard of the

1337
difficulties of supplying free milk. What of the difficulties of calling on little children to pay?
Her Majesty's Government would do well to take note of what the Association of Municipal Corporations feel. I quote from a letter, dated July 16, written to my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale; I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised at what is says:
" It is the Association's view that, where a local education authority wishes to continue the supply of free milk for all pupils in primary schools up to the age of twelve, and is itself prepared to bear the expense without Government aid, then the authority should have power to do so."
That is a clear enough statement from the Municipal Corporations. What does the Association of Education Committees have to say? I quote from its Journal for July 2, 1971 which records the following resolution:
" Milk in schools: That this Annual General Meeting of the Association of Education Committees instructs the Executive Committee to pursue vigorously with Her Majesty's Government the terms of the Education (Milk) Bill with a view to such amendment as will enable local education authorities to make appropriate provision of free milk after considering the needs of their schoolchildren of junior school age."
With the greatest respect, I am bound to say that, in so far as the Government have said anything on this matter of allowing authorities to pay for milk if they think fit, the Government have not given any clear indication as to whether the local authorities are entitled to do so, and, if they do, whether they will get into any kind of trouble.
I should like, if I may (and I am sure that the Minister will again be aware of what I am referring to), to refer to a letter written by Mr. Norman Buchan, the Member of Parliament for West Renfrew to his right honourable friend on July 20. He wrote as a result of a deputation which attended on Mr. Edward Taylor, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office. It was in the light of Press reports of that meeting, and what that delegation had to say, that he wrote to the Secretary of State. He says this:
" I have now received corroboration from members of the deputation that the reports of what they were told by the Under-Secretary are substantially correct. I have been further informed by Baillie Peter McCann, the Chairman of the Law and Procedure Committee,
1338
they were assured that medical officers of health could delegate the undertaking of medical examinations."
Earlier in the letter he writes:
" You will remember that they were assured that ' preventive' considerations would he taken into account in deciding which children should receive free milk. The leader of the deputation, Dr. Docherty, said on leaving the meeting that it would mean that in complete districts in Glasgow most children would be able to receive milk."
Can we have some indication from the Minister today whether authorities will be entitled to distribute free milk on the basis that it has preventive value? If the answer is that they are not free to do so, I hope that that will be made quite clear to the members of the deputation, because if they misunderstood I think that their misunderstanding ought to be corrected. If the answer is, Yes, that local authorities have power to pay for free milk for this age group if they see fit, will it be in order for them to pay for milk for children within the catchment area of the school but outside the boundaries of the district concerned? I ask that because the question was put to me by members of a local authority who wish to do this very thing.
My Lords, I hope that in what I have said I have made it quite clear that we on this side believe that this Bill is ill-conceived. I hope that I do not express myself too strongly when I say that I think and hope it will be aborted. If the Government refuse, and continue with it, I must make it clear that at Committee stage we shall consider whether it is possible to make improvements. If we think that improvements can be made, we shall undoubtedly submit Amendments for your Lordships' consideration. I repeat, I regret that this Bill is before your Lordships. I believe that it is ill-conceived and, among the majority of the people of this country, unwanted and quite unloved.
1.48 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like first of all to pay tribute to Lord Garnsworthy's honest admissions about the Labour Party's and the Labour Government's initiative in this respect. It is all honour to him that he makes it quite clear that this unfortunate Bill before us now has a precedent in his Administration, and that he, as I know is absolutely true,

1339
opposed it, and will oppose such a Bill all the way down the line. I hope that I shall not be thought ungenerous, in taking up his honesty and his courage in making that remark, if I say that one of the things for which a great many of us find it difficult to forgive his Party and its recent Administration is that on so many things—milk, school meals, prescription charges, immigration and many others—they have in fact sold the pass to the Tories and made their job easier.
I am grateful for the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, produced in his usual careful and courteous way. It is indeed fortunate for the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that in this House Scottish educational affairs are looked after by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, since I think that if he had had the task of defending both the squalid little Bills which have been unworthily dignified with the title of Education Bills since the Tory Government came in, it would have been enough to turn anyone away from politics. The Education (Scotland) Bill, which some of your Lordships will remember, at least had something to do with education, even though it was possibly something to do with dis-education. This Bill has very little to do with it at all. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said that it should be called the"Education (Non-Milk) Bill ". In my view it should be called the"Non-Education (Non-Milk) Bill ". That is the burden of my complaint to-day.
I think it is perfectly true to say that the dietary and nutritional effects of the Bill are in doubt. Cases have been made out on both sides. One of the difficulties is that we do not have sufficient evidence. Although this is not my main argument, there are a couple of points which should be made. First, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is right in saying that malnutrition is a declining factor in our national life. It is still far too big. Secondly, we are entitled to more knowledge and more guidance, and I hope that I am not being rude to a very worthy body if I say that the quotations in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about the actual activities of COMA would seem to reinforce the view that it may well be well-named. There
1340
is a case for saying that the nutritional effects may be marginal, but it must also be remembered that to those living on the margin, the marginal itself is of central importance. If noble Lords on the Labour Benches intend to put forward any Amendments to try to broaden the area in which free milk can be given, they will have our support.
Something that is totally wrong with the Bill has not been touched upon so far—the arithmetic that says that less school milk equals more primary schools. I accept that resources are limited, and my Party's educational panel, on which I serve, is rather proud of the fact that we try to work out the Party's educational policies strictly in terms of priorities within available resources. But it is weird arithmetic that balances a welfare matter against an educational matter. Educational priorities should be balanced against each other, and social welfare priorities should be balanced against each other. Free school milk, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave away in his speech, should be balanced against family allowances. It is part of the whole question of family provision. In an educational budget one should balance primary schools against nursery schools, and against higher education.
Nutrition is necessary for education, and I entirely take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on that. But nutrition is necessary for everything. Nutrition is necessary for life. Nutrition is necessary for the growing child and for the adult. These matters should belong to welfare, and not to educational budgets. If this had been a welfare matter, we would have seen the truth of what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said, much more easily, that what is happening is that money is being taken away from social welfare for tax relief for the richer part of the community; instead we have the pretence that it is in order to produce more primary schools.
I do not know how school milk ever got into the educational budget. I suspect slipshod thinking. The sooner it is out again, the better. I hope that the Government, who presumably cannot be persuaded to withdraw the Bill, even in a week when they have cut taxes by £400 million a year, will at least register the basic mistake in structure. They should

1341
do so, if only for the sake of the Secretary of State. She is unpopular enough with educationists, parents and teachers, without"carrying the can "—if I may use a slightly unfelicitous expression—for cuts in family welfare, which is what the Bill is about. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has my utmost sympathy.
1.56 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in the course of the debates on means-tested benefits, I chose to focus attention on the cruel decision to deprive schoolchildren over 7 of free milk, and now the Bill—the miserable little Bill—which is to implement that decision is before the House. I deliberately described the Bill as a cruel measure, for in the long run the injury inflicted on the child by depriving it of essential nutrients, as described by my noble friend on the Front Bench, will not only be calculated to stunt the child, but will also reduce his or her capacity to assimilate knowledge. To that extent, it is an Education Bill.
Every teacher knows that the brighter pupils are always found among the better fed. Underfeeding inevitably results in inattention in the class. Medical inspection in schools was introduced at the beginning of the century because it was found that certain children were inattentive and certain children were backward, although it appeared that they had a high I.Q. Medical inspection was introduced, and it was found that when milk, food and meals in schools were introduced, these children responded in a remarkable manner, particularly in the degree of attention which they paid to the teacher.
Last week when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, answered questions on the reduction in the numbers of school meals, he appeared confused. I must admit that he had my sympathy. In these debates he has all our sympathies. It is extraordinary that the Government should pick particular Ministers, such as the noble Baroness who has just been described and who has been castigated throughout the country, and nice personalities like the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to do these very unpleasant jobs. He receives very little support from his own Benches.
1342
I was very struck last week when Lord Alport, a school governor, recognised the position as indefensible. He said, with regard to school meals, which is an allied subject, that he and the other governors know that the number of pupils taking school meals has dropped substantially since the increased cost was introduced, and that it was a great mistake for the Government to try to gloss over this and prove a situation which does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has tried to gloss over it. Last week he stated that people's eating habits have changed since the war. Would he tell us, when he winds up, how children's eating habits have changed? Milk is still the food which nature supplies free, in order that the species will survive. An adequate amount of proteins, carbohydrates and fats still constitutes a balanced diet, and they are all to be found in milk. We are not talking to-day of one item of a mixed diet. We are talking about a food which is a complete balanced diet containing all the constituents which a child needs. These are being withdrawn, with the excuse that money must be found for the reallocation of resources—an excuse which scarcely bears examination. Surely essential food for children is the very last place to make savings.
My Lords, if the Government are not motivated by principle, or fail to be persuaded by the moral issue involved, I am prepared to argue the case for expediency if that will help to kill this miserable, tawdry Bill. Most politicians know that there are certain basic needs, the most important being food, which rouse people to protest if they are denied. It is called, I believe,"The Politics of Food ", and has been demonstrated, time after time, in our social history. In my own Parliamentary experience, in the Ministry of Food, the reduction in the import of dried eggs nearly brought a Minister down. Further back still, the same principle was involved; the repeal of the Corn Laws concerned the price of bread, and the controversy over tariff reform boiled down to the price of food. I have no doubt that in every by-election in the next few years the Government's cruelty, the cut in free milk for children and for nursing and expectant mothers, will

1343
be used to symbolise their attitude to the most helpless in the community.
It is difficult to associate the name of Winston Churchill with milk, but one of the most important things that Winston Churchill ever said—and he was a very shrewd politician who had a knowledge of food politics and the importance of a healthy, well-fed community—was:
" There is no finer investment for any community than pushing milk into babies ".
I can imagine Winston Churchill's lurid language if a Minister had tried to reverse Britain's nutritional policy in his time.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, Lord Hailsham, has made some profound remarks in his time, but nothing can equal the wisdom he displayed when he said in 1960:
" One of the main reasons perhaps for the remarkable improvement in children's health in recent years has been the access of children to reasonable supplies of fresh milk."
How can the noble Lord who is answering repudiate these statements? They were made by men with knowledge of the world, with knowledge of the community, and with knowledge of the fundamental needs of the people. In this matter, the evil that men do will certainly live after them.
I want to come to the medical examination of these children, and how malnutrition is to be detected. The noble Lord has not given sufficient thought to this matter. He talks about monitoring as if he can take somebody, give him a dose of a glass of milk and everything will be all right. Does he realise that before they are chosen these children must show signs of malnutrition? Has he appreciated that fact? Has he appreciated that malnutrition takes some time to establish its symptoms? Has he also appreciated that the harm has already been done when it is detected? I listened to him very carefully this morning on that aspect, and I understand that the already over-stretched school medical service will be responsible for certifying children as suffering from malnutrition. We all know how short of doctors we are, how precious their time is. One has only to look at The Times of to-day, and at the British Medical Journal. There are protests about the limited staff in our
1344
hospitals, and now this Bill will direct the doctors of the country to weight-watching. When malnutrition is confirmed and the harm already done, then milk will be ordered to try to remedy matters.
The noble Lord has also said something about delegating medical authority. By"delegating medical authority"does he mean that he will tell the teachers, who have already objected to supervising school meals, that one of their new jobs is weight-watching and being a delegate to the medical service? This procedure is the very converse of preventive medicine. Preventive medicine is the essence of twentieth century medicine. I ask the noble Lord to answer this question specifically. When malnutrition is detected, the diagnosis made, and a desperate effort made to remedy the situation, how long will the child be given milk? Until it has re-gained weight? What will be the symptoms which will indicate that the child need no longer have milk? When it is cancelled—if, as I presume, it is then to be cancelled—will the child be allowed then to resume the way of life and dietary habits responsible for its condition in the first place?
These are the details which the noble Lord's Department has not thought out. It is so easy to sit in Whitehall and give these directions, but if the noble Lord thinks of the actual details of this measure, he will find all kinds of difficulties which he is asking the school and the doctor to face. If they are going to give milk until the child has re-gained a little weight and then take it away, I would regard it as a"cat and mouse"exercise which the doctors are ordered to undertake. I would say that this"cat and mouse"exercise will not be cheap, either in medical time, or teachers' time, or child health. It would be found much cheaper in the long run to supply free milk, and to re-establish a form of preventive medicine which has proved effective during the 49 years since it was first introduced.
It is a fallacy to assume that because high wages are received in some industries, then all children are adequately fed. Low wages are the rule in many fields, and the latest decision to give a free hand to some hire-purchase and credit sale"sharks"will worsen conditions for many families. The irresponsible parent, the

1345
parent of low inteligence, will succumb to the tally man at the door, and it is precisely in these families that the child will be underfed. If we are going to decide what the children should be given, and the guide should be the parents' income, then those who know the lives of these people know that it is a nonsensical approach. One has also to discover the expenses of these people, and one of those expenses I regard as hire-purchase commitment, which keeps the family poor.
One cannot disregard the fact that there are large numbers of these irresponsible and inadequate parents. They have little knowledge of dietetics, and what constitutes a balanced meal. Any increase in wages does not guarantee that the man gives his wife a commensurate increase in housekeeping money. A most curious argument is pursued in another place and here, that if a man's wages are increased, therefore the amount spent on food by the wife must necessarily increase. Of course, those two things do not follow. If the man is irresponsible and inadequate he sees to it that his wife does not know of the increase and she does not get an increase in the housekeeping allowance for food.
So we see that the child at home is completely dependent upon the parent. That is why a helping hand at school, even in the shape of milk, will improve his physique, will increase his self-confidence and enable him to rise above his environment. That is one thing that we should do to help this child to rise above his environment. I noticed that in the debate on this Bill in another place there were those who charged selfish men with drinking too much at the expense of their children. These charges have been made for generations and they fail to solve the problem. This has happened since alcohol was first sold, and this is precisely another reason why the introduction of free dinners and free milk fifty years ago represented a social service of the very first importance. Therefore it has been proved, time after time, that the care of children cannot be left solely to parents, and furthermore that education and welfare are interdependent and must be the responsibility of the State.
My final point is this. The noble Lord mentioned the fact that there had been no formal discussion of this question by the Department or by the Minister with any
1346
advisory committee. This is an astonishing state of affairs. As we all know, it was decided many years ago that certain departments, particularly our welfare departments, should have attached to them advisory committees of men and women who have special knowledge of the subject with which the department is generally concerned.
The Department of Health and Social Security is no exception. The Department of Health and Social Security has a powerful committee of knowledgeable, dedicated people, which includes Professor John Yudkin, a distinguished nutritionist, a man with an international reputation. I was not surprised that he expressed himself in the strongest terms on learning of a decision to abolish free milk for children over seven, without any consultation with this committee.
What an extraordinary attitude of the Ministry! So confident were they that they—all lay people—knew precisely what should be done in this important field, that they ignored those who had been asked to give them advice in matters of this kind. I can only say that Professor Yudkin's attitude reflects the views of local councillors of both Parties throughout the country. No doubt, when they come to write of the 1970s, social historians will not fail to condemn the reactionary attitude of this Government.
2.14 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I rise to make a very few brief comments on this Bill, because I think it is obviously open to a few Amendments. I do not wish to indulge in any wholesale condemnation of the Bill, but I think that some Amendments are highly desirable. I am dealing with the matter rather in relation to the amount of authority which should be vested in such matters at a local level.
It seems to me that where a local education authority wishes to continue the supply of free milk to all pupils in primary schools up to the age of 12, and is itself prepared to bear the expense without Government aid, then the authority should have the power to do so.
If the Bill is allowed to go through in its present form, it would seem that only local authorities which are not themselves local education authorities may be able

1347
to resort to the use of the so-called"free penny"under the provisions of Section 6 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963. It seems to me that whether or not this power can be used for the continued supply of milk without cost to parents or pupils, is a matter of legal opinion which, if challenged, can presumably only be settled in court. Nevertheless, it may well be that the power can be used for that purpose, and it seems highly unsatisfactory if local government is to be left in the position where some authorities will be able to pay for milk supplies to all children in primary schools, and others not.
During the Report stage of the Bill in another place, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, stated:
" I assure the House—I hope that this will explain the matter—that the powers of local authorities under Section 6 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963, and Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, will remain. Those are the penny rate provisions. Obviously, it is not for me to interpret those Acts to local authorities, which have available to them highly competent advice…. I hope that that clarifies the matter to some extent. I cannot put myself forward as a lawyer, and, as I say, the local authorities have highly competent advice available to them. But nothing in the Bill has changed the situation as regards the penny rate provisions."
With the greatest respect, I am bound to say that the statement on behalf of the Government does not really explain the matter. It is, of course, agreed that the powers of local authorities relating to the penny rate will remain. The question surely is can they be used? Expenditure can only be incurred under the provisions of the 1963 Act if the authority has no other statutory power available. If there is such a power, then they must comply with the terms of that power. Therefore, we have the position that, under the Education (Milk) Bill, local education authorities will have the power to supply milk and, in accordance with Clause 1(2) of the Bill, must recover the cost from the pupils or their parents. On the other hand, it would seem that local authorities which are not local education authorities could still use the penny rate, because they are not the authorities which have the power to provide milk, subject to the limitation of having to recover the cost.
1348
In all the circumstances, and despite the reply given on behalf of the Government, it would still seem reasonable to resolve the doubts about the powers of local authorities by amending the Bill to ensure that all local education authorities have the discretion to continue the supply of free milk, even though the cost of so doing is not reflected in the calculation of the rate support grant from the Government. This seems to me a proper matter for local decision, and it is also in full accord with the statement in paragraph 8 of the Government's recent White Paper on Local Government in England, namely:
" a vigorous local democracy means that authorities must be given real functions—with powers of decision and the ability to take action without being subjected to excessive regulation by central government through financial or other controls."
I hope that the Government will be willing to consider some sort of Amendments on the Committee stage, so as to give local authorities the powers to which I have referred.
2.20 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, like so many other noble Lords, I, too, commiserate with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on having to defend an indefensible Bill. I sympathise with him more than I do with his right honourable colleague, because I think that his right honourable colleague will go down in history as the right honourable Mrs. Bumble. I say that because this is not just turning the clock back; this is turning the calendar back a long, long way. This Bill has the smell of Charles Dickens. It is so mean and contemptible, so utterly indefensible, that it is a shame we should even be discussing it in this day and generation. The day on which we are discussing it is the day when we have an announcement of 829,000 unemployed. That takes us back to 1940. We are discussing it in the week in which, in St. Stephen's Crypt, we paid tribute to a noble and revered colleague, Lord Boyd-Orr. This is an insult and an affront to the memory of John Boyd-Orr, the man who pioneered this whole business of social nutrition.
I personally find this matter impossible to discuss without emotion because it is so deep and meaningful to me. I should remind your Lordships of the history of

1349
this, which exposes the extent of this betrayal. When I first knew John Boyd-Orr, back in 1932, he was carrying out a survey of the feeding of the children of the unemployed in seven cities. At that moment he was Director of the Rowett Research Institute, concerned with animal nutrition, and, as he pointed out to me at the time, it was very easy for him, as Director, to convince farmers of the benefit of nutrition in terms of their animals because they could always measure the dividend in visible returns. But he could not convince anyone, including the farmers themselves, of the meaning of this to children. It was his awareness, during the depression of 1931–32, which developed into the survey of Food, Health and Income.
I want to quote from John Boyd-Orr's own account of this in his autobiography, As I Recall. His Research Institute was given £5,000 to carry out a survey to discover ways in which the farmers could get rid of their product. He stated:
" A test was made on schoolchildren in the seven largest cities in Scotland and in Belfast in Northern Ireland "—
not inappropriate at this moment, again, because this was a depression period and the 829,000 unemployed this morning includes a very large fraction in Belfast. He continued:
" One group of children was given from a half to a pint of milk every day at school, some receiving whole milk and others separated milk which contained the proteins, vitamins and minerals of whole milk. As a contrast another group was given biscuits of calorie value equal to whole milk. The test ran for seven months and showed a marked improvement in the health of the children and in their rate of growth, the improvement being most marked in the children of the poorest families. The Department of Health in Scotland was asked to supervise another test on the same lines and this showed the same results—the great improvement in health due to the increased consumption of milk. Then in 1931 Mr. Torn Johnston…obtained a grant to carry out a test on mothers and children in Lanarkshire. It showed the same beneficial results due to increased milk consumption that the earlier tests had done."
When Walter Elliot saw the results of these tests, he put a Private Member's Bill through the House of Commons enabling the local authorities in Scotland to provide free milk to schoolchildren in Scotland. This extended to England. The message also went to a gentleman called Mr. Harold MacMillan, M.P., in Stockton-on-Tees, and his work in the
1350
hungry 'thirties and in the The Middle Way was based on these experiments, these tests and these exposures. He had to listen not only to the voice of John Boyd-Orr and the evidence of the figures; he had to listen to people like Dr. McGonagal, the Medical Officer of Health who was there to demonstrate in his own constituency just what this meant. I am not surprised to find, for example, that Newcastle is fighting to be allowed to pay for school milk, because there again we have this wonderful example of continuous surveys and dedicated work by a local authority in carrying this through—work by people like Sir James Spence, famous in nutrition.
This is so profoundly important that it cannot be allowed to go by default. We are a small group here in this House to-day. The significance of this whole event is one which not only shakes the foundations of our Welfare State and means the erosion of our Welfare State; it betrays everything we have been trying to tell the rest of the world to do. For instance, what inspired or compelled John Boyd-Orr before and after the First World War was the fact that he was living with the people in Glasgow who were manifestly suffering from malnutrition. It was here in those days, when you had to invent The Bantam Regiment so that we could send the runts, the"peelie wallies ", the"keelies"into the front line to fight in a world war.
Then we had the evidence in the 1930's of this appalling malnutrition. My Lords, many of you must remember what the face of hunger really looks like, because you saw it in our own country in the 1930's. We are not talking about some abstract, remote thing or something you see on"the box "; we saw the face of hunger in the 1930's. Some of us saw it in our own mirror. Therefore, the Government are going back and betraying a whole history which has its root in one of the greater crimes of ignorance in the earlier part of this century. However, we no longer have the excuse of ignorance, because it was all exposed 40 years ago, when John Boyd-Orr computed compassion, made meaningful what people felt and saw that it was made meaningful in terms from which no Government from then onwards was ever going to escape This is something we have to hold

1351
on to, because this contemptible Bill is the beginning of the destruction.
Make no doubt about it, my Lords: we are told that the evidence in this country of the physique of our people apparently justifies the start of a process of erosion. This very day you have 820,000 unemployed, and you are going to get the same process developing again as developed in the 'thirties. We demonstrated in the 1930's, through the committees against malnutrition and, eventually, in that most wonderful demonstration to which all Parties and all peoples were party during the war, that we could establish an overall nutritional base for the country, regardless of class. We were not then dealing merely with baling out our consciences by helping the poor; it applied to everyone. The whole base of reckoning of school meals, school milk, and so on, established beyond a peradventure that a nation which has a sound basis of this kind can not only fight a war, but emerge from a war far healthier than it went in. If we are to"sell out"that achievement of 30 years by sitting back and saying that we will wait until there are clinical manifestations of malnutrition, that will be too late. Once there is clinical evidence of malnutrition, the rot has already set in.
My Lords, I have been concerned with malnutrition throughout the world, with famine and other conditions. I hope that we shall never see a famine situation, but in many countries, even those not suffering from acute famine, one can see the manifestations of malnutrition which is a progressive thing through neglect of the necessities. The Food for Peace Agency in the United States, with which I was involved at one time, was able to show that if only we could have enough milk, even dried milk, one could prevent what was manifestly happening to millions of young people in the world, the children who were not receiving the adequate protein and vitamins which were necessary to them at this stage of growing—not just in the post-weaning period but in the stage of growing into a puppy state of exercise and enthusiasm. That is the age of 7 and beyond.
One goes on from there and finds that one has now crippled a generation by merely providing, as Food for Peace had done up till then, carbohydrate foods to
1352
the neglect of protein. All the time we were trying to find substitutes for milk, like incaparina or any other kind of protein source; food supplements which would provide for the liquid milk which was not available to the hungry world. If the world could have had enough milk, UNICEF dried milk or any other kind of milk, most of the problems would have been solved. In this country we are now being told that, in order to buy refrigerators or"hi-fi"sets on hire-purchase, we are to cut out free milk. The Minister said so. He said that the result of the cutting of the milk in order to provide the cutting of the taxes had made possible the hire-purchase of the mini-Budget.
This is quite intolerable, because, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill has pointed out, one is putting the hire-purchase commitment on the doorstep at the expense of the children. Do not let us get into the position where we argue as to whether parents should be taking care of this nutrition. Responsible parents do; irresponsible parents do not. One does not always realise that if there is a situation of poverty, which we are having again, with unemployment, and the mother has to go out to work in order to back up the family income, then the children will be neglected, not by irresponsibility, but by the nature of the case. Therefore one is saying at another critical time in our social history that one is acting on the trivial pretext—that old story about getting father back from the pub. We have had it all our lives, these stories about the improvident poor drinking their children into the grave. This is something that we cannot now accept, even if we feel novelettish about it. The fact is, my Lords, that we have a direct and demonstrable national and social responsibility to look after our next generation—even if the parents are neglecting them—and that irresponsibility is not true of 99 per cent. of parents. One must ensure this raft in nutrition which is school milk, and which is the cheapest way of buying a measure of protection against the deficiencies that arise from other causes.
I have never quite understood, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, why this ever came into education at all. We know of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has reminded us, that it was realised 40 or 50 years ago that

1353
if children were not fit, they could not learn. Again, if I may cite my friend, John Boyd Orr: he demonstrated in Aberdeen with Professor Rex Knight, the psychologist, that by proper feeding of children one released their IQ. The one thing that could be demonstrated in reverse was that if they were not getting food, they were numb and stupid and quite unrepresentative of their IQ. That was demonstrated again beyond peradventure. Therefore we are dealing to-day with something which I insist is not just a question of whether we are saving £9 million—God help us if we deny the children of this country the basic privilege of a future physique, as John Boyd Orr demonstrated in 1932, when he predicted that there would be a generation 2½ inches taller. He was right. The Bantams of the Highland Light Infantry disappeared; even in Glasgow they have disappeared. We now have a generation which is 2½ inches taller than it was a generation ago.
We shall betray not only the present children, but a posterity. We cannot foresee what will happen in the next generation and beyond through a departure from this high established norm which we have been able to achieve. My Lords, I plead that, whatever happens in the House in terms of the niggling and wiggling of this Bill in Committee, you never forget that what we are talking about is something which is fundamental not only to education, but to the Welfare State and to the world.
2.39 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a few moments. First, as other noble Lords have done, I should like to offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his very clear and acceptable presentation of the Bill. I suppose that every Government who seek to recast an important social service must necessarily expect that they will be met by strenuous opposition from those to whom that particular social service is of special importance. That, of course, has happened this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who introduced this measure, has had to encounter considerable and strongly expressed opposition. Nobody complains of that. That is what noble Lords on the other side are for. But it is significant that a social service of this nature, which makes a particular
1354
appeal to persons who value the social services, should be met with such strenuous and determined opposition.
I have listened to every speech this afternoon. Looking back on the debate, it is difficult to see where is the evidence upon which the expectations of the misfortune which would follow the withdrawal of this part of the school meals service is based. Nothing has been disclosed in the debate that could be accepted as real evidence that the results which have been forecast as a result of the withdrawal of this section of the school meals service are likely to be realised. Before one condemns the proposals of the Government, one must be certain that there is some practical alternative. There is no evidence this afternoon that any injury has been done by withdrawal of meals on previous occasions. After all, the Labour Government withdrew the schools meals service from the secondary schools. Nobody has claimed that that action was followed by any of the misfortunes which had been forecast. Indeed, I do not think that any noble Lord has suggested that harmful results have followed from the action which the Labour Government then took. Taking the broader field, has anybody been able to suggest any real grounds—when I say"real grounds"I mean any grounds worthy of acceptance as evidence—that the withdrawal of this section of the school milk service, for it is only a section, is likely to be followed by the kind of disasters which have been forecast this afternoon? In the absence of anything which could be called evidence that harm will be done by this withdrawal, surely the Government are quite right in pressing it a little further. No change in the social services has taken place with such adequate safeguards as are planned for this service. There is to be the monitoring system. It is all very well to sneer at it, but it may produce most interesting results. I see the noble Baroness shakes her head, but even she failed to find any evidence among the mass of medical evidence which she collects. She failed to find any real evidence that the action being taken by the Government was likely to be followed by the results which have been forecast.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Lord must not put words into my mouth. Does he not realise that

1355
milk was introduced in the first place because the evidence for its need was there? Monitoring does not mean going round and finding people very well fed and therefore congratulating ourselves; we are going to monitor chiefly to find out those who are suffering from malnutrition. We gave children milk because of the situation that was found to exist in the past. To say, for instance, that everybody is well fed now is an indication that that policy was the right one. The reason we get so incensed is that this measure is putting that policy into reverse. Unless we take action now, the harm will be done.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, if that were so, why did these consequences not follow from the withdrawal of the secondary school milk?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Because, my Lords, the children were not seven years old. The noble Lord, who I know has had so much experience as the Chairman of the National Assistance Board, must realise that we are talking about two different things. He is talking about the 11-year-old. We are talking about the seven-year-old. This Bill proposes to take milk from the over-sevens. I can assure him that a child of seven is an entirely different proposition from one of 11.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, what I am pointing out to the noble Baroness is that the earlier proposal proposed to take milk from children between 12 and 14 in the secondary schools. That was not followed by any of the disasters which had been forecast. One must really base one's judgment in these matters on some real estimate of what is likely to happen. In this case, there will be the most complete medical examination before a final decision is taken. No social service has ever been safeguarded in the way in which this proposal is to be safeguarded.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that the monitoring service will not cover the whole of the country, but only selected areas? When he talks about things not being done on this scale before, does he realise that the monitoring exercise will be quite a limited one and could easily miss out in some area of the country where nobody
1356
has thought it worth while to conduct it?
LORD ILFORD: Yes, my Lords; I am well acquainted with that fact. As I understand it, the monitoring system, as the noble Lord says, will be carried out in certain districts first. Of course, if it is a testing system, that is the proper way to use it.
I do not desire to add anything further to what I have said. However sympathetic one may feel in this matter, and however convinced that some misfortune is likely to follow from it, let us at any rate not allow ourselves to be moved this afternoon by anything short of the real circumstances of the case.
2.47 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships for long. I am not an authority on education and I am not a medical officer, but I do know something about milk. Way back in 1932 I contracted to sell milk of certified standard at the ordinary milk price to Northamptonshire County Council, so that children should have it in school. I never had a complaint; I never had a bottle go wrong; and the children improved in their mental and physical condition. I am all for seeing that every child has milk. It was iniquitous that the Labour Government reduced school milk to the 11-year-olds, but it is far worse for the Tory Government to take the reactionary measure of reducing the age for free milk to under seven. That is what I want to say on school milk.
This Bill seems to me iniquitous. I do not see how one can make it any better by Amendments. Personally I should like to see it thrown out at this Second Reading, and sent back to the Commons so that a better Bill is produced. It is a reactionary measure. In our day and age, it is terrible that we should starve our children in order to prove that the Government are wrong. I hope that the Second Reading goes to a Division. I shall certainly vote against it.
2.49 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I apologise for holding up the House on a Friday afternoon for another few minutes. I would have put my name down as a

1357
speaker, but I thought it most unlikely that I should be able to get here at all in time for this debate. As it happened I came in during the speech of the noble Lord, Beaumont of Whitley. I am very sorry that I did not hear the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, because I really would like to know what he said in favour of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, who does not seem to be any longer in his place, made a number of points. I shall not go into them in any detail. After having listened to the evidence of the experiments of Boyd-Orr and other facts, to say that there was no evidence seemed to me rather remarkable. Another remarkable thing the noble Lord said was that of course he was not surprised that there was opposition on the other side of the House. Why should there be two sides in the House when one is discussing the nutrition of children from 7 to 12 years of age? Is there a side of the House which hopes that they will not flourish and another which hopes that they will? That struck me as a most remarkable statement. Then, of course, he compared them with secondary schools which, as others have said, is a different matter.
I do not want to go over all the evidence again, but I should like to say something about monitoring. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, again mentioned this question of monitoring. This is absolute nonsense in my view. You cannot tell whether a person is getting enough food unless he is absolutely starving, in which case it will show in a very short time. These are marginal effects, and you cannot tell whether a child is getting proper nutrition until, as certain speakers have said, it is really too late to put matters right.
The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, also said that there was no evidence that if we stopped this milk the children would suffer. Nobody could absolutely guarantee what is going to happen in the future, but, as other noble Lords have said, this was an experiment done in the past which had certain effects. If you reverse the experiment, most people who follow logical lines of reasoning would say that you would then reverse the effects.
1358
The only thing that could be said is that if a child has a really nourishing diet, with plenty of milk in it, provided by the parents, then the State need not come in. If we had ideal conditions and a flourishing State and we did not have any feckless or ignorant parents, this would be a reasonable statement. In other words, if somebody else provides the milk, then that is all right. When we have high unemployment, higher, as I read in the newspapers, than at any time since 1940, is this the time to try a mean, despicable experiment of this kind?
2.53 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, 3 o'clock on a Friday afternoon is not a time to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. I intervene in this debate primarily on a point of clarification. Even in the face of so many experts on this subject—very sincere experts who know a good deal more about the medical aspects than I do—I should remind the House that we are now talking about the 1970s, when the nutritional value of food has, surely, made a good deal of progress since the 1940s when, in the days of the late Lord Boyd-Orr, there was a much greater need for calories in children because of the very restricted diet. I merely put that forward as a point.
I should like to ask my noble friend one point of clarification of which I have not given him notice, but perhaps he can look at it between now and the next stage. In Clause 1(b) it requires a certificate given by the medical officer of health of the local authority to state whether the child should or should not have school milk. May I ask my noble friend whether the family doctor should not be consulted first and thus work in liaison with the medical officer of health? Would this not bring about a more elaborate decision and a more satisfactory decision than consultation with the medical officer of health, which might lead to some delay? It seems that this is a point which might be looked into, particularly for the benefit of the child himself or herself.
2.55 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to make one short intervention in this discussion. At the beginning of this controversy, the Secretary of State said that she wanted to get this money which

1359
is being spent on milk and meals in order to improve the conditions of the schools, many of which were in a very bad state. That reminded me of the fact that during the time of the 1930s, which have been referred to by more than one speaker this afternoon, researches were carried on on the North-East coast into the effects on the health of people, particularly the children, of living under poor housing conditions and deprived of the proper diet. It was proved in quite a number of cases—I have it very clearly in mind—that the effects of malnutrition are very much worse than living in poor housing conditions.
It seemed to me that at this time this was a very important point to which the Secretary of State should have given much more close attention than she did: that these children could survive poor conditions in the schools—though, for goodness' sake! let us get rid of them as soon as possible—but that they could stand up to poor conditions in the schools with a much better chance of success than they would if deprived of their milk and their food.
2.57 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, particularly at this hour, but I am afraid I cannot sit silent and listen to this Bill being piloted through. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has hinted, one of the reasons why school milk was originally introduced was because many children were so undernourished that they were not able to take full advantage of the instruction that was offered in their schools. The consequences of the introduction of free school milk have been enormous.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, though I often do, particularly on matters which concern local government, when he said that the abolition of free school milk in the secondary schools had not been attended with any disasters. As my noble friend Lady Summerskill pointed out, in the secondary schools we were dealing with children of 12 and above, whereas in the Bill that is now before the House we are dealing with children from the age of 7 years upwards. From the age of 7 years upwards is when the very foundations of their future physique are being laid.
1360
Like so many of your Lordships, I speak as a grandfather. I have four little grandchildren, ail of whom, I am pleased to say, are very bonny and bright, but there are other grandfathers and grandmothers in the country who may not be so fortunate. For the upbringing of their children they may be reliant, to some extent, upon the free school milk they receive. They may come from under-nourished families; they may come from normally nourished families, but whatever be the case the addition of this free school milk is certainly something which fortifies them for their later years.
I feel that this is a very mean, miserable and class-conscious Bill—and it is probably almost indecent to mention the phrase"class-consciousness"in your Lordships' House, but it is. The Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted that he was giving £38 million in tax relief to the people with incomes of over £4,000 and £38 million is precisely the sum that is going to be taken away from another section of the community in charges for school meals and school milk.
We have to ask ourselves whether milk is really a nourishing food. It is hammered into us by every propaganda organisation in the country, even by the Ministry of Agriculture, that milk certainly is a nourishing food. It provides us with proteins and calcium and all the other things that may not be essential to me and to you but are absolutely essential to a child between the ages of 7 and 15. Do we want to see once again a rickety generation of children? It is no use waiting until all the monitoring has been done or until all the medical officers of health have carried out their inspections. That will be too late. We shall be closing the stable door after the horse has vanished. Every piece of evidence shows that the school milk for children has worked wonders for the physique of the rising generation who, as my noble friend, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said, are to be the fathers and mothers of the coming generation. If we now turn back and prejudice these children in their growing years, we may be doing untold harm to future generations.
It has been suggested, I know, that some parents are negligent. It was always so. Are we to visit the sins of the parents upon the children? If a

1361
child is so unfortunate as to have a negligent parent, surely that is where our ideas of social welfare come in—to protect the weak. It is not always the case that parents are negligent. We know for a fact that at present over 9 million women go out to work. Many of them are mothers. Some of them probably go out to work in order to find something to do; they do not like sitting idly at home. However, many of them go out to work because the main breadwinner in the family does not earn sufficient to keep the family in comfort. Naturally it follows that when these wives are out at work all day, full attention cannot be given to the children. That is where the community steps in and says,"These little children do not get all that they should from their parents, either because of negligence or because of economic necessity, so we, as the responsible directors of the community, must step in to see that they do not suffer.
My Lords, I said that this was a class-conscious Bill. I said that it was a class-conscious Bill because the £38 million to be saved on school meals and school milk will be handed over as a bonus to the richer sections of the community—those with £4,000 or more a year. This has been done at a time when unemployment is increasing at an almost unprecedented rate, when the price of food and the cost of living have gone up by 12 per cent. in a single year—the most rapid advance ever known in our peace-time history—a time when rents are going up; a time when rates are going up; a time when fares are going up; a time when ever and ever increasing pressure is being imposed upon the family budget. If ever there was a time for a Government to indulge in an experiment of this type, it is not now, in a year of so much suffering.
The introduction of free school milk was one of the greatest reforms within our recollection, resulting in the lifting up of the physical standards of our young people to something never before known. Only last night I looked at an old photograph taken of the children in my class at school. We were a pretty good class—I was in it. My friend Stanley Evans, of"featherbed farming"fame, was in it. We were a pretty good
1362
lot. But there were, among those children, some very skinny, rickety kids, and I do not want to see that kind of thing happening again.
The least I can ask is that if the Government will persist in punishing the children of the present generation as they propose, they will give the local authorities power to provide free school milk in the future from the rates. It would be a scandal if that burden had to fall upon the ratepayers, but it is better that it should fall upon ratepayers than that the children should be penalised so that sums of money can be handed over to surtax payers. What is £9 million—the sum to be saved by the cessation of school milk? What is that to be set against the welfare of our children? We are told by the Marketing Board to drink an extra pint of milk a day. Presumably the Board, which has some measure of Government support, is telling us the truth when it tells us that milk is good for us. Why take it away from the most deserving section of the community?
We have been assured that the Government will not act blindly in this matter; that they will stop the school milk, but that they will then subject the children to periodic medical examinations to see whether there is any deleterious effect. However, the medical monitoring will take place only in three towns: Croydon, which is a fairly prosperous area, Bristol, which is a fairly prosperous area, and Sheffield, which is not an unprosperous area. Why do we not have some monitoring in some of the more depressed areas: Tyneside, Tees-side and Merseyside? A different picture might then emerge.
This is one of the biggest scandals we have had to deal with since the Government took office. I know that one can ask why we should subsidise people. I could appreciate that if the rule were applied all round. We subsidise farmers. We subsidise landowners. We shall be subsidising the big industrial concerns. They are important, naturally. But what is more important to the nation than the children now growing up, the children between the ages of 7 and 11, when the very foundations of their future physiques are threatened? Monitoring is all right in its way. This monitoring is not satisfactory because it is to be

1363
applied only in three selected areas, instead of some of the most depressed parts of the country. Why should we have to wait until the damage is done and until medical officers have reported that this child, that child and the other child are suffering because of the action which the Government propose to push through this House to-day?
3.7 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, referred to his schooldays and the condition of some of the boys who were at school with him. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, called upon the House to see that children can rise above their environment. It is true to say that the noble Lord has risen above his environment, probably at every stage of his life. We always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, and he has, if I may say so, ended a debate in which the majority of your Lordships in the House at this moment have spoken. A great deal of advice has been given to the Government, and I can assure your Lordships that it will be looked at very hard indeed.
I ask your Lordships on the other side to accept a point from this side of the House, even if we do not see eye to eye on methods. When we put it to your Lordships that the submission of this Bill is part of a re-look at social security, and social security as it comes into the educational field, we are being sincere. We do not say that one figure exactly balances another figure, but we say that by re-allocating resources—an expression which, as I reminded your Lordships in replying to a question a week ago, is not a new expression and has been used by previous Ministers of Education in the quite recent past—we are genuinely trying, whether noble Lords agree that we are doing the right thing or not, which for the moment is another matter, to divert resources to what we believe are crying priorities. If any of your Lordships have looked at the newspapers this morning and seen some of the views of the teaching profession on schools as they have been left to the 1970's, your Lordships will agree that, although we may disagree about the means, at least we are being sincere in our objectives.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has forgotten to tell us what the said Associations have said about the decision to deprive children of 7 to 11 years old of milk?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, if he will forgive my saying so, is brushing aside completely what I have tried to put forward to your Lordships—I hoped in a reasonable manner. I was saying that I appreciate that we can disagree about the means. What I was asking the House to accept, before I get on to the other points, is the fact that we are being sincere in our objectives. I say this in the light of remarks which have been made in the debate to-day about the objectives of my right honourable friend. They really are objectives which, at the end of this decade rather than at the beginning, will be seen in their true light. My right honourable friend is being as good as her word in trying to tackle the really desperate legacy of some of the old schools in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked me specifically about general health and also about monitoring. I will not travel over the ground again about the standard of nutrition. I think the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, referred to the high standard of nutrition in the country and so I will not go through this again. Indeed, your Lordships who have read the Committee and Report proceedings in another place will see that references were made to certain statistics in part of Wales and also generally in Scotland, to show the increase and improvement in nutrition standards, and not the decrease.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt. I do not like interrupting in principle, but even if nutritional standards are increasing in those parts of the country, unemployment is also increasing in them at the moment.
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords, I will come to Lord Leatherland's point in a moment or two. I believe that the system laid down in the Bill of milk on medical recommendation will continue the ability to reverse the dangers of malnutrition. I know the differences of

1365
opinion on this subject, but that is the belief of the Government. Noble Lords opposite have countered this by warnings, dire warnings in some cases, of potential malnutrition, and the views of Dr. Lynch at Queen Elisabeth College, and of Dr. Yudkin too, have been called in aid. May I simply say, on the survey which is being carried out by the distinguished sociologist, Dr. Lynch, and his colleague, Dr. S. de la Paz, that there is no final report yet available. An undertaking has already been given in another place that when the final report is available—and it is awaited just as eagerly by the Government as by noble Lords opposite—it will be referred immediately to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. But until then, I am sure your Lordships would acquit me of trying to get round this point by saying that final judgment on Dr. Lynch's words must be suspended.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I do not want to be a nuisance about this matter, but there has been much controversy about it and the status of the two doctors has been questioned in another place. The noble Lord is now saying that we should wait for the final report. Will he acknowledge that they are so concerned that they themselves have made an interim report? So I think we may take it that they are genuinely disturbed. It is because of the Government's proposals that they have made this interim report. That is the point that really needs to be taken. The Government having declared themselves on this matter of policy, they feel that it is their duty to issue a warning of the consequences as they think they may well be.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is quite right to bring these matters to the House. But I also have to point out to noble Lords who may not be familiar with this subject that the interim report of Dr. Lynch was presented as a document described as first and fundamental impressions of an interim analysis. It was based on questions to 4,300 school children who were asked to recall everything which they had eaten in the previous 24 hours, and really this is not the sort of survey which can be put to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy which has been
1366
described by noble Lords opposite as a body with extremely distinguished people in it, who will be looking, with the greatest of hope, to the work which Dr. Lynch may produce of a survey which is based on something rather more of a clinical nature than questions asked of a sample of school children.
Dr. Yudkin, who is a highly distinguished man, is of course a member of COMA and I can only remind the House of the evidence which I referred to earlier in the debate and which has also been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. Neither in 1968 nor in 1970 could COMA advise that withdrawal of free milk in the secondary or primary schools would be harmful to nutritional standards. Your Lordships may wish to debate this further, but that is a statement of fact.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: It is also a double negative.
LORD BELSTEAD: A double negative can also be a statement of fact. I would have thought that this would at least give noble Lords cause to think, when the Committee have given the same advice to two successive Governments within the space of three years. On the point about children going to school without breakfast and without adequate food for the remainder of the day, may I say that it seems to me that the risk of ill-effects is probably greater in the secondary field, bearing in mind young people's attitude to food and the pace of modern life. Lord Ilford, put to the House the point that if the withdrawal of milk from secondary school pupils was liable to lead to malnutrition, why did we now not know that this was so. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, with her professional expertise, quite rightly said—and I accept it at once from her—that older children are different from younger children. At the same time, if the Government are being castigated because, it is said, the removal of free milk, quite apart from the new powers of the sale of milk, or the provision of milk on medical recommendation, is per se something that is bound to lead to malnutrition, I think it it is fair to ask where is the evidence of that malnutrition since 1968.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, then may I say that it is equally fair to

1367
ask the Government why they have undertaken no exercise to discover whether, in point of fact, there has been any ill-effect. Why have the Government undertaken no exercise to measure whether, as a result, there has been any damage, because at the moment I think the position is that no one has undertaken such an exercise. We really do not know the consequences; whatever the previous Government thought may have happened, I think nobody has measured the consequences.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I did give your Lordships details of (I know the noble Baroness does not like the term; and nor do I) the monitoring processes which are going on at the moment. One to which I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, did not give quite enough credence is the exercise that is being carried out by the Department of Health and Social Security. If your Lordships would like to look back at my initial words when I opened this debate, you will find that I devoted a considerable passage to the exercises which are going on at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, then brought up the most important point, of local authority autonomy. But before I refer to that may I just put a general point? I would suggest that money which is spent entirely from the rates is none the less public expenditure. The plan of this Government of last October, contained in New Policies for Public Spending, was to reduce public spending, and to ease the burden of taxation. For this, the Government have a central responsibility.
Noble Lords opposite claim that this Bill represents a curtailment of local authority freedom. But I think it is right to remind the House that when, on November 12 last year, the Government issued Circular No. 270 from the Department of the Environment this passed a freedom to local authorities in expenditure, very considerably in excess of what they had had before. But that circular said some significant words. It said that one of its aims was:
" to improve the Government's ability to monitor the total level and main trends of expenditure, while reducing its detailed control of individual projects."
1368
Truthfully, no Government can relinquish overall responsibility for the level of public spending. If this were so—if I were misleading your Lordships—why, in 1968, did the Labour Government not give local authorities freedom to provide milk for secondary schools? The noble Baroness talked about school meals, and it is perfectly reasonable that this subject should at least intrude upon our debate. Why, after the school meals increases were made, was this freedom also not given to local authorities?
My Lords, I think the answer is perfectly simple: because the Party opposite, just like the Party this side, just like any Party which is in power at any time, has an inescapable overall responsibility for public expenditure.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking a question, and I think it is fair to make the point. Can he recall, in 1968, an outcry resembling the present outcry? Does he not take the point that there is all the difference in the world between depriving children over the age of 11 of milk, and depriving those between the ages of 7 and 11? Is it not stretching it rather too far to suggest that the circular to which he has referred does not promise greater responsibility to local authorities, whereas we have had it demonstrated here to-day that they are asking for power and are being denied it, in a very small field.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the circular does of course, give more power to local authorities to spend, in the way in which they would wish, block allocations, instead of allocations of money for special objectives.
The noble Lord asks directly: is there not a difference between 1968 and 1971? Yes; I would accept immediately, and particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, as it were, through the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that there is a difference between the age groups. But I think the noble Lord is being a little less than fair when he does not include in his critical remarks the terms of the Bill for the medical recommendation and for the sale of milk, not to mention the subject matter of three-quarters of the speech of my noble friend Lord Ilford, which was on the social security and welfare benefits that

1369
the Government have managed to bring in not only in the last few months but, as I sought to show your Lordships in my speech, at precisely the time this Bill will become operative.
May I pass on? The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked whether school medical officers can prescribe or certify free school milk on preventive grounds. This will be a matter for the school medical officer, who has great experience in identifying children who may be vulnerable for any one of a number of reasons. If, in the school medical officer's opinion, a child needs free milk at school, he will be able to certify to this effect. So there is no question of interfering with a doctor's medical judgment.
May I bracket with that another of the noble Lord's questions? It was whether the local education authority can continue to provide free school milk for the over-sevens; in other words, whether the local education authority could, whatever the result of the deliberations of local authority autonomy, simply breach the Act. The answer which I have to give from this side of the House is that an L.E.A.'s duty and power in respect of the provision of milk in schools are defined in the Bill. Milk provided under its duty will be provided free. The milk provided under its power, for the sale of milk, must be paid for. A local education authority which went beyond either its duty or its power would be acting ultra vires and the consequences of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton said, quoting my honourable friend the Under-Secretary for the Scottish Office in another place, would be something which neither side of the House could foresee.
May I answer three detailed points which were put to me? First of all, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, asked about the length of time that a child would have milk: whether, when the school medical officer has prescribed milk, with the result that the child becomes healthier, the milk is then removed; and she asked: is this not a cat-and-mouse game? Whether milk is continued will surely be a matter entirely for the discretion of the school medical officer. As I have just said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, prevention obviously plays
1370
its part here, and the noble Baroness will have heard me say that there can be no question of interfering with a doctor's medical judgment.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, put to me the narrow point about milk supplies. This is a point which I do not think has been put before in either House. May I answer him and the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, on the rather wider grounds, first by just reminding the House that, from a national point of view, it has been estimated by the Government that the supply of milk will drop by about 24 million gallons, or about 1 per cent. of the total annual sales of milk; and the effect of milk sales of the reduced quantity required by schools has been taken into account by the Government in determining the guaranteed prices and standard quantity for milk for 1971 to 1972. I know that that was not the point of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. He was on the narrower point, that if you start removing supplies from schools, does there not come a moment when it may not he worth while for the supplier—as the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, used to be most successfully to schools in Northamptonshire—and when the market is not big enough in a particular school.
The noble Lord is specifically disregarding the hope which the Government have, which is that the sale of milk will be like the sale of many other things in many schools to-day, particularly secondary schools, where choice is being given. This is becoming more and more popular and anyone who goes round on the schools meals service will find out that the amount of waste is being lessened.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Will the noble Lord give way?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords, I will not. We are hoping very much that the sale of milk will make the noble Lord's point invalid and, for the moment, that is the answer which I have to give him.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Will the noble Lord tell us a little more about the milk in primary schools?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I want to make only one point, which I think is quite valid, about the supplies. The dental profession are very perturbed

1371
that the condition of the teeth of children in secondary schools is deteriorating. One of the reasons is the freedom of choice through the advertisements and the impact of mass advertising upon them. It is the children of 7 about whom we are worried. Never mind what the doctors find out. Those of us who lived through hard times know that you can never make it up to a child of 5 or 7 by taking milk away and stuffing him with cream ten years later.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, what we are hoping is that the money which is at present being spent on sweets, to which the noble Lord was by inference referring, will in future be spent on milk. This is not a flippant reply. The noble Lord has said that there is a deterioration in dental standards. The noble Lord and I know perfectly well what the deterioration in many cases stems from. I hope that the noble Lord will not refer to 5 to 7 year olds. The Bill, with respect, does not affect the 5 to 7 year olds.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords—
LORD BELSTEAD: No; I am sorry, my Lords. I think I have been more than generous; I think we must get on. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland—this is the third of the detailed points—asked me a specific question about Clause 1(1)(b) on the medical certificate. I think the noble Lord in essence asked whether the family doctor ought not to be consulted first; ought not the family doctor to have a hand in any recommendation for milk on certificated grounds? I cordially agree and, if your Lordships agree to a Second Reading of this Bill, this might be something which the House would like to look at more closely. I know that this was resisted in another place and I will not go into the reasons why or the reasons why I still agree with those reasons. Where I most closely agree with my noble friend is that the family doctor, the child's doctor one would hope, would have a hand in recommending and bringing to the notice of the school medical officer any need in the child.
1372
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made the point—and the point has been made several times in this debate—that the difficulty is that malnutrition takes some time to discover. The noble Baroness put it bluntly. She said it was all very well for the layman to talk about malnutrition but this might be shutting the door after the horse has bolted. I really think that the apprehensions of noble Lords opposite arise from some disregard of the substantial social security benefits which become operative this year. I described them to your Lordships. I felt that possibly the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, either had not taken or did not wish to take them into account. The noble Lord spoke about dismantling the welfare services. I enumerated family incomes supplement; I enumerated supplementary benefits, and I enumerated the higher entitlement these would give to free meals. These things are of importance and are certainly relevant to this Bill.
We on this side of the House say that it is right that these increases should support the view that, with the careful monitoring which I have tried to describe in this debate, parents really should be relied upon, not entirely but more rather than less, and that this Bill should be seen as part of the objective for more urgent priorities, which will, I hope, persuade the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PREVENTION OF OIL POLLUTION BILL [H.L.] TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before four o'clock.